* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download History and Systems
Metastability in the brain wikipedia , lookup
Psychologist wikipedia , lookup
Functionalism (philosophy of mind) wikipedia , lookup
Neurophilosophy wikipedia , lookup
Neuroeconomics wikipedia , lookup
International psychology wikipedia , lookup
Educational psychology wikipedia , lookup
Donald O. Hebb wikipedia , lookup
Conservation psychology wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive science wikipedia , lookup
Embodied cognitive science wikipedia , lookup
Cultural psychology wikipedia , lookup
Psychological behaviorism wikipedia , lookup
Neuropsychology wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive neuroscience wikipedia , lookup
Trans-species psychology wikipedia , lookup
Social psychology wikipedia , lookup
Behaviorism wikipedia , lookup
Music psychology wikipedia , lookup
Experimental psychology wikipedia , lookup
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.