Enthusiasm Versus Self-Possession: The Art of Psychological Science

In this article, I propose that psychology is an art, and that it can be so without forfeiting its identity as a developing science. In support of this proposal, I outline the ways in which art and science unnecessarily have become dichotomized, and I suggest a framework for integrating art and science. This integration is based on reframing the art versus science tension as a vehicle through which the basic human dynamic of "enthusiasm versus self-possession" is expressed. I apply this new framework to the field of psychology and outline ways in which research and practice in psychology can be unified to produce an integrated, dynamic, and creative field.     

THE LOVE RACKET: DEFINING LOVE AND AGAPEFOR THE LOVE‐AND‐SCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Abstract. Scholars of religion and science have generated remarkable scholarship in recent years in their explorations of love. Exactly how scholars involved in this budding field believe that love and science should relate and/or be integrated varies greatly. What they share in common is the belief that issues of love are of paramount importance and that the various scientific disciplines—whether natural, social, or religious—must be brought to bear upon how best to understand love. I briefly introduce the emergence of the love‐and‐science research program and note that scholars have not done well defining what they mean by love. I suggest that the present surge in love scholarship will fail to produce the positive results that it otherwise might if love is not defined well. I provide and defend a definition of love adequate for those doing love‐and‐science research: To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic response to others (including God), to promote well‐being. To explain better what this simple definition entails, I explore its three main phrases. Love is said to have many forms, but agape is the form to which the love‐and‐science literature most commonly refers. I comment briefly on the debates about how to best understand agape, noting sixteen different definitions proposed by major scholars. I identify weaknesses in many of them and then offer what I argue is a more adequate definition of agape as intentional response to promote well‐being when confronted by that which generates ill‐being. In short, agape repays evil with good. While research on love and science requires much more than adequate definitions, I believe that the definitions I proffer can prove useful in furthering the love‐and‐science research program.     

Melioration and self-experimentation

Operant researchers rarely use the arena of applied psychology to motivate or to judge their research. Absence of tests by application weakens the field of basic operant research. Early in their development, the physical and biological sciences emphasized meliorative aspects of research. Improvement of human life was a major goal of these young sciences. This paper argues that if basic operant researchers analogously invoked a melioration criterion, the operant field might avoid its tendency toward ingrowth and instead generate a broadly influential science. Operant researchers could incorporate melioration by (a) creating animal models to study applied problems; (b) confronting questions raised by applied analysts and testing hypotheses in applied settings; or (c) performing self-experiments—that is, using experimental methods and behavioral techniques to study and change the experimenter's behavior.     

Psychological science in the public arena: Three cases of dubious influence

Psychological science has a great deal to contribute to social welfare in all societies, because the world's most pressing social problems are behavioral in nature—violence, hunger, drug abuse, environmental pollution, low worker productivity, poor educational outcomes, and so forth. Thus, psychological research can inform public policies to improve approaches to these important social problems. The relationship of psychological science to public policy is often troubled, however, by misunderstandings about the role of science in the policy making process. Many scientists fear that their research results will be "misused" by others whose values differ from those of scientists. Thus, psychologists are reluctant to publish research results that can be used to support policies contrary to their own values and hesitate to ask research questions that can generate politically incorrect results. In this article, I argue that psychological science has a primary responsibility to ask dangerous questions and to report results honestly, without fear of their use; that research is not translated directly into public policies; and that psychological science should not be perverted either by fear of political consequences or by compromising truth in a quest for power. Three research examples are given to illustrate the different faces of temptation to pervert psychological science in a misguided hope that scientists' own values will be reflected in public policies.     

再论我国心理学的分化现象

我国心理学正处于分化过程之中,其中两个明显的例证就是:基础心理学与应用及人文心理学的分化,以及对心理学研究和服务成果的评价标准摆脱SCI的束缚.这背后深层的原因在于,若以科学哲学认识论的视角,人类的知识大致可分为可靠有用的知识和无用虚幻(伪科学)的知识,可靠知识又可进一步分为科学的知识和非科学的知识.心理学从诞生之日起...     

Dynamics of scientific change and cognitive science. An epistemological update / Dinámica de cambio y ciencias cognitivas. Una puesta al día epistemológica

Abstract

I explore two proposals on the dynamics of scientific change in the general philosophy of science and I evaluate the extent to which they can be applied in the cognitive sciences. I do this by paying special attention to the youth and diversity which characterize this field of scientific research. Firstly, I distinguish two kinds of uses of Kuhn’s work: direct but loose applications of Kuhnean concepts to the history of cognitive science, on the one hand, and indirect applications of certain aspects of Kuhnean ideas, on the other hand. Secondly, I criticize their pertinence on the basis of the secondary role which theories play in the field. Finally, I defend the fertility of the concept of ‘research tradition’ proposed by Laudan, by focusing on the previously highlighted set of idiosyncratic characteristics of the cognitive sciences.     

Embodied Methodologies,Participation, and the Art of Research

In this article, I make the case for scholarship potential at the overlap of art and research. Using the case of the psychological study of adolescence, I show that in order to produce findings of meaning from a critical psychological perspective, it is imperative to consider methodology and epistemology. With a focus on artistic embodied methodologies within participatory action research projects on adolescence, I explore how creative approaches can be an analytic process for knowledge production in the critical social sciences. I argue that the artistic approaches employed using embodied methodologies can be considered as a way to make meaning and that especially within participatory research, these approaches can strengthen validity. In response to the epistemological violence (Teo, 2010) of some conventional social psychological studies, participatory artistic embodied methodologies contribute to building liberatory knowledge and rigorous science.     

Creating a strategy for progress: a contextual behavioral science approach

Behavior analysis is a field dedicated to the development and application of behavioral principles to the understanding and modification of the psychological actions of organisms. As such, behavior analysis was committed from the beginning to a comprehensive account of behavior, stretching from animal learning to complex human behavior. Despite that lofty goal, basic behavior analysis is having a generally harder time finding academic support, and applied behavior analysis has narrowed its focus. In the present paper we argue that both of these trends relate to the challenge of human language and cognition, and that developments within clinical behavior analysis and the analysis of derived relational responding are providing a way forward. To take full advantage of these developments, however, we argue that behavior analysts need to articulate their unique approach to theory, to develop more flexible language systems for applied workers, and to expand their methodological flexibility. This approach, which we term contextual behavioral science, is meant as an evolutionary step that will allow behavior analysis to better capture the center of modern psychological concerns in both the basic and applied areas. Clinical behavior analysis is showing a way forward for behavior analysis to regain its vision as a comprehensive approach to behavior.     

Categories and Dimensions

ABSTRACT— The distinction between categories and dimensions has important consequences for basic and applied science in many areas of psychological research. Decisions as to whether individuals should be assigned to groups or located along one or more continua often are based on personal preferences or discipline-specific measurement traditions, which can lead to the creation, use, or reification of spurious categories or dimensions. Methods for evaluating the latent structure of psychological constructs, using powerful and informative tests between competing models, are available. Rather than choosing on a priori grounds, investigators can perform structural research to evaluate the strength and consistency with which results tease apart categorical and dimensional models. Here, we review why researchers should make this distinction empirically, briefly discuss methods available for doing so, and describe the breadth of areas ripe for exploiting the largely untapped potential of structural research.     

Translational behavior analysis: from laboratory science in stimulus control to intervention with persons with neurodevelopmental disabilities

Throughout its history, laboratory research in the experimental analysis of behavior has been successful in elucidating and clarifying basic learning principles and processes in both humans and nonhumans. In parallel, applied behavior analysis has shown how fundamental behavior-analytic principles and procedures can be employed to promote desirable forms of behavior and to prevent or ameliorate undesirable forms in clinical, educational, and other settings. Less obviously, there has also emerged a small but identifiable bridging field that can potentially connect and inform both basic and applied behavior analysis. Although such translational behavior analysis uses laboratory methodologies, research targets are selected largely for their value in ultimate application to improve the human condition. I will discuss the distinction of translational behavior analysis from basic and applied behavior analysis and consider the potential contribution that translational research can make in the development of the science of behavior.     

Psychological science treatment

New discoveries in psychological science have changed our understanding of some basic psychological processes. The new science, however, has not of yet been properly incorporated into the practice of psychotherapy. This has created a confusing state of affairs, lacking clear distinctions between therapy interventions rooted in lore and personal insight and those based on systematic scientific inquiry. In this paper, I discuss the problems caused by the current situation and propose a new distinction by which the psychological (science) treatment of psychological disorders is differentiated from psychotherapy. The implications of the proposed distinction for clinical research and training are discussed.     

Translational contributions of the experimental analysis of behavior

It has been argued that to increase societal impact behavioral researchers must do more to address problems of obvious practical importance. The basic science wing of behavior analysis has been described as especially detached from this goal, but is it really necessary that basic science demonstrate social relevance? If so, why hasn''t this occurred more often, and what can be done to improve the status quo? To address these questions and to stimulate discussion about the future of basic behavior science, I describe two widely embraced arguments in favor of pure basic science (that which is undertaken without concern for practical applications); explain why a translational research agenda is likely to better recruit tangible support for basic science; propose that addressing practical problems does not require basic science to abandon its focus on fundamental principles; and identify some possible impediments to translational innovation that may need to be addressed for basic behavior science to increase its translational footprint.     

A New Approach to Reducing Disorder and Improving Well-Being

ABSTRACT— Psychological science has usually approached the treatment of disorder through research on individual combinations of risk and protective factors (including life experiences, thinking styles, behaviors, social relationships and genes) and the application of interventions that focus on improvements in the individual. However, we can do better than this. Not only should we be aiming to enhance well-being rather than merely reducing disorder, but we should also be doing so for the majority of people rather than the few who have a disorder. In this article, I focus on the mental health spectrum and make the case for a broad population-based approach. I argue that a very small shift in the population mean of the underlying symptoms or risk factors can do more to enhance well-being and reduce disorder than would any amount of intervention with individuals who need help. Examples from research on alcohol abuse and psychological distress are presented to illustrate the value of a population-based approach.     

正念研究的分歧：概念与测量

正念是当代临床健康心理学领域出现的一个新概念, 尽管其应用在临床领域取得了瞩目的成绩, 但对于正念的理论研究却亟待加强。在对正念的三阶段概念演进过程及四种取向的测量工具进行了系统梳理与评价后, 发现目前对正念的理论研究存在两大问题。一是概念不够清晰, 它可以指代一种行为(冥想)、心理状态、心理过程, 甚至是一种人格或类人格特质; 二是测量过于多元, 有状态取向、能力取向、认知取向和特质取向。两大问题的核心在于如何理解正念。基于对问题的分析及以往实证研究, 建议可以借鉴价值实践分类体系(Values In Action Classification), 以类特质为取向, 采用兼顾文化共同性和特殊性的方法, 深入挖掘其独特的核心内涵, 在命名、测量上突显个体对当下经验留心的基本特点。     

Solving Social Problems Like a Psychologist

ABSTRACT— We suggest that psychologists can play a larger role in the solution of important social problems. Psychology brings two important qualities to the study of social problems: attention to psychological process and rigorous methodology. Our key task is to define social problems in part as psychological problems, and to conduct rigorous research that tests novel psychological solutions. Examples of research that has taken this path—research on race differences in academic performance, on the training of executive function and intelligence, and on the provision of socially constructive default decisions—are provided. We argue that addressing social problems can enrich our science by connecting psychologists to interdisciplinary teams and by providing contexts in which to demonstrate, in striking ways, the value of a psychological approach.     

Are you afraid of the dark? Notes on the psychology of belief in histories of science and the occult

Abstract

The popular view of the inherent conflict between science and the occult has been rendered obsolete by recent advances in the history of science. Yet, these historiographical revisions have gone unnoticed in the public understanding of science and public education at large. Particularly, reconstructions of the formation of modern psychology and its links to psychical research can show that the standard view of the latter as motivated by metaphysical bias fails to stand up to scrutiny. After highlighting certain basic methodological maxims shared by psychotherapists and historians, I will try to counterbalance simplistic claims of a ‘need to believe’ as a precondition of scientific open-mindedness regarding the occurrence of parapsychological phenomena by discussing instances revealing a presumably widespread ‘will to disbelieve’ in the occult. I shall argue that generalized psychological explanations are only helpful in our understanding of history if we apply them in a symmetrical manner.     

The basic importance of applied behavior analysis

We argue that applied behavior analysis is relevant to basic research. Modification studies, and a broad range of investigations that focus on the precipitating and maintaining conditions of socially significant human behavior, have basic importance. Applied behavior analysis may aid basic researchers in the design of externally valid experiments and thereby enhance the theoretical significance of basic research for understanding human behavior. Applied research with humans, directed at culturally-important problems, will help to propagate the science of human behavior. Such a science will also be furthered by analogue experiments that model socially important behavior. Analytical-applied studies and analogue experiments are forms of applied behavior analysis that could suggest new environment-behavior relationships. These relationships could lead to basic research and principles that further the prediction, control, and understanding of behavior.     

To a young basic scientist, about to embark on a program of translational research

From recent commentaries about the role of basic behavior scientists in translational research, I distill some advice to young investigators who seek to apply their basic science training to translational studies. Among the challenges are (a) devising use-inspired research programs that complement, and are not redundant with, existing efforts in basic and applied behavior analysis; and (b) making tactical decisions, such as the selection of methods and collaborators, based on the research topic rather than, necessarily, the existing traditions in behavioral research. Finally, it must be recognized that although use-inspired basic research has the potential to attract support to basic laboratories and contribute to "saving the world," neither of these outcomes is guaranteed. I discuss the relative risks for basic scientists who proceed with use-inspired basic research rather than ignore such translational questions.     

What's basic about basic emotions?

A widespread assumption in theories of emotion is that there exists a small set of basic emotions. From a biological perspective, this idea is manifested in the belief that there might be neurophysiological and anatomical substrates corresponding to the basic emotions. From a psychological perspective, basic emotions are often held to be the primitive building blocks of other, nonbasic emotions. The content of such claims is examined, and the results suggest that there is no coherent nontrivial notion of basic emotions as the elementary psychological primitives in terms of which other emotions can be explained. Thus, the view that there exist basic emotions out of which all other emotions are built, and in terms of which they can be explained, is questioned, raising the possibility that this position is an article of faith rather than an empirically or theoretically defensible basis for the conduct of emotion research. This suggests that perhaps the notion of basic emotions will not lead to significant progress in the field. An alternative approach to explaining the phenomena that appear to motivate the postulation of basic emotions is presented.