Is there a pervasive implicit bias against theism in psychology?

To address the title question, the authors first conceptualize the worldview of theism in relation to its historical counterpart in Western culture, naturalism. Many scholars view the worldview of naturalism as not only important to traditional science but also neutral to theism. This neutrality has long provided the justification for psychological science to inform and even correct theistic understandings. Still, this view of neutrality, as the authors show, stems from the presumption that these two worldviews are philosophically compatible. The authors’ review of the traditional candidates for compatibility suggests not only that these candidates fail to reconcile naturalism and theism but also that these worldviews are fundamentally incompatible. Therefore, attempts to use the insights gleaned from a naturalistic worldview to inform or correct the understandings of a theistic worldview could constitute a significant prejudice against theism and theists. The authors then provide practical examples of this prejudice in the following: (1) mainstream psychology and its history, (2) research design and explanation in the psychology of religion, and (3) interpretations of important philosophers and scholars relevant to psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology, religion, and world loyalty.

This article provides a critical commentary on Slife and Reber’s (2009) article, “Is There a Pervasive Implicit Bias Against Theism in Psychology?” Drawing on A.N. Whitehead’s (1926/2005, 1928/1985) process philosophy, I challenge the bifurcation between naturalism and theism and suggest that religion is better conceived as world loyalty than as supernaturalism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Biases against theism in psychology?

Slife and Reber issue a welcome challenge to "implicit biases" against the serious investigation of religious experience and phenomena in psychology. I agree with the main thrust of their article but express a few friendly reservations about their analysis and some concerns about how a productive dialogue between psychology and religion might best be pursued from this point forward. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The problem of prejudice in plural worlds.

This is to agree with Slife and Reber that the field of psychology has been negatively biased toward theism. However, accusations of bias or prejudice typically presume that with an even assay of available evidence, that such dispositions would be erased. In a world of multiple constructions of reality, morality, and justice, such an assumption is wholly unwarranted. The present article approaches the presence of multiple worlds from a social constructionist perspective. Proposed are a number of arguments to support an approach toward difference that emphasizes transformative dialogue, that is, dialogue among conflicting parties or standpoints that moves toward mutual viability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Prejudice or propaganda.

Slife and Reber accuse psychology of harboring a hidden, albeit unintentional, bias against theism in violation of the spirit of the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives (2007) resolution on religious prejudice. However, they are mistaken in categorizing a bias against theism in psychological research and theory as religious prejudice. Moreover, their discussion of religious prejudice morphs into promotion of Christian theology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Prejudice at the nexus of race and gender: An outgroup male target hypothesis.

Adopting an evolutionary approach to the psychology of race bias, we posit that intergroup conflict perpetrated by male aggressors throughout human evolutionary history has shaped the psychology of modern forms of intergroup bias and that this psychology reflects the unique adaptive problems that differ between men and women in coping with male aggressors from groups other than one's own. Here we report results across 4 studies consistent with this perspective, showing that race bias is moderated by gender differences in traits relevant to threat responses that differ in their adaptive utility between the sexes—namely, aggression and dominance motives for men and fear of sexual coercion for women. These results are consistent with the notion that the psychology of intergroup bias is generated by different psychological systems for men and women, and the results underscore the importance of considering the gender of the outgroup target as well as the gender of the agent in psychological studies on prejudice and discrimination. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Spirituality, Health, and the Discipline of Psychology.

Replies to comments by D. J. McCormick (see record 2004-10043-013), L. J. Richmond (see record 2004-10043-014), C. A. Rayburn (see record 2004-10043-015), and F. J. Kier and D. S. Davenport (see record 2004-10043-016) on the special section on spirituality, religion, and health in the January 2003 issue of American Psychologist (2003, Vol 58, 24-74). Each of the comments is addressed in turn. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Suffering, Philosophy, and Psychotherapy.

As R. B. Miller's article (see record 2005-11381-004) reflects, psychology and psychotherapy could benefit from a deeper appreciation of philosophical issues. This article discusses five themes that bear on how human suffering is understood, how scientific inquiry is conceptualized, and how new professionals are educated. The five themes include the bankruptcy of mind-body dualism, the presumed supremacy of logical rationality over whole system wisdom, preoccupations with certainty and justification, the positivist corruption of the scientific spirit, and the erosion of excellence in graduate education. It is argued that psychology and psychotherapy would benefit from more dedicated professional mentoring, the encouragement of open discourse as the heart of inquiry, and a deeper recognition of the fundamental role of compassion in the face of all human suffering. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Introduction to the Special Section on families and religion: A call for a recommitment by researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

Although religion is an important aspect of human experience, the topic is rarely evident in psychology journals. To correct this omission was the goal of this special section on families and religion. In the introduction to the section several reasons for the neglect of this topic are noted as well as the relevance of religion for family research and practice. The contributions of the articles in this section are highlighted. Finally, recommendations for a future research agenda are offered and the clinical implications of this topic are examined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ideology, politics, and personality: Shaping forces in Dutch psychology of religion, 1907–1957.

Although the academic establishment of the psychology of religion in the Netherlands has been stronger than in any other Western country, the start of these developments has been remarkably late (in 1957), especially when taking into account that Dutch academic life: (1) before World War II modeled itself after Germany (where psychology of religion flourished); and (2) was to a considerable extent included in the system of pillarization, which characterized Dutch society at large. The general factors that can be distinguished as having played an important role in the shaping of the situation for psychology of religion in the Netherlands had different impacts in the several universities under consideration. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Historical intersections of psychology, religion, and politics in national contexts.

Various types of psychology have come into existence in and have been interacting with a plurality of contexts, contexts that have been radically varying in different states or nations. One important factor in the development of psychology has been the multiple relationships to the Christian religion, whether understood as an institution, a worldview, or a form of personal spirituality. The articles in this issue focus on the intertwinements between institutional religion and national political structures and on their influence on developing forms of psychology in four different national contexts: Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Within these four settings, aspects of the ways in which varying forms of Christian religion coconstituted, facilitated, and shaped psychology, theoretically, practically, and institutionally, are examined. The formative power of the religions was not independent of the relationships between religion and political power, but rather mediated by these. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The past and future of the psychology of science.

As the British statesman Edmund Burke once wrote, "Those who do not know history are destined to repeat it." (Not to be confused with George Santana's comment: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."). The fact is that the history of the psychology of science has been a struggle for existence. If we wish to move away from struggle and toward a comfortable existence, then we need to learn lessons from the other disciplines that successfully have made the transition from fledgling field to fully established scientific discipline. The history, philosophy, and sociology of science are just such established disciplines. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Rationality, irrationality, and the ethical: On saving psychology from nihilism.

Notes that much debate in contemporary psychology has been centered on the nature and scope of rationality and rational discourse. This paper seeks to elucidate 2 philosophical approaches that have come to occupy a central position in this debate: modernism and postmodernism. It will be argued that, although proceeding from antithetical assumptions concerning the proper grounding for philosophical and psychological endeavor, both modernism and postmodernism ultimately fall prey to epistemological skepticism and moral nihilism. The work of the French phenomenologist E. Levinas is offered as a possible alternative to this problem, an alternative that seeks to ground rationality in ethical obligation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Use of cult in the teaching of psychology of religion and spirituality.

The word cult has many conflicting definitions across scholarly fields, yet instructors commonly use it in the teaching of psychology. Distinctions between cults and other groups are differences of degree and often rest on a group’s size, the unusualness of its beliefs, the outcomes of its actions, and the perceived role of its leader. Use of cult by teachers of psychology suggests that cults are categorically distinct from other groups and brings negative connotations to cults, their members, and former members. Teachers of psychology should explicitly address these issues and avoid the term cult. Additionally, teachers, researchers, and practitioners of psychology should evaluate the behavior of groups, the degree of social influence, the presence of deception, and potential abuse. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social science, social psychology, and the National Science Foundation.

The approach of the National Science Foundation to the social sciences is characterized as "exploratory, experimental and pragmatic. The social sciences have been given opportunity to demonstrate concretely their practical role in the solution of operating and policy questions… . This experience with a limited social science program, developing in intimate relationship with the natural sciences, has provided a firm basis for consideration by the Foundation of appropriate next steps in achieving that effective integration of the natural and social sciences which will enhance the contribution of all the sciences to the national well-being." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of The transformation of psychology: Influences of 19th-century philosophy, technology, and natural science.

Reviews the book, The transformation of psychology: Influences of 19th-century philosophy, technology, and natural science edited by Christopher D. Green, Marlene Shore, and Thomas Teo (see record 2001-01476-000). In the following review, I have found it convenient to divide the 11 chapters of this volume into three groups, one devoted to the philosophy of psychological science, one devoted to theoretical and biological psychology, and one devoted to applied psychology. The first of these groups contains chapters by Andrew S. Winston on Ernst Mach, by Charles W. Tolman on G. W. F. Hegel, and by Thomas Teo on Karl Marx and Wilhelm Dilthey. The second grouping of chapters is concerned with theoretical/biological psychology and includes five contributions. The final group of chapters concerns applied psychology. What I liked most about this book was the genuinely innovative character of every chapter; there is no "old hat" stuff anywhere. The editors and contributors are to be congratulated on a fine and timely work of scholarship. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Community psychology, diversity, and the many forms of culture.

Comments on the original article, "Many forms of culture," by A. B. Cohen (see record 2009-04471-003). Cohen argued that psychology must broaden its conceptualization of culture to consider its many forms, such as religion, socioeconomic status, and region. The current author could not agree more with Cohen’s proposed conceptualization of culture and its potential impact on psychological theory, research, and practice. However, the current author asserts that Cohen's conceptualization is one that the field of community psychology has been incorporating into its theory, research, and practice for the past 15 years. Evidence for this can be found in the field’s journals and texts as well as its conferences and course offerings. It is striking, says the current author, that this rich tradition of scholarship and social action—much of it illustrating what Cohen’s proposed conceptualization purports to achieve but also advancing his vision further than even he proposes—was ignored in his analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Introduction and overview of the special issue on Aristotle.

Aristotle's scientific legacy underlies much of what is currently considered mainstream psychology. Surprisingly, however, only a paucity of writings have elucidated this fact. To be sure, history of psychology texts register him as one of our intellectual ancestors, but unfortunately most psychologists appear to view Aristotle as an anachronism with little but the most indirect of influences upon modern theory and practice. The present issue of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology is part of the effort begun by scholars such as Robinson to dispel this misconception. The six articles that follow not only show the continuing relevance of Aristotelian thinking, but they also employ Aristotelian conceptual tools to analyze and advance modern psychology still further. Each of the articles covers a unique aspect of Aristotle vis-a-vis psychology. Robinson delves into Aristotle's naturalism and ontology, and attempts to help readers find their way through some rather sticky theoretical issues for psychologists. Williams critically examines aspects of Aristotle's physics (or metaphysics) from a post-modernist's perspective. Silverstein, Howard, and Rychlak each discuss a different facet of Aristotle's teleology: Silverstein on developmental implications, Howard on philosophy of science ramifications, and Rychlak on cognitive considerations. Waterman then extends some of Aristotle's ethics through his empirical studies of happiness. Whereas the first four articles are primarily theoretical in nature, the final two (Waterman and Rychlak) demonstrate how theorizing compatible with Aristotle can be experimentally tested. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm.

The study of deductive reasoning has been a major paradigm in psychology for approximately the past 40 years. Research has shown that people make many logical errors on such tasks and are strongly influenced by problem content and context. It is argued that this paradigm was developed in a context of logicist thinking that is now outmoded. Few reasoning researchers still believe that logic is an appropriate normative system for most human reasoning, let alone a model for describing the process of human reasoning, and many use the paradigm principally to study pragmatic and probabilistic processes. It is suggested that the methods used for studying reasoning be reviewed, especially the instructional context, which necessarily defines pragmatic influences as biases. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)