Masculinity,femininity, self-esteem,and subclinical depression

A study involving 197 university undergraduates (83 males, 114 females) tested the hypothesis that depressive symptoms assessed by the short form of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) would be negatively related to masculinity (M) scores from the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) but unrelated to femininity scores (F). It was also hypothesized that the negative relationship between masculinity and self-reports of depressive symptoms may be due to shared variance in self-esteem. The results supported predictions. In particular, the negative relationship linking masculinity to depressive symptoms disappeared when the effects of self-esteem were partialed out. Results are discussed in terms of the thesis that self-esteem may reflect in part the dominant masculine values of Western-type cultures and that manifestations of psychological ill health may occur when there is reduced opportunity to engage in behaviors that reflect these values.     

Doctoral training in behavior analysis: Training generalized problem-solving skills

This essay provides guidelines for designing a doctoral program in behavior analysis. First, we propose a general accomplishment for all behavior analytic doctoral students: that they be able to solve problems concerning individual behavior within a range of environments. Second, in order to achieve this goal, we propose that students be trained in conceptual and experimental analysis of behavior, the application of behavioral principles and the administration of behavioral programs. This training should include class work, but it should emphasize the immersion of students in a variety of environments in which they are required to use behavior analytic strategies. Third, we provide an example of a hypothetical graduate program that involves the proposed training. Finally, an evaluation plan is suggested for determining whether a training program is in fact producing students who are generalized problem-solvers. At each step, we justify our point of view from a perspective that combines principles from behavior analysis and educational systems design.     

Psychoanalysis as science: the inductivist's resistance revisited

The scientific status of psychoanalysis has been the focus of heated debates among philosophers of science and among psychoanalysts. The most recent challenge to psychoanalysis as a science comes from the quarters of the inductivist philosophy of science. Since inductivism is a self-defeating philosophy, it is not surprising that inductivists demand that psychoanalysts pay an unlimited price for their claim of scientific status for psychoanalysis. Most psychoanalysts, in their response to this impossible challenge, unwittingly claim to have paid the price. What is worse, the claim is made in a confused and emotionally charged manner. Hence, psychoanalysts are usually defensive and, thus, in error when repelling (in this way) the attack of the inductivist philosopher. It is not psychoanalysis inductivists attack, but their own commitment to their own logic which leads inexorably to the dissolution of their argument, of all science, and, indeed, of psychoanalysis as well. It seems much more reasonable to postpone any response to the challenges that confront psychoanalysis today and to invest effort in a reformulation of the problem of the scientific status of psychoanalysis. Different rational solutions to the problem may evolve if we take care to become well informed first about the limits of our theoretical frameworks and show readiness to change them, if and when needed. That is to say, we can start with a somewhat tentative, not to say skeptical, frame of mind concerning the very concept of scientific status. We may try to keep and to contain our skepticism to the degree required by the discourse at hand, carry on exploring in our practice, report our results, and discuss them respectfully. We should start by admitting that, quite possibly, our discourse will end inconclusively.