Colleagues and Criticism.

The author discusses the need for serious criticism of ideas and research in psychology, noting how papers circulated to colleagues for comment are often returned untouched. Several suggestions are provided as possible antidotes for this audience apathy. The writer must inform his colleagues whether a paper is being circulated simply as information, for evaluation, or for criticism. Professional meetings can be improved to encourage serious criticism about a paper read at a convention. The use of mimeographed newsletters for areas of research may be another solution. Ultimately, the responsibility for editing a paper remains with the author, and the author must state in clear language the implications of his results if he expects others to read his paper thoughtfully. Although too much criticism in a young science is unhealthy, too little criticism is even worse. Controversy brings forth a clarification of ideas and a resolution of conflicting data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for 2 industrial samples.

Problems were presented for brainstorming to 48 research scientists and 48 advertising personnel employed with the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. Within a counterbalanced experimental design, each S brainstormed certain problems individually and other equated problems as a member of a 4-man team. Individuals produced not only more ideas than groups, but they accomplished this without sacrificing quality. The net superiority of individual performance over group participation is highlighted by the fact that 23 of 24 groups produced a larger number of different ideas under the individual condition. The superiority of individual brainstorming over group brainstorming was relatively greater when it was preceded by group participation. Apparently, group participation is accompanied by certain inhibitory influences even under conditions (e.g., brainstorming) which place a moratorium on all criticism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Not a piano key: Reply to Orange (1999).

What I called "minor quibbles" with a book I found appealing appear to reflect some major issues. The authors may have intended the book for readers in the tradition of European phenomenology, but I reviewed the book for psychoanalytic psychologists who are members of an American Psychological Association, not for a journal of philosophy or of psychoanalysis alone. I don't fault the authors for not writing a literature review or a work of scholarly criticism. Prospective readers will wonder, however, if they are saying something different from other writers they are already familiar with—if they are "introducing" any new ideas or if their ideas differ from others' ideas (I had just reviewed Benjamin's book, for example). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ethical standards of psychologists.

Outlines 19 principles of ethics for psychologists. Focus is on responsibility; competence; moral and legal standards; misrepresentation; public statements; confidentiality; client welfare and relationship; services; interprofessional relations; remuneration; test security, interpretation, and publication; research precautions; publication credit; responsibility toward organization; and promotional activities. (0 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A plea and a plan for replication.

Suggests that research publication norms, emphasizing "significant results" in conjunction with academia's use of publication credits as an index of the professional worth of faculty members, have contributed to the dearth of replication studies despite the importance of such research. Psychology departments should encourage replication studies by master's candidates. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The "Information Explosion."

In this column, the author discusses psychological research. The author believes that too much research is published. The question explored here is, can one raise publication standards without freezing a modal conformity and excluding the spark of novelty and dissent? Two suggestions are presented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Two Points of View.

Comments on the APA standards for preparations of school counselors. The commentator is an APA member and has been a school counselor for 11 years and finds that it is a little presumptuous of the APA to set up its own arbitrary standards for preparation of school counselors, especially since most of the recommendations and particularly those concerning preparation in psychology have been unsolicited and unappreciated by the counseling group. The commentator states that this seems to be a case of an "outside" group trying to impose certain preconceived and prejudiced ideas of preparation upon counselors. The commentator wants school counselors to be given credit for being intelligent enough to evaluate their own programs, for making recommendations concerning educational requirements for their jobs, and for indicating changes where needed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Sudak.

Replies to H. M. Sudak's (1981) criticism of the American Psychological Association's publication of the present author's (1980) reservations about the use of animals in painful research. It is argued that although Sudak characterizes Bowd's position as being thinly disguised with a distorted sense of ethics and morality, none of his arguments are refuted. It is maintained that the issues raised are of serious ethical concern and are being debated by psychologists in many countries. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups.

Stereotypes may influence judgment via assimilation, such that individual group members are evaluated consistently with stereotypes, or via contrast, such that targets are displaced from the overall group expectation. Two models of judgment—the shifting standards model and status characteristics theory—provide some insight into predicting and interpreting these apparently contradictory effects. In 2 studies involving a simulated applicant-evaluation setting, we predicted and found that participants set lower minimum-competency standards, but higher ability standards, for female than for male and for Black than for White applicants. Thus, although it may be easier for low- than high-status group members to meet (low) standards, these same people must work harder to prove that their performance is ability based. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Therapist-patient sex as sex abuse: Six scientific, professional, and practical dilemmas in addressing victimization and rehabilitation": Response to Williams's Comment.

Agrees with M. H. Williams's (see record 1991-13292-001) comment on K. S. Pope's (see record 1991-02078-001) article on therapist–patient sexual involvement (TPSI) that evaluations of TPSI research are not well served. Pope addresses Williams's 2 basic propositions: (1) Research on the outcome of TPSI does not, and possibly cannot, meet minimal standards for survey research and (2) psychology has been victimized by those who feel that there must be a data base before sanctions can be applied to therapists involved in TPSI and by those who have used lower standards for research relevant for each ethical guideline and have constrained criticism of research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Informed consent and dual purpose research.

The ethical treatment of human participants in psychological research is regulated by both federal guidelines and the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association (APA). Under certain circumstances, however, both APA standards and federal regulations allow for exceptions for informed consent. In spite of the possibility of exception, a number of factors have made it difficult to conduct and publish research that does not incorporate informed consent. The authors consider these factors and propose 2 approaches that may reduce reluctance to consider exceptions to informed consent under appropriate circumstances. First, journals should not rely on informed consent as the only method of screening research for the ethical treatment of human participants. Second, efforts must be made to work with institutional review boards and other units that review psychological research to ensure that their members are aware of the conditions under which informed consent is considered reasonable. Failure to consider ethical research without informed consent may have serious ethical consequences for research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A funny thing happened on the way to my American Psychologist publication.

Replies to comments made by various authors in reference to S. O. Lilienfeld's (see record 2002-10795-003) article published in response to, and in criticism of, the controversies surrounding the publication of the article by B. Rind et al (see record 1998-04232-002). Here Lilienfeld examines the original controversy as well as a secondary controversy which arose from his published criticism of the American Psychological Association's (APA) handling of the controversy spawned by the Rind et al article. Of particular interest to Lilienfeld is the article concerning the 'editor's dilemma" described in comments published by R. McCarty (see record 2002-10795-006). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Membership opinions about APA: A recent snapshot.

A 1986 survey of 2,100 American Psychological Association (APA) members, to which 78% responded, showed that members belonged to APA for varied reasons and that scientists, scientist-practitioners, and practitioners shared few common rationales for maintaining their membership. Most members belonged to other organizations in addition to APA, and less than 50% of those chose APA as their most important organizational membership. Whereas the APA Monitor and APA journals received a strong endorsement from respondents, the publication of Psychology Today was clearly controversial. The cost and size of the convention also were sources of dissatisfaction. Recommended changes in convention format included scheduling more keynote addresses and establishing area-specific conventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Wanted: New answers and new questions.

Although some promising new developments have emerged in recent years, school psychology research and practice has a remarkably ancient cast to it. With this issue, SPQ changes editorship and a primary agenda for this editorial group (S. Christenson, B. Erchul, R. Good, R. Kamphaus, B. Martens, D. Reschly, and myself) will be to publish not only articles which provide solutions to old questions but those which ask new questions. Certainly we will continue to publish reports of high quality empirical research which address important issues. However an equally crucial priority will be the publication of resourceful research reviews and "think" pieces which offer inventive and practical ideas about where research and practice should depart from the old ways. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Subscriber perceptions of the Journal of Counseling Psychology..

Surveyed, in response to recent criticism of counseling research, 415 present and 234 past subscribers to the Journal of Counseling Psychology (JCP) to examine articles' perceived utility, strengths, and weaknesses in relation to reader characteristics. Questionnaires also secured demographic and professional background information. Results show the following: (a) Present, compared to past, subscribers more often worked in colleges or universities, were involved in research, identified with counseling psychology, were members of the American Psychological Association's Division 17, held doctorates, were teachers or supervisors, and worked with clients aged 13–28 yrs. (b) Present subscribers used the JCP most for research and counseling ideas, and counseling psychology identification was a major reason for subscribing. (c) Strengths included research design/methodology, relevance to practice, writing quality, and scholarly rigor. (d) Weaknesses included esoteric, narrow research and lack of practical relevance. (e) About 45% of the articles read were seen as useful, but definitions of utility varied by major time-use. (f) Ultimately, utility appeared related to individual requirements; 68% of Volume 22's articles were nominated at least once as most significant or useful. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Diversity for Clinical Training Programs.

Comments on the L. H. Levy article (see record 1963-04084-001) which discusses publication statistics among a group of 781 clinical psychologists. Levy's finding that that close to 30% of the 1948-53 graduates of studied clinical psychology programs have yet to publish suggested to Levy that a redefinition of clinical psychology is in order. The definition ostensibly accepted by Levy is one selected from a report in 1947 of the APA Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology, i.e., a clinical psychologist is a "research-oriented professional person." Interpretations of this thesis are discussed, and it is noted that there is a strategy which might be implied in Levy's article, and which is clearly championed by many faculty members of training universities. This is the basic research strategy. In essence, it is proposed that university psychology departments should contribute to the mental health field only by doing research and by training researchers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"The psychologist as expert witness": Reply to Sokal.

Responds to M. M. Sokal's (1981) criticism of the authors' (see record 1980-09551-001) omission of H. Münsterberg's book from their discussion of psychology and law. It is argued that the authors' historical review was intended to begin with a point in time at which psychological research had been accepted by the legal field and that in the early 1900s, Münsterberg's novel ideas about the psychologist's contribution to legal problems were not widely accepted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Epistemic progress and journal page limitations: A proposal for increasing the base rate of manuscript acceptance in psychology journals.

Proposes that the requirement of publication and submission fees would (1) minimize the amount of extraneous information and speculation in journal articles and (2) encourage the use of brief (2–3 page) reports. Also, additional pages could be allocated for psychological research, and researchers would be able to keep abreast of a greater number of findings and ideas in less time, more efficiently, and without additional financial burdens for journal publishers or subscribers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)