Download History and Systems

Unit 1
The History of Psychology and Research Methods
____________________
1.0 Introduction – What is (and isn't) Psychology
Psychology is the study of behavior and mental processes. Many psychologists differentiate between
behavior and mental processes, considering “behavior” to be any action which can be directly
observed, while “mental processes” are internal states which have to be inferred rather than observed
directly. Examples of mental processes include memory, thought, emotions, consciousness, and even
sensation and perception.
Behaviors are more easily observed – for example, we can't see “memory” directly, but we can see
someone's performance on a memory test. In modern psychology, we would also include the study of
biological events (neuroscience) and social factors (social psychology and sociology), genetics and
epigenetics (heritability studies)… in fact, virtually any factor which might possibly contribute to
someone's behavior.
Although we use this as a catch-all definition, the history of modern psychology is largely defined by
three “tracks” of inquiry: the “mental processes” track, which includes structuralism, gestaltism,
psychoanalysis, and cognitive theory; the “behavioral” track, which includes functionalism,
behaviorism, and evolutionary psychology; and the biological track, which includes cognitive and
behavioral neuroscience.
In the latter half of the 20th century, psychologists would start to see the merits of combined
approaches, such as cognitive-behavioral or socio-cognitive theories, and interdisciplinary “teams”
involved in the treatment of clients from both social, psychological, behavioral, and biological angles.
Today's psychologists are generally less dogmatic about their practice than their progenitors, and much
more likely to consider all of the available options in client care.
1.1 The Roots of Western Psychology
1.1.0 The General Idea – the Nature of the Mind
The history of psychology is actually a complex weaving of several disciplines: philosophy,
physiology, and even theology. This chapter is an attempt to hit the highlights in the development of
western psychology, while acknowledging contributions from non-western sources. The major criticism
of most descriptions of the history of psychology is that the study of the mind in the Muslim world has
largely been ignored. Of course, the irony is that for an extended period (roughly from 700 – 1200
C.E.), western “psychology” lagged behind the study of the mind east of the Byzantine Empire. This
lag was significant.
The existence of the mind – or “psyche” – has been posited since at least the 5th century B.C.E..
Philosophers have long noted the differences between humans and animals, including perhaps the most
important characteristic of all; humans are capable of growth, learning, and change, but animals are
more limited in their range of behaviors. Animals adapt to their environments, but humans are capable
of not just adapting their behaviors, but actively changing their environments to suit their needs. These
philosophers defined “mind” as the characteristics which made that change and growth possible: free
will, reason, self-awareness, emotions, memory, sensation and perception – many of the same processes
which we study in modern psychology.
Once the “mind” had been defined, several questions arose, most of which are still unresolved. How
does the mind “function”? What is the relationship between the mind and the body? How many layers
does the mind have? How can we draw valid conclusions about the mind, when we can't drectly
observe it?
1.1.1 Nature vs. Nurture
Plato (428-347 BCE) and Aristotle (384-322 BCE) represent two poles of the nature/nurture question:
where does knowledge come from? Is it the product of our sensory experiences, or is it innate? Plato
considered knowledge to be innate, noting that our senses can easily be fooled by simple perceptual
illusions. Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a famous “parable” which he used to illustrate the
disconnection between our sensory experiences and “reality.” This point of view was called Nativism.
Aristotle, on the other hand, saw sensory illusions as an example of information – false or not, sensory
experiences (even illusions) change the contents of the mind. The depth of our knowledge is limited by
the extent of our experiences, and perceptual illusions do affect the way we process and integrate new
information. Aristotle suggested that it is only through direct observation that learning is possible, a
position called philosophical empiricism.
These two opposite ideas – Nativism and Empiricism – closely approximate the ideas of “nature” and
“nurture,” two basic theories in psychology. For hundreds of years philosophers, physiologists,
neurologists, geneticists, and theologians have argued that one or the other is a stronger influence on
behavior. Starting with Platonic Nativism, the “nature” side finds allies in medieval Christian
philosophy and theology.
Theologians such as Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) wrote about sexual urges as innate tendencies
which were part of human nature (anticipating the work of Sigmund Freud by nearly 1600 years). As
power began to shift from religious to secular authorities in the renaissance (15th c.) and enlightenment
(17-18th c.) eras, political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes emphasized the importance of centralized
political power in order to counter mankind's tendency toward anarchy and violence (the state of
chaos).
On the other hand, enlightenment philosophy brought with it a shift from established sociopolitical
norms to more democratic ideas; the “divine right of kings” was based on the notion of innate qualities,
but philosophers observed that the so-called “divine right” didn't necessarily mean that a king was
going to be a good ruler. John Locke and David Hume, taking their cue from recently-translated
descriptions of Aristotle's work, began to suggest that the mind's qualities are not “innate,” but – as
Aristotle suggested – the product of our sensory experiences. This means that good kings are made, not
born, and that the so-called rabble are just as capable of nobility as anyone born into wealth.
Toward the end of the 18th century, Immanuel Kant proposed a compromise view, suggesting that
sensory experiences are filtered through the innate qualities of the mind, effectively saying that the
mind is shaped by both nature and nurture. This anticipates the “interactionist” point of view. From a
philosophical standpoint, this is where psychology currently rests on the question of nature v. nurture.
Later developments, such as a deeper understanding of learning (behaviorism, for example) and a
greater understanding of the relationship between genetics (innate qualities) and behavior (such as in
behavioral neuroscience) continue to suggest that a complex interaction between nature and nurture (or,
as we might call it now, heredity and the environment) produces human behavior. Even extreme points
of view (such as radical behaviorism) suppose the existence of an innate quality – the instinct to adapt –
as the foundation for how our experiences shape our behavior.
1.1.2 Mind and Body
Early descriptions of the mind tended to rely on spiritual or theological concepts. The word “psyche” is
Greek for “soul” and reveals the supposed connection between free will, reason, self-awareness,
emotions, etc., and classical ideas about divinity and spirituality. The struggle, then, is figuring out how
a spiritual mind can interact with a physical body. The separation of mind and body is called “dualism,”
so these are sometimes called “dualistic” perspectives.
Dualistic conceptions of the mind were common in medieval Christian theology and philosophy, which
saw the positive qualities of the mind/soul in opposition to the “evil” qualities of the body – this was
particularly noticeable in Gnosticism. Although the Gnostics were only a small sect of early
Christianity, some of their ideas became mainstream and made their way into the writings of Augustine
of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. For the Gnostics, there was an impassable gap between the mind and
the body.
It wasn't until the works of Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) that a serious attempt was made to resolve
this question in the Christian world; Descartes suggested “interactive dualism,” where the mind and
body influenced one another through the pineal gland of the brain. His suggestion was revolutionary
because – for the first time – someone was suggesting that reason and free will could be influenced by
the health and status of the body.
OK, so it wasn't the first time exactly – Descartes owed a lot to earlier thinkers who took a more
physical view of the mind. Hippocrates believed that the physical body affected the mind (positing the
theory of the humors as an early model of personality) and Plato considered the brain to be the “seat”
of the mind. Subsequent writers such as Galen, Nemesius, and St. John Damascene wrote extensively
on the notion that the brain was responsible for human behavior and mental processes.
Despite this, the idea of a relationship between mind and body – and more specifically mind and brain
– did not gain traction until after Descartes' writings were popularized. Subsequent writers attempted to
describe behavior in terms of brain function; Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza put the “nail in the
coffin” by rejecting dualism altogether and suggesting that the mind is the product of the function of
the brain. This re-association of mind and brain paved the way for the transition from philosophy to
physiology and, eventually, modern psychology.
1.1.3 Psychology in the Middle East
Following the fall of the Western Roman Empire c. 400 C.E., Europe was plunged into the “dark ages”
(400 – 800). Europe then began to stabilize, politically and culturally, in the middle ages (800 – 1400),
finally emerging from the post-Roman darkness with the beginnings of the Renaissance. During the
roughly 1000 intervening years the study of the mind stalled – or at least, it was heavily influenced by
the stabilizing powers in Europe at the time, which were primarily religious.
The study of the mind was reinvigorated in the 15th century by the sudden infusion and translation of
scientific and philosophical works by Islamic intellectuals, many of whom had preserved and expanded
on the works of Aristotle. A byproduct of the Crusades was an increase in trade between East and West,
leading to an exchange not only of goods, but of ideas. Perhaps none of these figures was more
important than Avicenna (Abu Ibn Sina, 980 – 1037), who preserved the works of Aristotle and helped
develop philosophical empiricism into the scientific method.
Other important contributions from the Muslim world centered around the treatment and diagnosis of
mental illness. While philosophy in the Western world remained focused on abstract ideas about the
nature of the mind, Islamic intellectuals were applying theories of the mind to practical benefit,
building the world's first hospitals for the mentally ill in Baghdad (705) and Cairo (800).
Islamic intellectuals began to form theories of mental illness as well. Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari and
Ahmed ibn Sahl al-Balkhi developed early forms of psychotherapy in the 9th and 10th centuries. The
latter emphasized that illnesses can have psychological causes, introducing the notion of “mental
hygiene” and presaging psychoanalytic concepts such as conversion disorders. Avicenna, in the 11th
century, published the canon of Medicine, describing conditions ranging from melancholia (depression)
to mania to dementia.
These writings wielded an incredible influence on Western psychology, medicine, and other sciences,
particularly with respect to the development of the scientific method. Prior to the renaissance, there was
no specific rule about how scientific investigations should be conducted. With the re-invigoration of
Aristotle in the 15th century (in no small part due to Avicenna's faithful preservation of his ideas)
philosophical empiricism gained a foothold in Europe, sparking the development of the scientific
method. This allowed for the development of legitimate sciences including mathematics, engineering,
astronomy, and physiology.
1.1.4 Physiology and the Study of the Mind
Contemporary psychology recognizes the role of the physical brain and the impact which physiology
and neurological function have on behavior and mental processes. This is a tradition which began with
Hippocrates and Plato and which continued through Galen, Descartes, Hobbes, and eventually found
fruition in the work of Franz Josef Gall, Pierre Flourens, and Pierre Paul von Broca in the 19th century.
As the study of physiology matured physiologists began to deepen their investigation of behavior in
terms of brain function.
Pierre Flourens and Pierre Paul von Broca investigated localization – attempts to assign specific
functions to specific areas of the brain. While Flourens experimented on animals, Broca's investigations
centered on humans who were suffering from traumatic brain injuries (called lesions). By observing
and recording that lesions in certain areas of the brain produced consistent, predictable losses in
function, Broca was able to isolate the region of the brain responsible for the formation of complex
speech (Broca's area) and the specific speech deficit that emerged if there was damage to that area
(Broca's aphasia).
As a result of these studies, scientists were getting closer to measuring the unmeasurable – observing
the function of the mind through behavior and physiology. Even the notion of personality was no
longer off limits. Franz Josef Gall pioneered the now-defunct study of phrenology, suggesting that
personality traits were attached to different areas of the brain, and that those traits could be measured
by corresponding changes in skull shape.
While this turned out to be false (as there is no correlation between brain mass and personality), other
cases reinforced the growing notion that personality, intelligence, and other traits were shaped by brain
function. In one of the most famous early cases, Phineas Gage experienced a total personality change
after a massive traumatic injury destroyed parts of his frontal lobe and limbic system. Prior to Gage's
case (which occurred in the 19th century) individuals with TBI were unlikely to survive long enough to
observe any behavioral change. But advances in medical science kept these individuals alive – allowing
physiologists to observe how damage to the brain impacted their behavior and personality.
Not only were scientists attempting to localize mind functions within the brain, but they began to move
closer to a more complete understanding of the relationship between brain function and mind function.
Hermann von Helmholtz could rightly be called the father of neurology for his groundbreaking studies
on the electroconductivity of nerves, but it would take another hundred years before Otto Loewi
identified acetylcholine, introducing the idea of neurotransmitters to the burgeoning study of
neuroscience.
Loewi and Helmholtz showed that it wasn't just the area of the brain that affected behavior, but the
actual function of the brain on a cellular level. As seen in Unit 3, the development of imaging studies
such as PET and fMRI scanners in the 20th century, coupled with observations on the effectiveness of
anti-psychotic medications such as reserpine and chlorpromazine would strengthen the connection
between brain function and behavior.
1.2 The Birth of Modern Psychology
1.2.1 From Structuralism to Cognitive Psychology
1879 would prove to be a watershed year for the study of behavior and mental processes. Wilhelm
Wundt, a student of von Helmholtz, founded the first laboratory dedicated to the study of psychology in
1879. Prior to this, physiologists such as von Helmholtz had studied the brain or nerves; Wundt
believed that it was possible to study the mind by drawing inferences based on observations of brain
and nerve functioning.
To accomplish this, Wundt employed modified experiments similar to those of von Helmholtz,
measuring reaction times while asking subjects to follow specific instructions. These early studies of
processing speed formed a cornerstone of Wundt's interest in measuring consciousness, the active,
subjective experience of the sensory and perceptual environment and the processes involved in
interpreting our experiences.
Gradually Wundt and his student Edward Titchener developed their interest in consciousness into the
first “school” of psychology, Structuralism. They concluded that conscious experience was a complex
perceptual phenomenon which was built using smaller, “component” parts. Unfortunately, they had to
rely on subjective self-reports (introspection) from test subjects in developing their theory, leading to
information which – while interesting – was scientifically shaky. They had hit a familiar wall – how do
you measure processes which can never be directly observed?
Structuralism died out soon after Titchener's death, but the interest in conscious processes remained.
The Gestalt School emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, focusing on perceptual illusions as
examples of how the mind processes sensory information. Gestalt theorists such as Max Wertheimer
rejected the structuralists' assertion that experience is defined by component parts, instead emphasizing
that our experience of the “parts” is defined by how we perceive the “whole.” Basically, they
considered consciousness to be a complex perceptual phenomenon where we interpret all of the
components of our experience in light of the entire perceptual field.
Unlike structuralism, Gestaltism had the advantage of flowering in a post-Freudian world, and by that
point psychologists had gotten used to talking about abstract mental processes as if they were real,
concrete things. While structuralism died out in large part because the contents of the mind cannot be
observed directly, Gestaltism – and subsequent cognitive theories – survived because, by the mid-20th
century, there were far fewer objections to the study of mental processes.
The study of consciousness, cognition, and mental processes got another boost from the advent of
computers and an increased focus on developing more and more efficient machines. Inspired (or
irritated!) by behaviorist B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, linguist Noam Chomsky joined other theorists
such as David Broadbent and George Miller in developing theories about the nature of human
cognition. These thinkers recognized the importance of language in human cognition, just as
programming language impacts the way a machine processes information.
Other theorists began to look at other aspects of human cognition, using computers as a model for
understanding the relationship between many cognitive “processes.” These included language
(Chomsky, Whorf, Broadbent), memory (Ebbinghaus, Bartlett, Lashley, Loftus), cognition (Piaget,
Vygotsky), and attention (Broadbent, Miller). Ironically, it took the development of machines and
artificial intelligence before we began to develop good theory regarding natural, human cognition!
Although each of these perspectives focused on different areas of consciousness, they all shared with
structuralism the same basic focus: the diverse mental processes which the mind is capable of, and how
those processes evolve and shape behavior.
1.2.2 From Functionalism to Behaviorism: Empirical Psychology
Around the same time that Wundt and Titchener were bringing structuralism to the United States,
another psychologist (and fan of von Helmholtz) was developing a separate theory of experimental
psychology. Like Wundt and Titchener, William James was interested in the content of conscious
experience, but he took a much more strict view on the subject of empirical research. James rejected
the unreliable self-report method used by the structuralists, instead arguing that any inferences about
the nature of consciousness must be based only on directly observable behavior. This ruled out
subjective self-reports as a “scientific” measure.
As far as the nature of the mind, James looked to the relatively new theories of Charles Darwin and
social scientists such as Herbert Spencer, suggesting that natural selection governed more than just the
evolution of species – it governs behavior as well. If we want to explain someone's observable
behavior, we can infer that their behavior either is, or was, an adaptive response to a change in their
environment. This avoids the murky waters of “mental processes” by presupposing the adaptive
function of consciousness: consciousness adapts and evolves just like an organism must adapt and
evolve to survive; observable behaviors do the same thing.
James' application of natural selection and adaptation to consciousness and behavior forms the
foundation for what eventually became the schools of behavioral and evolutionary psychology. Edward
Thorndike codified this idea of adaptation as the “law of effect,” which eventually evolved into B.F.
Skinner's theory of operant conditioning. Basically, all three men were saying the same thing: behaviors
which produce successful results will continue, while behaviors which are unsuccessful will be
changed until they are.
While James and Thorndike were only concerned with describing behavior, Skinner believed that this
adaptive tendency could be used to shape and change behavior through systems of reinforcement and
punishment. Skinner's theories transitioned the “functional” approach from a purely experimental field
to an applied, clinical one, having a vast impact on the treatment of many psychological disorders. The
idea of “behavior modification” is based on James' assumptions – if we want to change someone's bad
behavior, then we (a) assume that it is goal-directed and (b) attempt to eliminate anything which
reinforces the bad behavior while (c) providing reinforcement for more adaptive behaviors.
Skinner's work on operant conditioning had a huge impact on education, child-rearing, and even the
judicial system – which we will explore more fully in Unit 5. The fact that it was based on empirical
observation (what we commonly call evidence-based therapy) gave behaviorism the power to dominate
the psychological world for nearly thirty years, displacing psychoanalysis as a preferred method for
managing psychological problems. Even the eventual dominance of cognitive therapies in the 1960s
and 1970s led to more of a marriage between the cognitive and the behavioral perspectives than the dethroning of the behavioral school.
A complimentary behavioral theory – classical conditioning – arose as a result of the work of Ivan
Pavlov, a Russian physiologist working in the 1920s. He discovered that learning and adaptation could
take place via implicit associations, an observation that he made while recording the salivary reflex in
dogs. Later, John Watson and Rosalie Raynor would apply this theory to human emotions, developing a
model for “acquiring” phobic responses to previously neutral stimuli.
Once the model for creating phobias had been described, other theorists – such as Mary Cover Jones –
began to develop ways to un-learn emotional responses. Many of those techniques – systematic
desensitization, EX/RP, and aversive conditioning, among others – form the backbone of contemporary
clinical practice, particularly for individuals who are suffering from anxiety or post-traumatic
symptoms.
While functionalism and behaviorism differed slightly in their approach to consciousness (with
functionalism attempting to describe it, and behaviorism taking it for granted or ignoring it altogether),
they drew from the same well in terms of their focus on adaptation, learning through experience, and
the influence of the environment. Altogether, the focus on observable behaviors lent itself to a theory
which was easy to measure and test in an experimental setting – quite a shift from structuralism, and an
even greater shift from psychoanalysis.
1.2.3 From Hypnosis to Humanistic Therapy – the Clinical Approach
While experimental psychologists like Wundt, James, and Titchener were developing theories to
describe the function of the mind, it might surprise you to know that the treatment of what we now call
“mental illness” was still firmly in the hands of physiologists. As recently as the turn of the 20th century
in the West, mental illnesses as we know them were seen as disorders of the body, reflecting a classical
view traceable all the way back to Hippocrates and Galen.
It wasn't until Jean-Martin Charcot and Pierre Janet's work on patients with “Hysteria” that this
viewpoint began to change. Having exhausted all other recourse in an attempt to cure these symptoms –
dissociation, catatonia, conversion disorders, and intense anxiety – Charcot and Janet turned to
hypnosis and found, amazingly, that it worked. Despite theories suggesting, among other things, that a
“wandering uterus” was the cause of the illness (the name “hysteria” is from the Greek word for
uterus), Charcot and Janet had found that these seemingly “physical” symptoms could be abated with
something as simple as what we now consider “talk therapy.”
Other advocates of “the talking cure” such as Joseph Breuer and Sigmund Freud began to search for
explanations that would help support their application of Charcot and Janet's techniques in a clinical
setting. Freud in particular helped to popularize the notion that deep-seated psychological distress could
cause psychological and physical symptoms, and that the solution to psychological problems was to
investigate the deep recesses of unconsciousness. His model of psychotherapy (psychoanalysis) and
personality (psychoanalytic psychology) and his theory of personality development (psychosexual
stages) helped establish his therapeutic school as the dominant force in clinical psychology for the first
half of the 20th century.
Naturally, as Freud took on students and spread his theory, his students were quick to innovate and
expand on his theories in their own practices. The Neo-Freudians developed theories based on
psychoanalysis, but with a narrower focus. Psychodynamic theories kept Freud's emphasis on
relationships, conflict, and transference, but dumped his focus on the unconscious. Psychosocial
theories such as Erikson's theory of development kept Freud's emphasis on internal conflicts, but
focused more on social factors, rather than sexual ones.
Other schools took note of Freud's idea to apply psychological theory to clinical practice, resulting in a
proliferation of therapeutic methods after the close of World War II. Gestalt therapists such as Fritz and
Laura Perls used a combative approach to challenge clients' perceptions of their worlds; behaviorists, as
mentioned above, used behavioral techniques to address problem behaviors; cognitive psychologists
such as Aaron T. Beck and Albert Ellis addressed faulty beliefs and their impact on the way we process
our experiences; humanistic and existential psychologists looked to help clients grow and become their
ideal, actualized selves and derive meaning and purpose from their lives. All of these diverse therapies
share a common underlying perspective: that psychological problems have a psychological basis.
1.2.4 Social and Cultural Perspectives in Psychology
Experimental psychology took a social turn following the events of World War II. Prior to this time,
psychological theories were largely neutral on the subject of culture and social influence on behavior,
but events such as the Holocaust or the Ukrainian genocide (Holodomor) gave psychologists and
sociologists alike a reason to investigate how social and cultural influence can shape behavior – even to
the point of overriding our moral inhibitions.
The development of social perspectives in psychology has its roots in behaviorism – Albert Bandura (a
behaviorist responsible for the idea of observational learning) described how learning and
reinforcement can take place by observing others, and that there is a relationship between how we
behave and the context in which the behavior takes place. Next, he posited that our behavior is the
product of a complex interaction between our behavior, social surroundings, and beliefs about our
social surroundings (reciprocal determinism). Bandura's interest in the relationship between cognitions,
social environments, and behavior paved the way for what came to be known as the social-cognitive (or
socio-cognitive) perspective.
Solomon Asch, Kurt Lewin, and Julian Rotter investigated how self-perception and other-perception
plays a role in the development of social cognitions, while Stanley Milgram and others investigated
how those social cognitions impact the effectiveness of social influence. Kenneth Clark, Francis
Sumner, and Inez Prosser did groundbreaking research on the impact of self-perception, prejudice, and
culture on the experience of minorities – particularly African-Americans living in the southern United
States. Gordon Allport and Phillip Zimbardo researched the importance of social attitudes, including
implicit attitudes.
For all of these “social psychologists,” the common belief is that no behavior takes place in a vacuum.
Everything takes place in a social context, informed by the messages which we receive from our
friends, family, and society at large. This, in turn, paved the way for cultural and multi-cultural studies
in psychology – perspectives which investigate the importance of cultural differences, multiculturalism,
cultural and racial identities, and social pluralism on human behavior.
School
Time
Structuralism
1879 –
1920s
Functionalism
Early Schools in Psychology
Names
Basic Ideas
Legacy
Consciousness, component
parts, introspection
“birthed” Gestalt and
cognitive psychology
Late
William James
th
19
century
Consciousness, adaptive
function of behavior,
empirical observation
“birthed” behavioral, socialcognitive and evolutionary
psychology
Psychoanalysis
1880s – Jean-Martin Charcot
present Joseph Breuer
Sigmund Freud
Sabina Spielrein
Anna Freud
Unconscious conflict, mental
illness, therapy, human
development, theories of
personality, psychological
drives
Original psychotherapy,
“mental illness,” conflictdriven therapy, interest in
anxiety and depression as
mental illnesses
Behaviorism
1920s – Ivan Pavlov
Present John Watson
Edward Thorndike
B.F. Skinner
reinforcement, punishment,
operant and classical
conditioning, associative
learning, desensitization
Prevailing psychotherapeutic
approach until the 1960s, still
dominant for anxiety
disorders (EX/RP)
Gestaltism
1890s – Max Wertheimer
Present Wolfgang Kohler
Fritz Perls
Laura Perls
Perceptual illusions, cognitive Emphasis on perceptual
processing
processes and information
processing in cognitive
psychology
Wilhelm Wundt
Edward Titchener
School
Cognitive Psych
Time
Names
1950s – Noam Chomsky
Present David Broadbent
Albert Ellis
Aaron T. Beck
Elizabeth Loftus
Humanistic Psych 1960s – Carl Rogers
Existential Psych Present Abraham Maslow
Positive Psych
Viktor Frankl
Social-Cognitive
1960s – Julian Rotter
Present Albert Bandura
Stanley Milgram
Solomon Asch
Phillip Zimbardo
Basic Ideas
Legacy
Emphasis on conscious
processing of information,
schemas, language, memory,
processing speed, attention,
beliefs and structures
Revolutionized therapy;
immensely successful in
conjunction with behavioral
techniques
Becoming, self-concept,
growth and change, identity,
meaning, self-esteem,
unconditional regard,
incongruence
Emphasis on the psychology
of wellness rather than illness,
non-judgmental practice,
intrinsic human value
Reciprocal determinism,
social and cognitive
influences on reinforcement,
values and information, social
cognition and influence
Expanded understanding of
group identity, obedience and
conformity, racism, racial and
cultural psychology, peer
pressure
1.3 Women and Minority Voices in Psychology
1.3.1 Historical Standing of Women and Minorities in the APA
Despite generally being a field dominated by open-minded and curious people, the history of
psychology – and in particular, the American Psychological Association – reveals a complex and
sometimes troubling relationship with its female and minority members. Much of this has to do with
the roots of psychology in physiology and philosophy – male-dominated professions in the 18th and
19th century. Much of it also has to do with the white-washing of the history of psychotherapy,
including virtually no mention of Middle-Eastern or other non-European developments in psychology
prior to the 20th century.
Many textbooks make a big show of the fact that the field of psychology is more diverse now than ever,
with more than half of all new degrees in the field being granted to women (in contrast to the 19th
century, when Harvard famously refused to give women doctorates), and a renewed emphasis on
multicultural sensitivity in clinical practice. Despite this, very few texts mention the specific
contributions of women and minorities to the field, and in some cases (such as Sabina Spielrein and
Rosalie Raynor) focus less on their accomplishments in the laboratory and more on their romantic
relationships with men who more or less stole their ideas.
The fact remains that the APA was, at one point, 100% comprised of white men. Although this is no
longer the case, and although women such as Mary Calkins and minorities such as Kenneth Clark
eventually rose to preside over the APA, there is a reluctance – for some reason – to give many of these
influential individuals their due – as if Freud and Jung aren't sufficiently mythological, without
crediting them for other people's ideas.
1.3.2 Some Famous Female Contributors
There is no way that this list could possibly be exhaustive, but here are a few names which we cover
during the course of the semester. Mary Calkins, mentioned above, was the first female president of the
APA – famously denied her doctorate degree by Harvard – in 1905. It is important to note that the APA
was only thirteen years old at this point, so her ascent is somewhat remarkable. William James
famously supported Calkins, both in her attempts to receive her degree and in her role as president of
the APA.
Margaret Floy Washburn was another early influential woman in psychology. In 1894 she became the
first woman to receive a doctorate in psychology, and went on to publish The Animal Mind. In this
publication, she investigated the idea that animals have conscious experiences (not unlike humans).
Considering that she studied under Titchener, her interest in mental processes and consciousness makes
sense. Washburn is sometimes credited with inspiring John Watson's research on conditioning –
although Watson didn't share her belief in conscious experiences.
Speaking of John Watson, let's talk a little bit about Rosalie Rayner. Rayner is sometimes referenced as
a woman with whom Watson had an affair, who then subsequently became involved as an “assistant”
during his research, particularly the landmark “Little Albert” experiment. This does an incredible
injustice to her contributions to Watson's work – in fact, the two of them were partners in research long
before they became lovers, and to my knowledge there is no reason to consider Rayner anything but
Watson's collaborator, rather than a mere assistant. Not only was she an instrumental contributor to the
Little Albert experiment, but she was also a published researcher independent of her association with
Watson.
Lastly, I want to devote special attention to one of my favorite figures in psychology, the enigmatic
Sabina Spielrein. Spielrein (1885 – 1942) was once known primarily for being a patient/lover of Carl
Jung, who was himself an early figure in psychoanalysis and a student of Sigmund Freud. Suffering
from a severe bout of hysteria in 1904, she was admitted to a mental hospital in Zurich, eventually
becoming Jung's patient.
A remarkably gifted woman, she was released from the hospital in 1905 and attended medical school,
publishing the first psychoanalytic dissertation on Schizophrenia. Her paper “Destruction as the Cause
of Coming Into Being” would have a profound influence on Freud's developing concept of the “Death
Instinct,” while her interest in transformative processes would inspire Carl Jung's fledgling Analytical
Psychology. She was fluent in multiple languages, and her interest in the development of language
inspired, among others, Jean Piaget (who was also her patient) and Lev Vygotsky. Spielrein and her
daughters were assassinated by a Nazi SS squad in 1942.
1.3.3 Minorities in Psychology
The field of psychology has had its share of under-appreciated minority voices as well, although the
movement toward multiculturalism and cultural sensitivity in clinical practice has re-invigorated an
interest in their work.
Because the APA is an American organization, my focus here is on the work of African-American
psychologists in the early years of the APA – although we could easily expand this section to refer to
non-white, and non-western perspectives in psychology as well. For the sake of brevity, I'm going to
limit the focus to the issue of race within the APA, particularly with respect to social issues in the
American South which inspired much of this research.
For much of the APA's early existence, there was no real “concept” of minority psychology, or that the
shared experiences of minority groups, and their unique cultural histories, might influence their
development in ways which the prevailing schools (such as Freudian psychoanalysis) could never
adequately serve.
Look at it this way: we consider Freud to be kind of a dinosaur when it comes to things like feminist
psychology, because his theory (which dominated psychology for 50 years) was clearly geared toward
male gender identity and sexuality as the norm. In the same way, African-American psychologists in
the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s recognized that the prevailing schools of thought were based on white,
male, European norms – and that serving growing non-white populations meant taking a deeper look at
factors which influenced behavior among minorities.
That's where theorists such as Inez Prosser, Francis Sumner, and Kenneth Clark come into the picture.
All three of them recognized that African-American children, particularly those growing up in the preCivil Rights Era American south, shared experiences which shaped their development but which were
not shared by their white counterparts. Outright racism, discrimination, prejudice, and a cultural history
of slavery and disadvantage were all factors with the potential to shape a child's development, but these
factors were largely ignored by the white establishment until the Brown v. Board of Education decision
in 1954.
In that case, the Supreme Court determined that “separate but equal” doctrines which had been in place
for decades were constitutionally invalid, and that schools (and other public institutions) could no
longer be segregated based on race. Critical to the court's analysis was the work of Prosser and Sumner,
who had studied the impact of racial and cultural discrimination on educational outcomes among
African-American youth, and Kenneth Clark's research on how discrimination, segregation, and racism
impact self-perceptions among minorities.
Clark famously demonstrated that racism could be implicit, and that segregation could negatively
influence African-American children's self-perceptions. Under those circumstances, there was no way
that “separate” could truly be “equal” because merely separating children based on race created
disadvantages among minorities with definite real-world outcomes. Clark became the first AfricanAmerican president of the APA in 1970.
1.4 Parapsychology
Lastly, let's take a moment to consider what psychology isn't. Psychology is the study of behavior and
mental processes, as well as any factors which influence behavior or mental processes. This is a pretty
wide net, but for one reason or another most legitimate psychologists avoid discussions of topics which
we consider to be interesting, but not measurable in any meaningful way. These “parapsychological
phenomenon” include traits such as ESP, clairvoyance, telephathy and telekinesis, and other psychic
phenomenon.
To some extent, the line is arbitrary. For example, Freud believed in the interpretation of dreams, and
most psychologists would agree that dream content is meaningful, but none of them – even Freud –
would suggest that dreams can be predictive. It's an arbitrary line (I, for example, believe that dreams
are meaningless – even purposeless – biological events). Some phenomena, like deja vu, are interesting
but nearly impossible to isolate and study in a laboratory setting, so most “theories” which explain
these phenomenon aren't based on any actual observation.
When it comes to psychic phenomena, the problem is one of reliable demonstration. Most
psychologists consider clairvoyance, ESP, telepathy, etc., to be – frankly – B.S.. These are things which
could exist in theory, but people who claim to have these abilities rarely can demonstrate them in a
laboratory setting (and I say “rarely” only because it's bad science to say “never”). The truth is that
these events could happen, and it might be that certain people are able to develop skills for which there
is currently no explanation. But without the ability to consistently observe and record examples of these
behaviors, there is no sense in attempting to develop theories to explain them.
In other words, psychologists attempt to confine their research to phenomena which occur frequently
enough that they can be observed, patterns can emerge, and decent theories can be developed. This
does not exclude the possibility that psychic powers exist, but it means that for the time being, it is
unlikely that psychology as a science will spend much time investigating that possibility.