Toward a workable psychology of individuality.

A workable psychology of individuality is "one that would generate good research ideas, which, in turn, would lead to steady increases in dependable knowledge." Individual uniqueness "is described primarily in terms of choice and organization, and I consider it the task of psychologists to make those concepts workable—to bring them into the general stream of thinking in research, assessment, and practical activities." Tyler stresses "the significance of concepts of choice and organization in an inclusive psychology of the development of the human individual… . At each stage of our lives, we impose limits on the next stage, by the choices we make and the ways in which we organize what we have experienced." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Whose Shadow Is Crooked? Comment.

Comments on the article by McCloskey and Egeth (1983), which examines the arguments in favor of experimental psychologists testifying as expert witnesses. In agreement with McCloskey and Egeth, I believe that psychologists should be free to decide for themselves whether they wish to offer expert testimony on eyewitness performance. I fear, however, that we may no longer have the choice. At the same time that psychologists are reading the McCloskey and Egeth articles that are so deeply critical of experimental psychologists offering testimony as an interesting intellectual exercise, prosecuting attorneys across the land are using them for an entirely different purpose: Judges are being told that the articles are proof that the psychological testimony does not even pass the "Frye test". Even as we speak, prosecutors are using the McCloskey and Egeth article to argue that there is no general acceptance in the field. In anticipation of this prosecutorial strategy, let me suggest that despite the views of McCloskey and Egeth, there are numerous research findings that are generally accepted in our field. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychologists and Governmental Affairs.

Discusses the problem of why economists and political scientists are frequently called to high-level administrative posts in government while psychologists are not. Several suggestions are made, including the following: (1) An APA Central Office sponsored research program consisting of personal interviews with major and key personnel in various federal departments, beginning with the President, with the goal of preparing a program for the federal government on the employment of psychologists as consultants and advisers or as full-time employees. (2) A communication from the APA Central Office to all members of the APA or to a selected group of prominent psychologists indicating to them the desirability of establishing and maintaining liaison with local and state political party organizations for promoting psychology and psychologists. (3) The inclusion of federal nonpsychologist major party officials in convention programs as invited speakers on appropriate topics that link psychology with national affairs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Fission Resolved?

A few years ago I wrote a brief commentary (Amer. Psychologist, 1947, 2, pp 22-23) on the developing schismatic conditions within our profession. I defended the rat psychologists who had been accused by D. Krech (1946) of fostering "fission" among psychologists. It was a pretty lame defense, not because it was unjustified, but rather because my analysis of the problem was defective. Now I have come upon something much stronger, practically devastating to anyone who may wish to harbor the opinion that professional psychological training does not have to begin with the strictest kind of laboratory investigation. I found this delightful information in a summary by J. Neyman (Science, 1955, 122, pp 401-406). Paraphrasing the Neyman-Cornfield discussion, the author considers the design of the original tests of the Salk vaccine, the use of rats as test subjects, the smoking-lung cancer arguments, etc. It is therefore quite incorrect to disparage any clinical methodology either on the basis of its lack of precision or because of the variables, real or hypothetical, used in that methodology. I agree with Meehl that the clinician, by whatever methodology, is "forming a conception of a person" and accept his argument "that every skilled clinician must be making use of some laws, however vague, which...make it possible for him to order his material with respect to a given patient in terms of some general nomothetic basic psychodynamics." Perhaps we may all come to realize that, if we but watch our research models closely, we are all psychologists, without any classifying adjectives to make us fissionable. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Of management and measurement.

2 major deficiencies in the field of industrial psychology partially explain the minimal nature of psychology's contribution to the recent development of an increasing quantitative emphasis in American management. "The first of these has been our failure to develop a clear-cut conceptual basis for differentiating between so-called 'basic' and 'applied' research. And second… our tendency in the past to work on problems that fit our methods rather than to devise methods that are appropriate to the major problems of American Management… . As I view the next decade, I see the opportunity for a new era in the field of industrial psychology. Whether it becomes, in fact a new era or not will depend upon the willingness of industrial psychologists to accept the challenge that is currently being presented to them." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The relevance and irrelevance of psychological research: The example of prison crowding.

Psychologists have argued that their studies of prison crowding are useful to policymakers, whereas policymakers have dismissed many of those same studies. In part, this perceived irrelevance is a product of the emphasis in psychology on the individual rather than on larger units of analysis. However, it also stems from biases, methodological and political, that psychologists are likely to bring to research in corrections. In this article, we explore how the different perspectives of researchers and practitioners affect the conduct of research and its impact on policy. In addition, we present data that raise questions about the impact of prison crowding on illness, suicide, and death rates. We conclude with suggestions for making psychological research on prison crowding more policy relevant. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Licensing and Professional Function.

It is shocking to summarize the ongoing debates on licensing of psychologists and on the relations between psychologists and psychiatrists. We psychologists seem chiefly to place the blame on the psychiatrists for the slow progress in gaining recognition of the professional function of psychologists. I offer a dissent which declares that a restrictive block must be removed from the thinking of psychologists before we are going to get anywhere on the problems of licensing and recognition of professional function. The block is manifested by the efforts of psychologists to imitate psychiatrists and beat them at their own game. This game is the diagnosis and treatment of mental and emotional disorders, illnesses, aberrations, etc. Such diagnosis and treatment involves a mechanistic and concretistic thinking which is proving itself powerless to deal with the behavioral functioning of human individuals in interactive contexts. I am tempted to say "has proven," but there is a sad lack of experimental evidence, for which psychologists must shoulder their share of the blame. For my part, I don't blame psychiatrists for opposing the licensing of psychologists to treat "mental and emotional illnesses." Without realizing it, the psychiatrists are doing us a big favor in warning us away from this fruitless endeavor in which they are themselves experiencing so much heartbreak. We are wasting our time in seeking to crowd with them into a theoretical structure which will not support intense scientific effort. No psychologist should discuss with any citizen the relief of symptoms which are now manifest in the citizen's organic functioning. The psychologist's function should be to teach his interested fellow human beings how to perceive an interpersonal world and interact within that social realm on a more efficient and harmonious basis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Children As Subjects in Psychological Research.

Comment on children as subjects in psychological research. I should merely like to point out that psychologists must regularly concern themselves with the possible implications of many of our common experimental procedures. We must be aware not only of the obvious effects of frustration, of our responsibility for "picking up the pieces"--even for searching for the pieces--but we must try to envisage what it does to a child's view of adults, his attitudes toward teachers, etc. to be subjected to some of the rewards or some of the "praise and reproof" of our learning experiments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

What should we expect after the next attack?

A test of any science is its ability to predict events under specified conditions. A test for the psychology represented in this special issue of the American Psychologist is its ability to predict individual and social behavior in the aftermath of a next terror attack. This article draws on that science to make such predictions. These predictions are conditioned on both the nature of the attack and our institutional preparations for it. Some attacks will test our resilience more than others. Whatever the attack, we will reduce its impacts if our institutions take advantage of psychological science. That science can reduce the scope of attacks by limiting terrorists' ability to organize their operations and by enhancing our ability to restrain them. It can reduce the impacts of any attacks that do occur by strengthening the institutions and civil society that must respond to them. Realizing these possibilities will require our social institutions to rely on science, rather than intuition, in dealing with these threats. It will require our profession to provide psychologists with rewards for public service, applied research, and interdisciplinary collaboration, as demanded by complex problems. Responding to these challenges could strengthen society and psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

A Question of Values: A Reply.

Replies to the comments of Karson, Baler, and Carroll (see record 2005-12006-001) suggesting that the planning of the program of research reported in America's Psychologists (see record 2004-15427-000) intentionally or unintentionally was influenced by value judgments. What they mean to say is that they believe the wrong values were assigned, especially in the study of factors influencing an individual psychologist's research contributions to psychology. The emphasis given to research publication, to which Karson, Baler, and Carroll object, occurred in our study of the way in which significant contributors differed from their less productive colleagues. Attention to publication was essential, we felt, since any contribution to science necessarily involves comunication with one's fellows about results. America's Psychologists did give consideration to other professional endeavors. I think we need to recognize that all of American psychology is today perplexed about the relative values to assign to research and to service in our growing field. Karson, Baler, and Carroll protest that decisions are being made about the desired characteristics of a clinical psychologist on traditional bases without enough attention being given to changing conditions and new roles played by clinical psychologists. For this position I think they can find full and unqualified support in America's Psychologists. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Putting off tomorrow to do what you want today: Planning for retirement.

In this article we note that in the coming years, a larger number of people will be experiencing retirement for a longer period of time than ever before and that despite this fact, many will find themselves unprepared for this stage of their lives. We review the literature on retirement preparation, structuring our review around the key questions that need to be addressed when planning for retirement: (a) What will I do? (b) How will I afford it? (c) Where will I live? and (d) Who will I share it with? We make a number of suggestions for research and practice. We conclude that although psychology has begun to play a role in understanding and addressing retirement preparation, there are considerable opportunities for psychologists to engage with this issue in their research and applied work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Participation in Social Action.

Comments on the M. Krim article (see record 1963-04092-001), which discusses the participation of psychologists in demonstrations and social activism. While it is held to be acceptable for psychologists to participate in these actions as individuals, the author argues that it is not acceptable for psychologists to participate as psychologists, with explicit or implicit indication that psychological science is responsible for the social or political views of the psychologist. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Legislation and the academic tradition in psychology.

The "rationale which both justifies and demands that psychologists address themselves to the broad matter of social control" is summarized. "Legislation should be viewed as one example of how a mature and responsible discipline establishes a formal liaison with its controlling society. I think it is to our mutual interest to make a public declaration about who we are, what we do, and to assure our fellow citizens of our serious intention of maintaining effective intradisciplinary control over the public function of psychologists." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology and the law: A symposium.

There has been growing concern in the community at large about the impact of the work of psychologists and other social scientists on various aspects of life. Many people are beginning to believe that effective control over some procedures and restrictions on the use of material obtained by psychological and other investigations may be necessary. What form such control will take depends to a very large extent on the ability of the disciplines involved to make a meaningful statement of their position in matters of such great sensitivity as the invasion of privacy or the utilization of human research subjects in the process of developing knowledge and applying it for the benefit of the individual and society as a whole. In light of these concerns there has been an increase in discussion among psychologists, about the need to explore some of the critical issues as they relate to practice, research, and the legal implications of the work carried out by psychologists. There have been significant and worrying incidences in which research and applied work have been threatened or stopped due to community reaction (or over-reaction, if you wish) to the threat which the "brain watchers" pose for the rights of the individual. In order to provide a forum for discussion of some of these problems it was decided to hold a symposium at the C.P.A. Annual Meeting in Calgary to present issues and to discuss some of the significant aspects which relate to this matter of Psychology and the Law. Dr. Castaneda, who has spent much time studying the ethical problems relating to research, discussed implications for psychologists doing research with human subjects. Mr. Berry explored aspects of practice which are receiving increasing attention in the legal sphere. Professor Desmond Morton of Osgoode Law School attempted to put in perspective some of these issues as they are seen by our legal colleagues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Context and category: The post-modern power politics of expropriation.

Indicates that post-modernist and mainstream psychologists who accept social constructionist arguments that posit a social context within which to describe human thought, emotion, and language as discourse conventions, in fact, support context as a class of events that can neither be opposed nor superseded. When scientific power-positioning is attributed to psychologists, while social contextualism is walled off from the same accusation, power over categories results. The elimination of dualities of mind and body and of thought and language, and a resulting inability of the individual to assign meanings or think about emotions, isolates emotion and thought from logic and meaning. It is argued that the assumption that political context surrounds all psychological thinking suspends a host of contraries; and that the egalitarian counterclaim of post-modernists is contradicted by the very political power matrix within which it is stated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A public policy conference for psychologists.

Psychologists have skills, concepts, and value positions to contribute as individuals to public policy. They can contribute these through their scientific, professional, administrative, or political roles. The American Psychological Association (APA) as an organization can facilitate uniting governmental officials and psychologists with relevant expertise. It is also suggested that APA (1) bring together task forces of psychologists to stimulate thought and work on a particular problem of public interest, (2) commission position papers, and (3) help in identifying problems likely to become public issues. In determining what activities to undertake APA should be guided by the importance of the issue to society, the importance to psychology, the amount psychologists have to contribute, the amount we can realistically expect to influence policy, and the costs in time and dollars. Psychology should begin developing its own post-Viet Nam priority list. In doing so it should collaborate with other behavioral sciences with expertise relevant to major problems of our society. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Public policy and public service: Our professional duty.

Psychology is a steadily maturing profession, and we psychologists are finally beginning to accept our societal responsibility to be involved in the public policy and political process. Although psychologists have shown increased involvement in the recent past, there are still many areas in which psychologists could become markedly more involved—especially in the area of programs that affect the quality of life of our nation's elderly, disabled, and poor citizens. As our profession seeks to become more active in the overall health care arena, we will, of necessity, begin to define the parameters of "quality of care" for other professions. In doing so, we must closely explore the "outer limits" of our own practice. We must ensure that all state and federal legislative (and administrative) policies do not impose arbitrary limitations on the scope of practice. To accomplish this objective, we must seek to influence our subset of our nation's health policy priorities and policies that we have traditionally shunned—the subset that affects "the public good." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)