Is evidence-based practice diverse enough? Philosophy of science considerations.

In its policy rationale for evidence-based practice in psychology (EBPP), the APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (see record 2006-05893-001) claims to have constituted itself with "scientists and practitioners from a wide range of perspectives and traditions, reflecting the diverse perspectives within the field" (p. 273). We applaud this attention to diversity but contend that an entire perspective of the debate was omitted in the Task Force's newly approved policy and its underlying report. The failure to consider a philosophy of science perspective led the Task Force to make a number of epistemological assumptions that are not based on evidence or rationale and that thus violate the very spirit of evidence-based decision making. In this comment, we reveal a few of these assumptions and discuss their detrimental consequences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Advancing disciplinary practice through critical thinking: A rejoinder to Bensley.

The authors respond to Bensley’s (see record 2009-12731-009) comment on their alternative formulation of critical thinking in psychology (see record 2008-11592-004). They argue that Bensley’s defense of the traditional critical thinking approach—which they term scientific analytic reasoning (SAR)—fails to address their main objections to SAR and their reasons for presenting an alternative. In particular, the openness, fairness, and generativity that Bensley references as strengths of SAR are themselves informed by scientific analytic assumptions and values, which, they argue, illustrates their original contention—that SAR offers an insular and insufficiently critical approach to critical thinking. The authors conclude by calling for future developments in critical thinking that are not driven by an implicit SAR agenda. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The primacy of affective judgment from a teleological perspective.

States that in overlooking the studies on affective judgment of J. F. Rychlak (1977), R. B. Zajonc (see record 1980-09733-001) has omitted an entire theoretical approach that should be seriously considered in discussions of the primacy of affect. This omission is corrected with a brief review of Rychlak's teleological theory and its contrast with Zajonc's approach. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The perils of eclecticism as therapeutic orientation.

This current article discusses the "perils of eclecticism as therapeutic orientation". Although some who label themselves "eclectic" recognize the importance of a well-articulated theory in their work, the vast majority attempt to avoid theorizing. Their main fear appears to be that a theoretical system will bias their interpretations of clinical or empirical data and thus leave them inflexible and closed-minded. The present author appreciates the possibility of theoretical speculations becoming unmonitored biases, but eclectics must also appreciate that biases cannot be avoided, only the lack of monitoring can be avoided. In fact, to delude oneself into thinking that one has avoided biases is to guarantee that one is operating from an unmonitored bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Editorial note.

This editorial introduces the current issue of Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology. The current editor describes the direction that the journal will be taking in the upcoming future. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Theoretical psychology as a subdiscipline: The conversation continues.

Replies to the commentaries of N. Abi-Hashem, M. O. Meux, E. E. Grant, J. L. Brand, R. C. Grace and I. G. Farreras, C. F. Weems, R. W. Howard, H. J. Stam, and M. H. Quinn (all 1998) concerning B. D. Slife and R. N. Williams' article (see record 84-17550) on theoretical psychology as a new subdiscipline of psychology, with the focus being on the more critical commentaries. It is agreed that every psychologist should be a theorist; however, not every psychologist has the same interest or inclination toward theory. The notion of theoretical psychology requires an integral relation with psychology. A legitimization of this subdiscipline could legitimize rather than facilitate fragmentation. One of the roles of theoretical psychology would be to facilitate the voices of all factions of psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae TSC10/YBR265w gene encoding 3-ketosphinganine reductase is identified in a screen for temperature-sensitive suppressors of the Ca2+-sensitive csg2Delta mutant

Saccharomyces cerevisiae csg2Delta mutants accumulate the sphingolipid inositolphosphorylceramide, which renders the cells Ca2+-sensitive. Temperature-sensitive mutations that suppress the Ca2+ sensitivity of csg2Delta mutants were isolated and characterized to identify genes that encode sphingolipid synthesis enzymes. These temperature-sensitive csg2Delta suppressors (tsc) fall into 15 complementation groups. The TSC10/YBR265w gene was found to encode 3-ketosphinganine reductase, the enzyme that catalyzes the second step in the synthesis of phytosphingosine, the long chain base found in yeast sphingolipids. 3-Ketosphinganine reductase (Tsc10p) is essential for growth in the absence of exogenous dihydrosphingosine or phytosphingosine. Tsc10p is a member of the short chain dehydrogenase/reductase protein family. The tsc10 mutants accumulate 3-ketosphinganine and microsomal membranes isolated from tsc10 mutants have low 3-ketosphinganine reductase activity. His6-tagged Tsc10p was expressed in Escherichia coli and isolated by nickel-nitrilotriacetic acid column chromatography. The recombinant protein catalyzes the NADPH-dependent reduction of 3-ketosphinganine. These data indicate that Tsc10p is necessary and sufficient for catalyzing the NADPH-dependent reduction of 3-ketosphinganine to dihydrosphingosine.     

Role of affective assessment in modeling aggressive behavior.

Examined the role of affective assessment, a self-generated influence in learning acquisition, in the A. Bandura et al (1963) modeling-of-aggression procedure. 32 1st- and 2nd-grade children rated toys and televised acts of aggression against an inflated doll according to their personal affective preference. A matched control group of 32 children was yoked to the affective preferences of the experimental Ss. Control Ss were not shown the televised aggression. All Ss were then introduced to a free-play situation in which toys and an inflated doll were present. In line with the Bandura et al findings, it was predicted that observational learning would be demonstrated across conditions. However, in line with logical learning theory, it was predicted that Ss would model affectively preferred aggressive acts and toys more readily than affectively dispreferred acts and toys. Boys and girls differed significantly only in their imitation of positively rated aggressive actions, not in their imitation of negatively rated actions. Ramifications for the TV violence/aggression issue are discussed. (25 ref) (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)     

Toward a theoretical psychology: Should a subdiscipline be formally recognized?

The purpose of this article is (a) to promote careful consideration of a new subdiscipline called theoretical psychology and (b) to invite psychology's evaluation of its own scholarly and intellectual status. Increased signs of disciplinary fragmentation as well as threats to mainstream psychology's philosophy of science have presented challenges that call for thoughtful disciplinary discussion. The authors propose the formal recognition of a subdiscipline whose role is to facilitate this discussion. At the local level, theoretical psychologists should fill a role as consultants to their organization or department, similar to that of statisticians and methodologists. Researchers and practitioners would consult with theoreticians about the types of explanations and methods they are using to see if these approaches are coherent, hold hidden problems, and are appropriate to the assumptions being made. Many psychologists already perform these roles, using a variety of supporting journals, organizations, and institutions. These supports are briefly reviewed, along with anticipated objections to this role and possible considerations for training these professionals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)