Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th CenturyStev.docx
Similar to The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th CenturyStev.docx (20)
More from mehek4
More from mehek4 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th CenturyStev.docx
- 1. The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century Steven J. Haggbloom Western Kentucky University Renee Warnick, Jason E. Warnick, Vinessa K. Jones, Gary L. Yarbrough, Tenea M. Russell, Chris M. Borecky, Reagan McGahhey, John L. Powell III, Jamie Beavers, and Emmanuelle Monte Arkansas State University A rank-ordered list was constructed that reports the first 99 of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Eminence was measured by scores on 3 quantitative variables and 3 qualitative variables. The quantitative variables were journal citation frequency, introductory psychology textbook citation frequency, and survey response frequency. The qualitative variables were National Academy of Sciences membership, election as American Psychological Association (APA) president or receipt of the APA Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award, and surname used as an eponym. The qualitative variables were quantified and combined with the other 3 quantitative variables to produce a composite score that was then used to construct a rank-ordered
- 2. list of the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. The discipline of psychology underwent a remarkable transformation during the 20th cen- tury, a transformation that included a shift away from the European-influenced philosophical psychology of the late 19th century to the empirical, research-based, American-dominated psychology of today (Simonton, 1992). On the eve of the 21st century, the APA Monitor (“A Century of Psychology,” 1999) published brief biographical sketches of some of the more em- inent contributors to that transformation. Mile- stones such as a new year, a new decade, or, in this case, a new century seem inevitably to prompt such retrospective appraisals of the most notable events or people of an era. With- out question, the psychologists mentioned in the APA Monitor retrospective qualify as eminent. Nevertheless, they represent a very small subset of the substantial number of 20th-century psy- chologists who might be so regarded. More- over, such retrospectives tend to omit highly eminent, and still very productive, contempo- rary psychologists. The purpose of the present study was to pro- duce a more inclusive, rank-ordered list of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. To produce any such list is a daunting task fraught with a variety of difficulties, not the least of which is to operationalize “eminence.” Moreover, any procedure for creating such a list will invite methodological criticism. Because these difficulties will probably not be addressed
- 3. to everyone’s satisfaction, and because our list is certain to have omitted the names of many great psychologists for whom one could make a compelling case for inclusion, we took a cue from Eugene Garfield (1977) and report only 99 names. Hence, the reader’s best case for a psy- Steven J. Haggbloom, Department of Psychology, West- ern Kentucky University; Renee Warnick, Jason E. War- nick, Vinessa K. Jones, Gary L. Yarbrough, Tenea M. Russell, Chris M. Borecky, Reagan McGahhey, John L. Powell III, Jamie Beavers, and Emmanuelle Monte, De- partment of Psychology and Counseling, Arkansas State University. Renee Warnick is now at the Department of Neuro- science, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; Gary L. Yarbrough is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Louisville; Tenea M. Russell is now at the Forrest School of Professional Psychology; Chris M. Borecky is now at the Department of Psychology, Uni- versity of Illinois—Chicago. We thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Amanda L. Bulger, Robyn P. Burch, Jane C. Cullins, Kyla Emerson, Jason L. Houston, Lindsey K. Scarborough, Casey C. Schultz, Mariah J. Seydel, and Mat- thew N. Yount. We also appreciate the insightful comments on a manuscript draft provided by David Saarnio, Lynn Howerton, and Dan Perlman. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Steven J. Haggbloom, Department of Psychol- ogy, 276 Tate Page Hall, Western Kentucky University, 1 Big Red Way, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42101. E-mail: [email protected]
- 4. Review of General Psychology Copyright 2002 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 2002, Vol. 6, No. 2, 139 –152 1089-2680/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//1089-2680.6.2.139 139 T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m
- 7. he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b
- 8. e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . chologist who should have made the list just might be that last, 100th name that we have not reported. We think the most eminent list reported here will be inherently interesting to many psychol- ogists. Beyond that, knowing who is eminent in a discipline can serve a number of useful pur- poses. James McKeen Cattell recognized nearly a century ago that the understanding of both science and creativity would be advanced by the study of who is eminent in science and why (e.g., Cattell, 1910). Exploring the contribution of psychological variables to scientific behav- ior, especially exemplary and eminent cases, is
- 9. now the province of the psychology of science, an emerging companion discipline to the more familiar and well-established disciplines that study science, such as history of science and philosophy of science (see Feist & Gorman, 1998, for a detailed overview of the psychology of science). For example, Simonton (1992), working from a list of 69 eminent American psychologists, created a profile of the “typical” eminent American psychologist. Simonton (2000) investigated the contribution of 54 eminent psy- chologists’ methodological and theoretical ori- entations to the durability of their influence. It is our hope that the most eminent list reported here will be a useful starting point for similar studies in the psychology of science. Our list also has potential uses for research in the history of psychology and in the psychology classroom. Some of those applications are discussed at the end of this article. Our procedures, and the resulting most emi- nent list, differed from those of other studies of eminence in psychology in some important re- spects. Foremost among these differences is the fact that no other study has attempted to com- pile a rank-ordered list of the most eminent psychologists that spans the entire 20th century. Another important difference is that most emi- nence studies have employed a single measure of eminence. Eminence, however, is a complex, multidimensional concept not likely to be well reflected in any one measure. Therefore, we used a combination of three quantitative and three qualitative variables.
- 10. The use of multiple criteria to measure emi- nence should accomplish the equivalent of what statistician–magician Persi Diaconis (1978) called the “bundle of sticks” phenomenon in magic. A magician may perform several varia- tions on the same trick, each having, like a single stick, a weak point. The entire perfor- mance, however, like a bundle of sticks, is much stronger than the individual tricks it com- prises. To adapt an aphorism from psychology, the whole is stronger than its parts. The use of multiple criteria yields a better measure of em- inence to the extent that the strength of the “bundle” of measures compensates for the weaknesses of its components. The variables that have been used to measure eminence in psychology include frequency of citation in the professional journal literature (e.g., Endler, Rushton, & Roediger, 1978; Gar- field, 1978, 1992; Myers, 1970), frequency of citation in introduction to psychology textbooks (e.g., Gorenflo & McConnell, 1991; Kaess & Bousfield, 1954; Knapp, 1985; Perlman, 1980; Roeckelein, 1995), and surveys of professional opinion (e.g., Annin, Boring, & Watson, 1968; Coan & Zagona, 1962; Korn, Davis, & Davis, 1991). These measures yield quantitative or or- dinal-level data that have been used to construct rank-ordered lists. Studies of eminence in psychology have also employed qualitative measures such as whether a psychologist’s surname has come to be used as an eponym (i.e., a psychological term such as
- 11. Pavlovian conditioning or Skinner box) to rep- resent, for example, a theory, procedure, test, or apparatus (Roeckelein, 1972, 1996),1 and re- ceipt of awards or other forms of honorary recognition. The latter include election to mem- bership in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), receipt of the American Psychological Association (APA) Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award, and election to the APA presidency (e.g., Over, 1981; Simonton, 1992). In the present study, we used all six of the quantitative and qualitative variables just men- tioned. Our operational definition of eminence was a composite score on these variables. What follows is a description of how each variable was measured and how scores were combined to yield a composite index that was then used to construct a rank-ordered list of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. We then describe some of the characteristics of our 1 One can also count frequency of eponym usage to obtain quantitative data from this measure (Roeckelein, 1996). 140 HAGGBLOOM ET AL. T hi s do cu m
- 16. ly . list and how it relates to other measures of eminence in psychology. The terms psychologist and 20th century also require definition. For present purposes, psy- chologist was not defined according to aca- demic degree (e.g., the PhD in psychology, PsyD, or a comparable degree). Rather, it was defined in terms of an individual’s contributions to the discipline of psychology, as indicated by his or her score on the various measures of eminence we used. This approach permitted consideration of individuals who, without ques- tion (e.g., Freud and Pavlov), have made very significant contributions to psychology but who might be excluded from consideration if an ac- ademic degree criterion were used. By 20th- century psychologist, we simply meant that at least one of the individual’s published contri- butions to psychology occurred in the 20th century. Journal Citation Frequency We constructed a list of the 100 psychologists most frequently cited in the professional psy- chological journal literature, the journal citation list (JCL). The JCL was constructed by adding citation frequencies across four previously pub- lished lists. The lists we used (along with time
- 17. periods covered and number of names reported) were published by Myers (1970; 1962 to 1967, 62 names), Endler et al. (1978; 1975, 100 names), Garfield (1978; 1969 to 1977, 100 names), and Garfield (1992; 1986 to 1990, 50 names). The JCL sampled four (mostly) non- overlapping time periods and combined lists produced by different methodologies. The meth- odologies included manual searches (Endler et al., 1978; Myers, 1970), computerized database searches (Garfield, 1978, 1992), searches of se- lected journals deemed “prestigious” (Myers, 1970), searches of all Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)–indexed psychology journals (Endler et al., 1978; Garfield, 1978), and a search of SSCI-indexed psychology journals that included only those authors who had pub- lished at least 10 articles in SSCI-indexed jour- nals during the period covered by the search (Garfield, 1992). The Garfield (1992) list gives considerable weight to currently active, contem- porary psychologists, whereas the other three lists give more weight to historically older psy- chologists without necessarily excluding more contemporary psychologists. It is our view that the JCL represents a rea- sonable approach to achieving a degree of bal- ance between an emphasis on historically estab- lished authorities and contemporarily active psychologists. Moreover, the JCL sampled four somewhat disparate time periods and thus pre- sents a more comprehensive picture of journal citation frequencies than the individual lists it comprises. Table 1 presents the first 25 names
- 18. on the JCL.2 In this and all of the other tables, we attempted to identify psychologists the way they identified themselves in the professional literature. Introductory Psychology Textbook Citation Frequency We constructed a list of the 102 psychologists most frequently cited in introductory psychol- ogy textbooks, the textbook citation list (TCL). (The list contained 102 rather than 100 names as a result of tied ranks at the end of the list.) The TCL was constructed by adding citation fre- quencies together for two previously published lists and a list that we created. The published lists that we used were those of Perlman (1980) and Gorenflo and McConnell (1991). Perlman (1980) listed the 50 psychologists most fre- quently cited in 10 textbooks with copyright dates of 1975 to 1978. Gorenflo and McConnell (1991) listed the 64 psychologists most fre- quently cited in a sample of 24 textbooks with copyright dates from 1985 to 1989. We con- structed a list of the 100 psychologists most frequently cited in five textbooks with copyright dates of 1998 to 2000.3 Our procedure was essentially that used by Perlman, except that we did not adjust for self-citations and bibliography pages. Working from the author indexes, we determined the number of textbook pages on which each psychologist was cited. Individuals not cited in at least four of the five textbooks were not considered. For the remaining eligi- 2 The JCL can be seen in its entirety (both rank-ordered
- 19. and alphabetical versions) at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/ �shaggblo/jcl.htm. 3 A list of the five textbooks used is available from Steven J. Haggbloom and on the World Wide Web at http:// edtech.tph.wku.edu/�shaggblo/tcl.htm. 141THE 100 MOST EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e
- 22. fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot
- 23. to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . ble names, citation frequencies were summed across the textbooks in which they were cited. The TCL was constructed by summing cita- tion frequencies across our newly created list and the lists published by Perlman (1980) and Gorenflo and McConnell (1991). As was the case with the JCL, the TCL sampled different time periods and methodologies and represents a more comprehensive list than the lists it com- prises. Table 2 presents the first 25 names on the TCL.4
- 24. Survey We surveyed, by e-mail, approximately 1,725 members of the American Psychological Soci- ety (APS). Working from the APS membership directory, each of 20 individuals who assisted on this research project sent the survey to ap- proximately 80 APS members. The appropriate pages of the directory were divided into 20 equal segments. The survey was then sent to every 10th name, or the next available name, for which an e-mail address was listed. In cases in which a return message indicated that the e-mail was not successfully delivered, additional names were sampled. Respondents were asked three questions: (a) “What is your specialization in psychology (e.g., developmental, social, cognitive, learn- ing)?” (b) “In your opinion, who are the three greatest psychologists of the 20th century in your specialization?” and (c) “In your opinion, who are the greatest psychologists of the 20th century in the overall field of psychology? (List as many names as you like in order of im- portance).” Respondents were informed that 4 The TCL can be seen in its entirety (both rank-ordered and alphabetical versions) at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/ �shaggblo/tcl.htm. Table 1 The 25 Psychologists Most Frequently Cited in the Professional Psychological Journal Literature
- 25. Rank Name Citation frequency 1 Freud, Sigmund 13,890 2 Piaget, Jean 8,821 3 Eysenck, H. J. 6,212 4 Winer, B. J. 6,206 5 Bandura, Albert 5,831 6 Siegel, S. 4,861 7 Cattell, Raymond B. 4,828 8 Skinner, B. F. 4,339 9 Osgood, Charles E. 4,061 10 Guilford, J. P. 4,006 11 Campbell, Donald T. 3,969 12 Festinger, Leon 3,536 13 Miller, George A. 3,394 14 Bruner, Jerome S. 3,279 15 Cronbach, Lee J. 3,253 16 Erikson, Erik H. 3,060 17 Edwards, A. L. 3,007 18 Rotter, Julian B. 3,001 19 Byrne, Donn 2,904 20 Kagan, Jerome 2,901 21 Wolpe, Joseph 2,879 22 Rosenthal, Robert 2,739 23 Underwood, Benton J. 2,686 24 Paivio, Allan 2,678 25 Rokeach, Milton 2,676 Note. The entire list of the 100 psychologists most fre- quently cited in the professional journal literature can be accessed on the World Wide Web at http://edtech.tph.wku. edu/�shaggblo/jcl.htm. Table 2 The 25 Psychologists Most Frequently Cited in
- 26. Introductory Psychology Textbooks Rank Name Citation frequency 1 Freud, Sigmund 560 2 Skinner, B. F. 310 3 Bandura, Albert 303 4 Piaget, Jean 240 5 Rogers, Carl 202 6 Schachter, Stanley 200 7 Harlow, Harry F. 175 8 Brown, Roger 162 9 Miller, Neal E. 154 10 McClelland, D. C. 153 11 Erikson, Erik H. 151 12 Milgram, Stanley 146 13 Seligman, Martin E. P. 143 14 Maslow, Abraham 142 15 Bower, Gordon H. 138 16 Kohlberg, Lawrence 128 17 Watson, John B. 127 18 Allport, Gordon W. 124 19 Festinger, Leon 121 20 Loftus, Elizabeth F. 120 21 Zajonc, R. B. 118 22 Pavlov, Ivan P. 117 23 Kagan, Jerome 116 24.5 Sternberg, Robert J. 114 24.5 Mischel, Walter 114 Note. The entire list of 100 psychologists most frequently cited in introductory psychology textbooks can be accessed on the World Wide Web at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/ �shaggblo/tcl.htm.
- 27. 142 HAGGBLOOM ET AL. T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an
- 30. so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss
- 31. em in at ed b ro ad ly . “greatest” was intentionally unexplicated to al- low for their individual interpretation. The survey response rate was a disappointing and inexplicably low 5.6%. Using only the re- sponses to the third question, we constructed a rank-ordered list of the 117 psychologists most frequently mentioned, the survey list (SL). (The list contained 117 rather than 100 names as a result of tied ranks at the end of the list.) The ordinal information contained in those re- sponses was not used because not all respon- dents presented an ordered list, and we doubted the validity of the ordinal information for espe- cially long lists. Given the low response rate, is the SL a valid measure of eminence? We saw no reason to discount the survey results despite the low re- sponse rate. In the first place, the SL has con-
- 32. siderable face validity; we think most of the names on the SL will be quite familiar to most psychologists, and many of those named will probably be recognized as eminent. More im- portant, 43 (37%) of the names on the SL are also on the JCL, and 47 (40%) of the names on the SL are also on the TCL. The commonality of names between the SL and the two citation frequency lists is essentially the same as the 40 (40%) names shared by the JCL and TCL. Moreover, there was a tendency for the names on the SL that were also on the JCL and TCL to be in the same rank order. The 43 names common to the SL and JCL were assigned ranks of 1 to 43 based on their ordinal position within their respective lists. The 47 names common to the SL and TCL were similarly assigned ranks from 1 to 47. Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients revealed significant ( p � .05) pos- itive correlations between both sets of ranks, rs(41) � .34 and rs(45) � .47, for names on the SL that were also on the JCL and TCL, respec- tively. These correlations were comparable to the rank-order correlation for the 40 names common to the JCL and TCL, rs(38) � .40, p � .05. Thus, the SL not only identified many of the same psychologists identified by the JCL and TCL but tended to identify them in the same order as well. We also think it is noteworthy that 20 of the psychologists who made the most eminent list reported here would have been ex- cluded from consideration under our procedures had we not used the survey data. As shown subsequently, 18 of those 20 had scores on
- 33. either two or all three of the qualitative variables. We do not expect the foregoing analyses to obviate all concerns about the validity of the SL. We would emphasize, however, that the SL is not presented as a stand-alone measure of eminence; rather, it is one of six measures con- tributing to a composite index. Legitimate con- cerns about validity could just as well be raised about the other measures we used, but, as shown subsequently, the resulting composite index is quite robust. Table 3 presents the first 26 names on the SL.5 Comparisons Among the JCL, TCL, and SL A master list of 219 psychologists comprised all of the different names on the JCL, TCL, and SL. Of these names, only 28 (13%) were com- mon to all three lists. The numbers of names unique to each list were as follows: JCL, 47 (47% of 100); TCL, 44 (43% of 102); and SL, 56 (48% of 117). Thus, these three variables each made substantial, but comparable, contri- butions to the measurement of eminence. We found some selected comparisons among the three lists to be both interesting and instructive about the differences among the three measures. Consider the cases of Pavlov, Watson, and Milgram. All three appear in the top one third of the TCL (with ranks of 22, 17, and 12, respec- tively), and all three also appear on the SL (with ranks of 6.5, 4, and 67, respectively), but none
- 34. of them appear on the JCL. Thus, textbook citation frequency and survey measures of em- inence clearly place Pavlov, Watson, and Mil- gram among the most eminent of 20th-century psychologists, but they are not among the top 100 psychologists in journal citation frequency and so, by that measure, are not among the most eminent. Pavlov and Watson appear on the TCL but fail to appear on the JCL for essentially the same reason. Both men made contributions to psychology that are of unarguably great histor- ical significance. The study of learning inaugu- rated by Pavlov, and for which his name is used 5 The SL can be seen in its entirety (both rank-ordered and alphabetical versions) at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/ �shaggblo/sl.htm. 143THE 100 MOST EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS T hi s do cu m en t i s co
- 37. in te nd ed s ol el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du
- 39. as an eponym, remains a very dynamic and important part of empirical and theoretical re- search in contemporary psychology. However, the terminology and general methodology of Pavlovian conditioning are so integral to the nomenclature of the discipline that contempo- rary researchers would often have little cause to cite Pavlov in a journal article. Essentially the same can be said of Watson. One can hardly overstate the magnitude of the historical signif- icance and continuing pervasive influence of Watson’s classic 1913 paper expounding the behaviorist viewpoint. On the other hand, ex- cept for historical, philosophical, or method- ological articles about behaviorism, most psy- chologists would probably have little occasion to cite Watson in a journal article. Because of their historical significance and continuing in- fluence, however, authors of introductory psy- chology textbooks can hardly not cite Pavlov and Watson. Milgram, although not among the 100 most cited in the journal literature, is prob- ably so extensively cited in introductory psy- chology textbooks primarily because his work on obedience to authority makes such good copy (i.e., students find it highly interesting) and because it had such important implications for protection of human research participants. In these and similar cases, the JCL and TCL are disparate measures of eminence, but used in conjunction they provide a more balanced picture. There are also psychologists identified as highly eminent by the JCL but not by the TCL.
- 40. In some cases, the high frequency of journal citations is due to authors referencing statistical procedures, instrumentation, or methodology. Thus, for example, Winer, Siegel (both statisti- cians), and Rotter (locus of control instrument) have ranks of 4, 6, and 18, respectively, on the JCL but, not surprisingly, do not appear on the TCL or SL. On the other hand, consider Herb Simon. Simon’s contributions to psychology are held in such high regard that he is among the most frequently cited in the professional journal literature (a rank of 32.5 on the JCL), and he was also judged to be among the most eminent psychologists by respondents to our survey (a rank of 24 on the SL), yet he is not cited frequently enough in introduction to psychol- ogy textbooks to have made the TCL and is thus not eminent by that measure. Why would a Nobel Prize–winning psychol- ogist not be extensively cited in introduction to psychology textbooks when his work is among the most highly regarded and cited in the pro- fessional literature? Should not introductory psychology textbooks, for many people the principal and only exposition of psychology, present the most highly regarded work the dis- cipline has to offer? That this is largely the case has been an explicit assumption of previous analyses of who is cited in introductory psy- chology textbooks (e.g., Kaess & Bousfield, 1954; Knapp, 1985; Perlman, 1980). However, as noted by Perlman (1980), introductory psy- chology textbooks likely often eschew presen- tation of highly technical and complicated re- search. Simon’s research on human decision
- 41. making very likely falls into that too-technical category. One might suspect that a survey would tend to identify as eminent the same psychologists whose work is most often cited in journals Table 3 The 26 Psychologists Most Frequently Named in the Survey Rank Name Frequency 1 Skinner, B. F. 58 2 Piaget, Jean 33 3 Freud, Sigmund 28 4 Watson, John B. 24 5 Bandura, Albert 23 6.5 James, William 21 6.5 Pavlov, Ivan P. 21 8 Lewin, Kurt 17 9.5 Rogers, Carl 14 9.5 Thorndike, Edward 14 11.5 Festinger, Leon 13 11.5 Hebb, D. O. 13 14.5 Allport, Gordon 11 14.5 Hull, Clark 11 14.5 Miller, Neal E. 11 14.5 Tolman, Edward C. 11 17 Erikson, Erik H. 10 19 Köhler, Wolfgang 9 19 Maslow, Abraham 9 19 Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich 9 21 Ainsworth, Mary D. 8 24 Eysenck, H. J. 7
- 42. 24 Luria, Alexander R. 7 24 Schachter, Stanley 7 24 Simon, Herbert 7 24 Sperry, Roger W. 7 Note. The entire list of 100 psychologists most frequently named in the survey can be accessed on the World Wide Web at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/�shaggblo/sl.htm. 144 HAGGBLOOM ET AL. T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th
- 45. y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n
- 46. ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . and introduction to psychology textbooks and whose names are therefore relatively familiar. Although this may indeed be true to some ex- tent, it is perhaps noteworthy that the SL also uniquely identified many individuals as emi- nent; 48% of the names on the SL are unique to that list. As examples, Tolman, Vygotsky, and Köhler had ranks on the SL of 14.5, 19, and 19, respectively, but none of them appeared on ei- ther the JCL or the TCL. Thus, these three psychologists are among the most eminent as
- 47. measured by our survey, but not as measured by journal citations or introductory textbook cita- tions. Their presence in the top 20% of the SL strongly indicates they merit some consider- ation for the most eminent list, consideration that, as stated earlier, would not be forthcoming without use of the survey measure. The foregoing, albeit selected, comparisons among the JCL, TCL, and SL illustrate some of the limitations inherent in any single-criterion measure of eminence. Also, they strengthen the rationale for our multiple-criterion approach. Qualitative Measures of Eminence The JCL, TCL, and SL, as described earlier, are quantitative measures. We also used three qualitative measures of eminence that were ap- plied to the 219 different names that appear on the JCL, TCL, and SL. The qualitative variables we used were whether or not a given psychol- ogist (a) was elected to the NAS; (b) was a recipient of the APA Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award or elected APA president (as of 1999), or both; and (c) has his or her surname in use as an eponym. We refer to these qualitative variables as, respectively, NAS, APA, and EP. We combined APA award and APA presidency into a single APA variable on the assumption that, in many cases, the very scientific contributions that led to receipt of the award were also instrumental in an individual’s election as APA president. (In fact, roughly one quarter [24%] of the psychologists in this study who received credit on the APA variable served
- 48. as APA president and received the Outstanding Scientific Contributions Award.) Our source for eponyms was an unpublished list referenced by Roeckelein (1995) that included eponyms iden- tified by Zusne (1987). Calculation of Composite Scores Because frequency scores on the JCL, TCL, and SL were positively skewed, they were transformed to logarithms. For each list, the log-transformed scores were then converted to z scores. The three qualitative variables were con- verted to a single quantitative variable by as- signing each of the 219 names on the master list a score of 0, 1, 2, or 3 corresponding to the number of qualitative variables for which an individual received credit. These scores were converted to z scores without being subjected to a logarithmic transformation. For each name, we then calculated a composite score represent- ing the mean z score across all four variables (JCL, TCL, SL, and the quantified qualitative variables). For names that do not have a score on one or more of the four variables, calculating a com- posite score as the mean z score across all four variables is problematic. These names must be assigned some score in place of the missing value(s); otherwise, the composite score will be inflated rather than reflecting the adverse con- sequences of not being on a list. The solution that we used for names not on the JCL or TCL represents a sort of compromise. In the first place, we think it is highly unlikely that for
- 49. names on the master list that do not appear on the JCL or TCL, the actual number of citations is zero. Because the actual number of citations is somewhere between zero and one less than the smallest frequency required to make the list, we replaced missing values with the z score of the logarithm of the frequency score midway between those two values. The situation is more straightforward for names that were not on the SL or did not receive credit for any of the qualitative variables. In these cases, the real frequency was zero. For names not on the SL, we replaced missing values with the z score for a logarithmic score of zero, and for names with no qualitative variable credit, we used the z score for a frequency score of zero. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 4 as a rank-ordered list of the 100 (99 actually presented) most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. For each name, Table 4 also shows the rank on each quantitative variable and the qualitative variables for which credit was given by indicating the relevant date and eponym. In cases of multiple eponyms associ- 145THE 100 MOST EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS T hi s do cu m
- 54. ly . Table 4 The 100 (99 Reported) Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century Rank Name JCL rank TCL rank SL rank NAS APA award/ president Eponym 1 Skinner, B. F. 8 2 1 1950 1958/— Skinnerian 2 Piaget, Jean 2 4 2 1966 1969/— Piagetian 3 Freud, Sigmund 1 1 3 — —/— Freudian 4 Bandura, Albert 5 3 5 — 1980/1974 Bandura’s social learning theory 5 Festinger, Leon 12 19 11.5 1972 1959/— Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory 6 Rogers, Carl R. 28.5 5 9.5 — 1956/1947 Rogerian therapy 7 Schachter, Stanley 46 6 24 1983 1969/— Schachter’s affiliation studies 8 Miller, Neal E. 13 9 14.5 1958 1959/1961 9 Thorndike, Edward 40 50 9.5 1917 —/1912 Thorndike’s puzzle box
- 55. 10 Maslow, A. H. 37 14 19 — —/1968 Maslow’s hierarchy 11 Allport, Gordon W. 51 18 14.5 — 1964/1939 Allport A–S reaction study 12 Erikson, Erik H. 16 11 17 — —/— Erikson’s psychosocial stages 13 Eysenck, H. J. 3 30 24 — —/— Eysenck personality inventory 14 James, William — 29 6.5 1906 —/1904 James–Lange theory of emotion 15 McClelland, David C. 34 10 31 — 1987/— 16 Cattell, Raymond B. 7 37 31 — —/— Cattell 16 Factor Personality Questionnaire 17 Watson, John B. — 17 4 — —/1915 Watsonian behaviorism 18 Lewin, Kurt 47 73.5 8 — —/— Lewinian psychology 19 Hebb, D. O. 58 — 11.5 1979 1961/1960 Hebbian 20 Miller, George A. 43 46 67 1962 1963/1969 21 Hull, Clark L. 73 73.5 14.5 1936 —/1936 Hullian 22 Kagan, Jerome 20 23 67 — 1987/— 23 Jung, C. G. 50 40 39.5 — —/— Jungian 24 Pavlov, Ivan P. — 22 6.5 — —/— Pavlovian 25 Mischel, Walter 48 24.5 67 — 1982/— 26 Harlow, Harry F. 100 7 51 1951 1960/1958 27 Guilford, J. P. 10 61 — 1954 1964/1950 Guilford–Martin personnel inventory 28 Bruner, Jerome S. 14 70.5 31 — 1962/1965 29 Hilgard, Ernest R. 67 27 51 1948 1967/1949 30 Kohlberg, Lawrence 39 16 97 — —/— Kohlberg stages of moral development 31 Seligman, Martin E. P. 93 13 31 — —/1998 32 Neisser, Ulric 59 71 31 1984 —/— 33 Campbell, Donald T. 11 — 67 1973 1970/1975 Campbell’s design approach 34 Brown, Roger 30 8 — 1972 —/— 35 Zajonc, R. B. — 21 39.5 — 1978/— Zajonc social facilitation
- 56. 36 Tulving, Endel 32.5 47.5 — 1988 1983/— 37 Simon, Herbert A. 32.5 — 24 1953 1969/— 38 Chomsky, Noam — 28 39.5 1972 1984/— 39 Jones, Edward E. 57 44.5 — — 1977/— Jones’s correspondent inference theory 40 Osgood, Charles E. 9 — 97 1972 1960/1963 Osgood’s transfer surface 41 Asch, Solomon E. 74 31 97 — 1967/— Asch situation 42 Bower, Gordon H. — 15 67 1973 1979/— 43 Kelley, Harold H. 72 35 — 1978 1971/— Kelley’s attribution theory 44 Sperry, Roger W. — 64 24 1960 1971/— 45 Tolman, Edward C. — — 14.5 1937 1957/1937 Tolman’s purposive behaviorism 46 Milgram, Stanley — 12 67 — —/— Milgram’s obedience studies 47 Jensen, Arthur R. 28.5 56 97 — —/— 48 Cronbach, Lee J. 15 — — 1974 1973/1957 Cronbach’s coefficient alpha 49 Bowlby, John 55 — 31 — 1989/— 50 Köhler, Wolfgang — — 19 1947 1956/1959 Köhler’s prism experiments 51 Wechsler, David 49 — 39.5 — —/— Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale 52 Stevens, S. S. 27 — — 1946 1960/— Stevens’s power law 53 Wolpe, Joseph 21 43 — — —/— 54 Broadbent, D. E. 41 — — 1970 1975/— Broadbent’s filter model 55 Shepard, Roger N. 56 — — 1977 1976/— Kruskel–Shepard scaling 146 HAGGBLOOM ET AL. T hi
- 61. ed b ro ad ly . ated with the same name, only one is presented. Dashes or empty cells indicate that no credit was given for the corresponding variable.6 The logarithmic transformations applied to frequency scores and the quantification of the qualitative variables were procedures not used in the originally submitted manuscript. These procedures were recommended by a reviewer and the editor. In the original manuscript, fre- 6 Table 4, including an alphabetical version, is available on the World Wide Web at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/ �shaggblo/Table4.htm. Table 4 (continued) Rank Name JCL rank TCL rank
- 62. SL rank NAS APA award/ president Eponym 56 Posner, Michael I. 61 — 97 1981 1980/— 57 Newcomb, Theodore M. 76 81.5 — 1974 1976/1956 Newcomb’s attraction studies 58 Loftus, Elizabeth F. — 20 51 — —/— 59 Ekman, Paul — 26 97 — 1991/— 60 Sternberg, Robert J. — 24.5 51 — —/— 61 Lashley, Karl S. — — 39.5 1930 —/1929 Lashley’s jumping stand 62 Spence, Kenneth 66 — 51 1955 1956/— 63 Deutsch, Morton 38 — — — 1987/— Deutsch illusion 64 Rotter, Julian B. 18 — — — 1988/— Rotter locus of control scale 65 Lorenz, Konrad — 39 97 1966 —/— 66 Underwood, Benton J. 23 — — 1970 1973/— 67 Adler, Alfred — 55 67 — —/— Adlerian 68 Rutter, Michael 44 — 97 — 1995/— 69 Luria, Alexander R. — — 24 1968 —/— Luria–Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery 70 Maccoby, Eleanor E. 68 — 67 1993 1988/— 71 Plomin, Robert 86 70.5 51 — —/— 72.5 Hall, G. Stanley — — 67 1915 —/1924 Hall’s theory of interpersonal zones 72.5 Terman, Lewis M. — — 67 1928 —/1923 Terman– McNemar Test of Mental Ability 74.5 Gibson, Eleanor J. — — 31 1971 1968/— 74.5 Meehl, Paul E. — — 31 1987 1958/1962 76 Berkowitz, Leonard 42 75 — — —/— 77 Estes, William K. 64 — 97 1963 1962/— 78 Aronson, Eliot — 32 — — 1999/— 79 Janis, Irving L. — 33 — — 1981/—
- 63. 80 Lazarus, Richard S. — 34 — — 1989/— 81 Cannon, W. Gary — 68 — 1914 —/— Cannon–Bard theory of emotion 82 Edwards, A. L. 17 — — — —/— Edwards’s personal preference schedule 83 Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich — — 19 — —/— Vygotsky test 84 Rosenthal, Robert 22 — — — —/— Rosenthal effect 85 Rokeach, Milton 25 — — — —/— Rokeach value survey 88.5 Garcia, John — — 97 1983 1979/— Garcia effect 88.5 Gibson, James J. — — 97 1967 1961/— Gibson theory of space perception 88.5 Rumelhart, David — — 97 1991 1996/— Rumelhart– Lindsay–Norman process model 88.5 Thurston, L. L. — — 97 1938 —/1933 Thurston Attitude Scale 88.5 Washburn, Margarete — — 97 1931 —/1921 Cannon– Washburn experiment 88.5 Woodworth, Robert — — 97 1921 —/1914 Woodworth personal data sheet 93.5 Boring, Edwin G. — — 51 1932 —/1928 93.5 Dewey, John — — 51 1910 —/1899 93.5 Tversky, Amos — — 51 1985 1982/— 93.5 Wundt, Wilhelm — — 51 1909 —/— Wundt’s emotional laws 96 Witkin, Herman A. 31 — — — —/— Witkin field independence 97 Ainsworth, Mary D. — — 21 — 1989/— 98 Mowrer, O. Hobart 77 — 51 — —/1954 99 Freud, Anna 45 — 97 — —/— Note. JCL � journal citation list; TCL � textbook citation list; SL � survey list; NAS � National Academy of Sciences; APA � American Psychological Association. 147THE 100 MOST EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS
- 67. na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em
- 68. in at ed b ro ad ly . quency scores (rather than logarithms) on the JCL, TCL, and SL were converted to z scores that were then averaged across the three lists to produce a rank-ordered list of 219 names. The qualitative variables were then used to “adjust” the position of names upward or downward on the list. We think it reflects favorably on the present use of six separate measures of emi- nence that the logarithmic transformation and quantification of the qualitative variables, a sub- stantial change in the treatment of the data, had almost no effect on who made the final list. Only 10 names from the original list were re- placed by new names, and 9 of those changes occurred in positions 76 to 100. Of the original top 25, only 5 were replaced by new names, but those names all came from relatively high po- sitions (26 to 44) in the original list, and only 2 of the top 10 changed. For the entire list, the mean change in ordinal position due to the revised analysis was 2.05 positions (SD � 16.79). This is a testament to the robust nature
- 69. of the combined measures.7 Predictors of Eminence For the 219 different psychologists on the master list (which comprised the JCL, TCL, and SL), the best predictors of eminence were the qualitative variables. Of the 100 most eminent psychologists, 28 received credit for all three qualitative variables, and 59 received credit for at least two qualitative variables. Only 8 made the final list without credit for a qualitative variable (Jensen, Wolpe, E. Loftus, Sternberg, Plomin, Berkowitz, A. Freud, and No. 100). In general, these individuals all had relatively high scores on two of the three quantitative variables. The NAS and APA variables were equally pre- dictive, followed closely by the EP variable. The master list contained 67 NAS members. Of those, 53 made the most eminent list. Thus, given that an individual on the master list was a member of NAS, the probability of that individ- ual being on the most eminent list was .79. That NAS membership should be such a strong pre- dictor of eminence is not surprising. Over (1981) reported data suggesting that less than one tenth of 1% of all American psychologists are likely to be honored by election to NAS. Having been APA president or a recipient of the APA Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award was an equally good predictor of emi- nence. A total of 89 psychologists on the master list received credit for the APA variable. Of those, 70 made the most eminent list, a proba-
- 70. bility of .79. Simonton (1992), in presenting a profile of the typical eminent American psy- chologist, noted that he or she would have al- most a .50 probability of being honored by election to the APA presidency. Although only 32 of the 100 psychologists on our most eminent list were elected APA president, Sim- onton (1992) studied eminent psychologists who were deceased by 1967. The present most eminent list included many contemporary psy- chologists who, because of the growth in num- ber of psychologists and outstanding presiden- tial candidates and the decreasing trend of elect- ing academic psychologists, very likely had much less of a chance of being elected APA president (Simonton, 1992). We found eponyms associated with 77 of the 219 names on the master list. Of those 77, 52 made the most eminent list, representing a pre- dictive probability of .74. The eponym variable is somewhat problematic because there seems intuitively to be quite a difference between ep- onyms such as “Skinnerian,” “Freudian,” or “Pavlovian,” on the one hand, and eponyms such as “Festinger’s cognitive dissonance the- ory” or “Newcomb’s attraction studies,” on the other hand. Then, too, there are eponyms that seem to be somewhere in between those ex- tremes, for example, “Maslow’s hierarchy” and “James–Lange theory of emotion.” As one re- viewer asked, “Why don’t we say ‘Miller’s magical number seven’ or ‘Sperry’s split-brain studies’?” Actually, we suspect we do use these expres-
- 71. sions in print. However, our source for eponyms was a list referenced by Roeckelein (1995) that included eponyms reported by Zusne (1987). Roeckelein constructed his list of eponyms from the entries in 7 different dictionaries of psychology, entries in the subject index from 30 specialty area textbooks published from 1953 to 1994, and Zusne’s book. That is a reasonably wide net, and the eponyms listed in Table 4 are evidently in sufficiently widespread use to have been caught by it. Of the 52 eponyms listed in 7 A description of the original data analysis and resulting most eminent list is available on the World Wide Web at http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/�shaggblo/greatestold.htm. 148 HAGGBLOOM ET AL. T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri
- 74. nd ed s ol el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u
- 75. se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . Table 4, 36 (69%) appeared in two or more of the sources used by Roeckelein (1995). The many possible eponyms one could conceivably associate with the remaining names appearing
- 76. in Table 4 were evidently below the threshold of detection of the Roeckelein (1995) study. This is simply on a par with the fact that 37 names on the most eminent list were not on the JCL. As noted earlier, it is unlikely they have citation frequencies of zero; they were simply below the threshold of detection for the JCL. Among the quantitative variables, the best predictors of eminence were journal citations and the survey. The JCL contributed 63 names to the most eminent list ( p � .63), and the SL contributed 76 (of a total of 117; p � .65). Introductory textbook citations turned out to be the weakest predictor of eminence. The TCL contributed only 55 (of 102) names to the most eminent list ( p � .54). We remain undecided as to whether this informs us about the value of textbook citation frequency as a measure of eminence or informs us about the quality of introductory psychology textbooks. Bias It was suggested to us that the measures of eminence used in this study might have favored American psychologists. Some measures might also have favored those whose significant con- tributions occurred more toward the latter part of the 20th century. Consider first the possibility of temporal bias. We suggest that the qualitative variables NAS, APA, and EP are largely free of temporal bias. The NAS and APA variables span the century. The NAS was established in 1863, and the first psychologist elected to NAS membership was James McKeen Cattell in 1901
- 77. (Over, 1981). The APA Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award dates only to 1956 and might somewhat favor psychologists who were most productive in the latter part of the 20th century, but the APA presidency dates to 1892. Moreover, some of the earliest recipients of the APA award made significant contributions to psychology relatively early in the century (e.g., Köhler, K. Spence, and Tolman). Finally, al- though it might sometimes take time for an eponym to become established and used, and over time some eponyms will fall into disuse, the EP variable is not time dependent in any systematic way. For the most part, it seems likely that the qualitative variables would work to partially mitigate any temporal bias that might arise from the quantitative variables. The JCL, TCL, and SL were based on data collected mostly in the latter part of the century. Prima facie, we think the JCL, despite the fact that Freud ranked first on that list, would tend to favor more contemporary psychologists be- cause journal articles usually cite relatively con- temporaneous works.8 On the other hand, whereas introductory psychology textbooks do cite contemporarily important psychologists, they give considerable emphasis to historically older, well-established authorities. Gorenflo and McConnell (1991) reported that it takes about 20 years for an article to acquire the status of a “classic” work and become consistently cited in introductory psychology textbooks. Thus, whereas the JCL might involve a recency bias, the TCL might involve an offsetting historically
- 78. older bias even though it was based on rela- tively recent textbooks. Finally, because survey respondents were free to name psychologists from any part of the century, we would not expect the SL to have a systematic temporal bias. One might attempt an empirical evaluation of the JCL, TCL, and SL to determine whether any one of them contains a disproportionate number of names from the early, middle, or late part of the century. However, it is not clear what the correct proportions should be. There were rela- tively few “psychologists” at the beginning of the century; today there are more than 159,000 who are members of APA and a very sizable number more who are not members of APA. In our view, approximately 25% of the most emi- nent psychologists listed in Table 4 might rea- sonably be said to have made their significant research contributions during the first half of the century. Given the growth in the number of psychologists during the century, that figure does not strike us as obviously disproportionate. 8 We were not aware of any empirical data to support this assertion, so we examined the reference list of one quasi- randomly selected article from each of eight different psy- chology journals published between 1969 and 1994. The age of a reference was calculated by subtracting the publi- cation year of the reference from the publication year of the article in which it was cited. The mean age of the 141 references listed in these articles was 8.38 years (SD � 9.19). The modal age was 4 years. 149THE 100 MOST EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS
- 82. na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em
- 83. in at ed b ro ad ly . Much more problematic is the extent to which the most eminent list has an American and English-language bias. This is difficult to evaluate because contemporary psychology is so dominated by Americans (Simonton, 1992). Nevertheless, our sources were all essentially American sources. Although the NAS variable included foreign associates (e.g., Broadbent, Milner, and Piaget), and non-American psy- chologists have received the APA Distin- guished Scientific Contributions Award, it seems likely that such recognition would be disproportionately conferred upon American psychologists. Moreover, we used American journals and textbooks, and we essentially sur- veyed American psychologists. Although all of these sources contributed non-American names, and non-American names do appear in the most eminent list, the variables we used are never- theless likely to have favored American psy- chologists. Only the eponym variable seems
- 84. somewhat neutral with respect to nationality, but even there our sources were American prod- ucts. Thus, the most eminent list reported here is probably somewhat biased in favor of American psychologists. Comparisons With Other Studies and Measures of Eminence The most eminent list reported here, for the most part, included the names of psychologists other studies and measures have identified as among the most eminent. Annin et al. (1968), for example, assembled a list of names of some 1,040 people they judged to be important to the history of psychology from 1600 to 1967. Excluded from the list were any psychologists still living in 1967. Nine psychologists then rated each name on a scale of 1 to 3. A score of 1 indicated that the juror recognized the name but could not specify the person’s contribution to psychology. A score of 2 meant that the juror was at least somewhat familiar with the per- son’s contribution. A score of 3 was given if, in the juror’s opinion, the person was “of such distinction that his name should surely be in- cluded in a list of the 500 most important psy- chologists since 1600 and not living” (Annin et al., 1968, p. 304). A total score for each name was calculated by summing scores across ju- rors. The total scores were used to construct a list of 538 important contributors to psychology arranged into rank-ordered categories. Names in the highest category all received a total score of 27 (i.e., 3 points from each of the nine
- 85. jurors). Names in the next category received 26 points, and so on. Of the names on the Annin et al. (1968) list, 21 appear on the most eminent list reported here, and 17 of those 21 were in the top cate- gory of the Annin et al. list, a category with a total of 53 names. If one removes from the top category of the Annin et al. list the names of individuals not generally considered to be psy- chologists (e.g., Charles Darwin, René Des- cartes, and David Hume) and the names of psychologists whose contributions were not made in the 20th century (e.g., Gustav Fechner and Johann Herbart), roughly one half of the remaining names appear on the most eminent list reported here. Coan and Zagona (1962) asked experts (mostly teachers of history of psychology) to rate 142 candidate psychologists according to “importance of contributions to psychological theory” (p. 316). They reported a list of the 75 most highly rated. They also reported a list of 54 that comprised the top 50 overall and the top 10 in each of nine decades from 1880 –1889 to 1950 –1959. After removal of non-20th-cen- tury psychologists, our list captured 47% of their top 75 and 58% of the list of 54. We think this degree of agreement between our 100 most eminent list (Table 4) and (a) the top category of 53 names in the Annin et al. (1968) list and (b) the two lists reported by Coan and Zagona (1962) is actually quite good. All three lists were based on a single measure of
- 86. eminence, expert ratings, and were compiled in the 1960s. The proportion of 20th-century psy- chologists in each of these three lists appearing in Table 4 is about the same as the proportion of names in Table 4 contributed by any one of the variables used here. Moreover, there has been a third of a century of psychology since those lists were compiled. Korn et al. (1991) surveyed historians of psy- chology and psychology department chairs, ask- ing both groups to list the most important psy- chologists of all time and the most important contemporary psychologists. They reported four short (9 to 11 names) rank-ordered lists of the most important psychologists: historian all time, historian contemporary, department chair all time, and department chair contemporary. Only 150 HAGGBLOOM ET AL. T hi s do cu m en t i s co
- 89. in te nd ed s ol el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du
- 90. al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . three 20th-century psychologists on the Korn et
- 91. al. lists are not on the most eminent list reported in Table 4 here. The least agreement was with the historian all time list, which included Binet and Ebbinghaus, neither of whom appear among the names in Table 4 (both, however, did appear in the SL). All of the 20th-century psy- chologists’ names on the historian contempo- rary and department chair all time lists appear in Table 4, and only one name (Rescorla) on the department chair contemporary list is not in- cluded in Table 4. Thus, we identified as among the most eminent virtually all of the psycholo- gists identified by Korn et al. Moore and Seberhagen (cited in Myers, 1970) asked department chairs to name, in rank order, the 10 most influential contemporary psy- chologists and the 10 most influential from any time period. Myers (1970) presented the result- ing two lists of the top 10 names. All but one 20th-century psychologist (Binet) on those lists appeared in our most eminent list. To the best of our knowledge, nine psychologists have been awarded the National Medal of Science: Anne Anastasi, William Estes, Eleanor Gibson, George Miller, Neal Miller, Herbert Simon, Roger Shepard, B. F. Skinner, and Roger Sperry. All except Anastasi (who made the SL) appear in Table 4 here. The preceding comparisons with other stud- ies and measures of eminence are not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, they show that our approach to measuring eminence in psychol- ogy resulted in a most eminent list that very likely includes the vast majority of psychol-
- 92. ogists who should be on such a list. Bear in mind that, in relation to the very large number of 20th-century psychologists, our most emi- nent list is a very short list and necessarily omits many truly eminent psychologists. We would argue, for example, that psychologists who meet our NAS or APA criteria but do not appear in our most eminent list are neverthe- less very eminent psychologists, but they may not be among the 100 most eminent (or, of course, a psychologist may be No. 100 and not reported here). Does our most eminent list include some false positives? We think it very likely does, but because a specific case is far from obvious, we are reluctant to speculate on this point. Applications As stated earlier, we believe that the most eminent list reported here will be of consider- able interest to the psychological community. Beyond that, the list has much potential for use in studies in the psychology of science, in his- torical studies of 20th-century psychology, and in the psychology classroom. Just a few of the possibilities are described subsequently. Simonton (1992) described characteristics of the typical eminent American psychologist. How general is that characterization of emi- nence? Would a similar characterization emerge from an analysis of the present most eminent list? What distinguishes the roughly one half of the psychologists in NAS who are on the most eminent list from the remainder who are not? It
- 93. would be informative to know whether these two groups can be distinguished on the basis of the dimensions of theoretical orientation used by Simonton (2000). The psychology of science review article by Feist and Gorman (1998) is also a rich source of questions that could be asked about the psychol- ogists on the most eminent list. Perhaps histo- rians of psychology will find the most eminent list useful for purposes such as evaluating how psychology evolved over the century and how different schools of thought are represented or may have shaped the list. Finally, teaching applications, especially for introductory psychology and history of psychol- ogy classes, are practically limitless. For exam- ple, one could have students (a) identify the seminal contribution(s) of one or more of the psychologists on the list, (b) debate the relative rankings of two psychologists, (c) develop an argument for why a particular psychologist who is not on the most eminent list should be (or vice versa), or (d) write one or more biographies of eminent psychologists. Moreover, a book of readings comprising the seminal works of the psychologists on the most eminent list would make a tremendous overview of 20th-century psychology. References Annin, E. L., Boring, E. G., & Watson, R. L. (1968). Important psychologists, 1600 –1967. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 4, 303–
- 94. 315. 151THE 100 MOST EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic
- 97. er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di
- 98. ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . Cattell, J. M. (1910). A further statistical study of American men of science. Science, 32, 648 – 663. A century of psychology. (1999). APA Monitor, 30, 14 –29. Coan, R. W., & Zagona, S. V. (1962). Contemporary ratings of psychological theorists. Psychological Record, 12, 315–322. Diaconis, P. (1978). Statistical problems in ESP re- search. Science, 201, 131–136. Endler, N. S., Rushton, J. P., & Roediger, H. L. (1978). Productivity and scholarly impact (cita- tions) of British, Canadian, and U.S. departments of psychology. American Psychologist, 33, 1064 – 1082.
- 99. Feist, G. L., & Gorman, M. E. (1998). The psychol- ogy of science: Review and integration of a nas- cent discipline. Review of General Psychology, 2, 3– 47. Garfield, E. (1977, December 5). The 250 most-cited primary authors, 1961–1975. Part 1. How the names were selected. Current Contents, pp. 5–15. Garfield, E. (1978, September 18). The 100 most- cited SSCI authors, 1969 –1977. 1. How the names were selected. Current Contents, pp. 5–15. Garfield, E. (1992, October 12). Psychology re- search, 1986 –1990: A citationist perspective on the highest impact papers, institutions, and au- thors. Current Contents, pp. 155–165. Gorenflo, D., & McConnell, J. (1991). The most frequently cited journal articles and authors in in- troductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psy- chology, 18, 8 –12. Kaess, W. A., & Bousfield, W. A. (1954). The use of citations of authorities in textbooks of introductory psychology. American Psychologist, 9, 144 –148. Knapp, T. (1985). Who’s who in American introduc- tory psychology textbooks: A citation study. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 15–17. Korn, J. H., Davis, R., & Davis, S. F. (1991). Histo- rians’ and chairpersons’ judgements of eminence among psychologists. American Psychologist, 46,
- 100. 789 –792. Myers, C. R. (1970). Journal citations and scientific eminence in contemporary psychology. American Psychologist, 25, 1041–1048. Over, R. (1981). Affiliations of psychologists elected to the National Academy of Sciences. American Psychologist, 36, 744 –752. Perlman, D. (1980). Who’s who in psychology: En- dler et al.’s SSCI scores versus a textbook defini- tion. American Psychologist, 35, 104 –106. Roeckelein, J. E. (1972). Eponymy in psychology. American Psychologist, 27, 657– 659. Roeckelein, J. E. (1995). Naming in psychology: Analyses of citation counts and eponyms. Psycho- logical Reports, 77, 163–174. Roeckelein, J. E. (1996). Contributions to the history of psychology: CIV. Eminence in psychology as measured by name counts and eponyms. Psycho- logical Reports, 78, 243–253. Simonton, D. K. (1992). Leaders of American psy- chology, 1879 –1967: Career development, cre- ative output, and professional achievement. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 5–17. Simonton, D. K. (2000). Methodological and theo- retical orientation and the long-term disciplinary impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 4, 13–24.
- 101. Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158 –177. Zusne, L. (1987). Eponyms in psychology: A dictio- nary and biographical source book. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Received March 16, 2001 Revision received September 5, 2001 Accepted September 7, 2001 � 152 HAGGBLOOM ET AL. T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te
- 104. s ol el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a
- 107. 0.35995204.034052.19702009Q40.2200.016- 4.86897195.147030.00802010Q12.2221.296- 5.03832216.2576810.64802010Q2-0.5199.753.08382202.83382- 0.12502010Q31.9213.718-2.0917211.62636.85902010Q4- 1.8188.3365.11324193.44924-5.83202011Q1-0.2199.984- 2.88855197.09545- 0.00802011Q20.3200.0540.6839200.73790.02702011Q30.8201. 0249.43808210.462080.51202011Q40.5200.25- 2.83224197.417760.12502012Q11.6208.192- 10.93135197.260654.09602012Q20.4200.1287.53604207.66404 0.06402012Q32.1218.5228.82113227.343139.26102012Q42.422 7.648- 2.17719225.4708113.82402013Q11.6208.1924.04371212.23571 4.09602013Q23.5285.752.84716288.5971642.87502013Q31.420 5.488-5.15246450.335542.74412013Q40.5200.25- 9.6624190.58760.12502014Q11.6208.192- 7.14915201.042854.09602014Q2-0.5199.75-5.56731194.18269- 0.12502014Q30.8201.0241.81855202.842550.51202014Q4- 2.3175.666-12.63185163.03415-12.16702015Q1- 2.3175.6666.87411182.54011-12.16702015Q2-2.2178.704- 2.20995176.49405-10.64802015Q3- 0.1199.9980.41077200.40877-0.00102015Q4-2184- 7.56729176.43271-802016Q1-1.6191.808-6.86339184.94461- 4.0960 1The Science of Psychology Alex Treadway/National Geographic/Getty Images Focus Questions By the end of the chapter, you should be able to answer the following questions:
- 108. ሁ How is psychology defined? ሁ What are the principal responsibilities of members of the main divisions in psychology? ሁ What were the key contributions of psychology’s early pioneers? ሁ What are some of the main sources of psychological information? ሁ What are the identifying characteristics of the scientific method? ሁ What are some key types of descriptive research? ሁ How does descriptive research differ from experiments and ex post facto studies? ሁ What is the correlation fallacy? ሁ What are some of the main sources of error in interpreting the results of psychological investigations? © 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 1.1What Is Psychology? Chapter Outline 1.1 What Is Psychology? 1.2 Early Origins of Psychology Structuralism Functionalism 1.3 Current Approaches to Psychology Behaviorism Psychodynamic Theory
- 109. Cognitivism Humanism Sociocultural Perspective Biological/Physiological/Psychological Approaches 1.4 Psychology as a Science 1.5 Sources of Psychological Information Descriptive Research Correlational Research Experiments Ex Post Facto Studies 1.6 Interpreting Psychological Research Experimenter Bias Subject Bias Sampling Bias The Correlation Fallacy Other Problems of Psychological Research 1.7 Philosophical Issues and Psychological Controversy 1.8 The Relevance of Psychology 1.9 This Book The purpose of psychology is to give us a completely different idea of the things we know best. —Paul Valéry, Tel Quel, 1943 My grandmother was convinced she knew best. “Not true,” she
- 110. would declare when I tried to tell her what I was learning as a novice psychology student. And then, her needles clacking, she would go on to inform me that boys who mature early are always messed up later. She also believed that people use only 10 percent of their brain because that is what she had read some- where. And she knew that those suffering from mental disorders are like night and day from her and other sane people. Nor did she trust psychologists: “They have sneaky ways of looking into people’s minds,” she informed me. “Except they have no power over people who have ESP.” “And mark my word,” she said one time, “most geniuses are crazy.” “But you don’t have to worry,” she added. 1.1 What Is Psychology? These and a wide range of similar beliefs make up what is sometimes called bubba psychol- ogy (bubba or bubbe—or sometimes bubbie—means grandmother in some Eastern European languages). Bubba psychology is also labeled naïve psychology or folk psychology. It is made up of our unexamined, intuitive beliefs about people and human behavior, and should not be confused with pop psychology. Pop—or popular—psychology is made up of concepts and theories about human behavior that are purported to be founded on academic psychology but that are instead based on simplistic and superficial interpretations that are popularized in magazine articles and by radio and television personalities. Pop psychology has prolifer- ated in online self-help sites, talk shows, advice columns, and
- 111. television and movie dramas. © 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 1.1What Is Psychology? Unlike bubba (or folk) psychology, pop psychology pretends to be the real thing, although from a scien- tific point of view, it is generally considered to be a form of pseudopsychology. Psychological research has not been kind to many of my grandmother’s beliefs—which is not to say all our folk wisdom is untrue or that psychology’s beliefs are always correct. In fact, much of our folk wisdom is correct; and psychology, like most sci- ences, does occasionally change its mind. My grandmother’s belief that psychologists have devious ways of peering into one’s mind is one rea- son why it is important to have a clear understand- ing of what psychology is and is not. While it is true that the goal of psychology is to solve the puzzles of human thought and behavior, it is a science and not a collection of special powers. In its simplest sense, psychology is the science that studies human behavior and mental processes. Unfortunately, this definition does little justice to the tremendous variety of activities and interests that make up the field. In fact, the nearly 90,000 members of the American Psychological Associa- tion (APA) divide themselves into 54 different divi-
- 112. sions (APA, 2014a). These divisions reflect different interests and specializations such as the study of aging or the application of psychological knowledge and principles in clinical settings. Almost 58 per- cent of APA members are women. What different psychologists do varies a great deal. As Figure 1.1 shows, the vast majority of psychologists are involved in the practical application of psychological knowledge. Nearly 40 percent of all psy- chologists are clinical psychologists. These are typically psychologists working in a hospital or clinical setting. They specialize in helping people with psychological prob- lems such as anxiety, depression, addiction, or relationship problems. Although clinical psychologists and psychi- atrists often treat similar sorts of problems, the training and expertise of each is quite different. Psychiatrists are medical doctors with specialized training in identifying and Photos.com/Thinkstock ሁ Psychology, like most sciences, occasionally changes its mind. We no longer believe that the bumps and lumps on our skulls are roadmaps to our personalities, although early in the 19th century, we were pretty certain that was the case. Pamela Moore/Getty Images ሁ Nearly half of all psychologists are clinical
- 113. psychologists specializing in helping people with psychological problems. Unlike psychiatrists, they are not usually medical doctors and cannot typically prescribe medication. © 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 1.1What Is Psychology? treating mental and emotional disorders (discussed in Chapter 10). In addition to the various other interventions they might use, they can prescribe drugs, which are now commonly used to treat many disorders ranging from mild anxiety to severe deviations from normality. In most jurisdictions, clinical psychologists cannot write prescriptions. Figure 1.1: Main specialties in psychology ሁ There are 54 recognized specialties in psychology. The interests and activities of many psychologists place them in more than a single category. Counseling 5.8% School 2.5% Educational 1.3% Industrial/Organizational 3%
- 114. Health 1.3% Developmental 1.8% Experimental 0.8% Social 1.5% Other 42.9% Clinical 39.1% f01.01 Source: Based on a survey of the American Psychological Association’s 80,067 members in 2014. Data from APA Member Profiles, 2014, Table 3. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from http://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/14- member/index.aspx?tab=2. Published by American Psychologizl Association. Reprinted with permission. A significant number of psychologists are counseling psychologists who sometimes treat problems related to emotional and mental disorders or who specialize in issues such as those having to do with vocational choices, learning problems, relationships, and related concerns. Industrial/organizational psychologists are concerned mainly with work-related issues such as determining how to hire the right person for a job, improving job satisfaction, increas- ing motivation in the workplace, reducing stress, and managing goals.
- 115. School psychologists deal with behavioral and learning problems that affect school children and are often called upon to administer tests, to diagnose learning and behavioral problems, and to suggest treatment for these problems. Psychologists concerned specifically with improving teaching and learning are educational psychologists. Unlike school psychologists, they are less concerned with individual behav- ioral and learning problems than with broader questions relating to how people learn in edu- cational settings. Educational psychology applies psychological principles to classroom man- agement, special needs education, instructional design, and lesson planning. Developmental psychologists study systematic changes that occur between conception and death. Some specialize in the study of child development; others are more concerned with adolescent or adult development, or with aging and dying. © 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 1.1What Is Psychology? Much of the content of psychology—and therefore of this text— is based on the work of experimental psychologists. They specialize in the use of experimental methods to inves- tigate the puzzles of psychology. Most of the psychological
- 116. information that is the basis for other specializations (such as clinical, social, or cognitive psychology) is based on the findings of experimental psychologists. Psychology also has a large number of other specializations: Sports psychologists use psycho- logical research to improve athletic performance; forensic psychologists are usually experts in criminal law as well as in psychology and might be called upon to assist in jury selection or as expert witnesses for assessing the state of mind of the accused at the time of the offense or the defendant’s competency to stand trial; personality psychologists specialize in studying the characteristics that distinguish one person from another; social psychologists are concerned with the importance of membership in groups; cognitive psychologists study mental processes such as thinking, imagining, and problem solving; and environmental psychologists look at the relationship between humans and their surroundings, and specifically at the effects of the environment on our well-being (Table 1.1). Table 1.1: What psychologists do Some major divisions Primary focus Example of possible activities Clinical Diagnosing and treating emotional illnesses and disorders Conducting patient evaluations, frequently in a hospital or clinical setting
- 117. Counseling Evaluating and assisting with behavioral, emotional, and other problems not serious enough to require hospital, clinical, or psychiatric treatment Assisting with important decisions such as those having to do with careers, relationships, adjustment, and stress Industrial/organizational Applying psychology in business and industry Developing and administering tests to evaluate aptitudes; dealing with motivational, management, and interpersonal issues in the workplace School Identifying individual aptitudes and skills among learners in a school setting Developing and administering tests pertinent to school-related abilities; diagnosing and remediating behavioral and learning problems Educational Researching the application of psychological principles for improving teaching and learning Carrying out an investigation of two specific approaches to teaching
- 118. Developmental Studying changes that define growth, learning, and maturation from birth to death Applying findings in educational programs and in child guidance and counseling Experimental Carrying out experimental investigations in a variety of different areas to provide useful information for more applied or more theoretical psychologists Studying the effects of psychoactive drugs on memory © 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 1.2Early Origins of Psychology Enormous overlap exists among the interests and activities of psychologists who belong to the APA’s 54 different divisions. Regardless of their specialization, many psychologists write books, teach, do research, conduct private practices, work in business and industry, or are employed in a variety of different professions where knowledge of psychology is useful and sometimes even essential. Most are engaged in a combination of activities.
- 119. 1.2 Early Origins of Psychology The history of psychology goes back at least as far as ancient Greece, when the discipline of philosophy embraced almost all other disciplines including what is now known as psychol- ogy. In fact, the term psychology derives from the Greek words psyche, which means “soul,” and logos, which means “the study or discussion of.” Philosophy is now concerned mainly with the nature of reality, knowledge, and values, and with systems of logical reasoning. Psy- chology, as we saw, studies human behavior and mental processes. More recently in the history of psychology, discoveries in medicine have had a dramatic influ- ence on our conception of the human being. When William Harvey discovered that the heart pumps blood into tubes throughout the body, many thinkers became convinced that people were nothing more than elaborate pumping machines. Some very wise people suspected that the ability to think originates in the blood. Aristotle did not merely suspect this—he was convinced of it. If a person’s blood were entirely removed, he argued, no evidence of thinking would remain! Early physics, too, contributed to the development of psychology. The psychological impor- tance of Sir Isaac Newton’s observation that apples invariably fall earthward lies in the fact that it illustrates a different way of looking at natural phenomena. The ancient Greek phi- losophers undoubtedly knew that apples fall earthward. And had they wanted to know why
- 120. apples fall, they might have thought long and hard about the problem and held learned dis- courses with colleagues. But their approach would have made little use of the methods of science as we now know them—methods whose hallmark is objectivity and replicability. Unlike the early Greeks, Newton felt compelled to demonstrate and verify the phenomena he observed and to investigate them by means of controlled experimentation. We are products of Newton’s generation: Psychology, anthropology, sociology, and other related fields are sel- dom referred to as the social studies; they are the social sciences. Scientific psychology is not quite a century and a half old. Its founder is generally consid- ered to be Wilhelm Wundt, who set up the first psychological laboratory in Leipzig, Germany, in 1879. Many of Wundt’s students later established laboratories of their own throughout Europe and North America. Soon after that, psychology departments opened at all major uni- versities. Typically these began as branches of departments of philosophy, but in time the discipline became totally separate. Departments of psychology now claim far more students than do departments of philosophy. Structuralism The early history of psychology is marked by the rise—and fall—of a number of different “schools” of thought. The first dates back to Wilhelm Wundt and his followers, whose search for pieces of the human puzzle relied on introspection. Introspection involves looking inside
- 121. oneself, examining one’s own thoughts, feelings, and motives and generalizing the resulting © 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 1.3Current Approaches to Psychology insights to understand the thoughts and feelings of others. Stop, for a moment, and think about the words you are now reading. How does a physical stimulus such as a word on a page affect you? As you carefully analyze your current thoughts and feelings, you are introspecting. The goal of introspection as practiced by Wundt and his followers was to understand the structure of thoughts, emotions, and motives. For example, participants would be exposed to a stimulus such as a sound or a light and would be asked to report their thoughts and sensa- tions. Wundt’s goal was to analyze and measure reactions and reaction times. He reasoned that the conscious mind, like any other natural object, must comprise identifiable, measur- able elements. In the same way that water is made up of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, so too must sensations and feelings be made up (structured) of basic mental ele- ments. One of Wundt’s students, Edward B. Titchener, named this approach structuralism. Functionalism William James, widely credited with being the founder of
- 122. American psychology, thought it a waste of time to try to explain the mind by looking at its structure. Heavily influenced by Charles Darwin’s new theories, James argued that it would be far better to try to determine the purposes that drive behavior—that is, its functions: hence, the label functionalism. James’s 1,000-page book, The Principles of Psychology (1890), did a great deal to establish what psychology would become. It is James, for example, who first wrote of the “stream of consciousness” and of the baby’s world as “one great blooming, buzzing confusion.” Among the topics in his book are will, interest, emotions, sensation, the brain, and, of course, the stream of consciousness. He asked questions such as “How can people strengthen habits?” “How does intention motivate action?” and “What is memory and how does it work?” 1.3 Current Approaches to Psychology More recent approaches to psychology take a variety of forms, most of which have their roots in earlier movements and emphases—but with a number of important differences. For exam- ple, although James’s functionalism profoundly influenced the subsequent development of psychology, by the early 1900s, many psychologists, especially in the United States, had begun to reject difficult and subjective topics such as mind and thinking. Behaviorism Led by John Broadus Watson, a group of psychologists moved away from trying to answer
- 123. difficult questions relating to mental processes, choosing instead to concentrate on the objec- tive, observable aspects of behavior: hence, the label behaviorism. Behaviorism, explains Moore, “emphasized publicly observable stimuli (s) and responses (r) and spurned suppos- edly unobservable, centrally initiated processes like consciousness” (2010, p. 143). Among the most important behaviorists are Watson and Skinner. Behaviorists tend to study reflexive behavior and the effects of the consequences of behavior. As we see in Chapter 5, many scientific experiments can be carried out to investigate these matters. As a result, with the advent of behaviorism, psychology became progressively more scientific. But because of its emphasis on discovering how behavior is controlled by stimuli and by its consequences, behaviorism is sometimes interpreted as denying the existence of free will. © 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 1.3Current Approaches to Psychology Psychodynamic Theory At about the same time that the behaviorists were first popular in American psychology, the Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud was developing startling new ideas about the mind. As explained in Chapter 9, Freud believed that the mind is a little like an iceberg: We see only the
- 124. very tip, which represents the conscious mind; the bulk of it is hidden, unconscious. Much of our behavior is driven by unconscious forces: They lie beneath the visible iceberg, beyond our conscious awareness. Freud believed that many of our emotional disorders stem from these unconscious psychodynamic forces. There are methods of analysis, of psychoanalysis, explained Freud, that can uncover these hidden motives and forces. As we see in Chapter 10, Freudian therapy is based squarely on the notion that consciously rec- ognizing and talking about hidden motives and deep-seated conflicts can lead to the alleviation of mental disorders. Cognitivism Other psychologists rejected the narrow emphases of a behaviorism that limited itself to observable events, but relatively few embraced Freud’s psycho- analysis. Many can be described as belonging to the school labeled cognitivism. These are psycholo- gists whose main concerns are with intellectual (cognitive) events such as problem solving, think- ing, information processing, and imagining. Cog- nitivism provides explanations for behavior based on our ability to symbolize, to uncover cause-and- effect relationships, to determine what goes with what, and to anticipate the consequences of our actions. Humanism Some psychologists object to what they see as the overly limited, mechanistic, and dehu- manizing emphases of behavioristic approaches to psychology. Too, they reject the Freudian
- 125. notion that we are driven by dark, unconscious forces over which we have little control. These approaches, they argue, pay too little attention to the positive and healthy aspects of human nature. Humanistic psychology, as we see in Chapter 9, is concerned with the uniqueness and self-determination of each person. It emphasizes the development of the “self,” and is represented by psychologists such as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Stockbyte/Thinkstock ሁ Psychoanalysts are psychiatrists who, like Freud, believe that mental disorders result from deep-seated psychodynamic conflicts. The purpose of the couch is to allow the patient to relax so as to facilitate uncovering these conflicts—often through free association or dream analysis. © 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 1.3Current Approaches to Psychology Humanism arose primarily as a reaction against behavioristic and psychodynamic theo- ries, which Maslow (1987) described as the two great forces in psychology, so he labeled the humanistic movement third force psychology. His hope was that this third force would become as powerful as the first two, and that it might counter the dehumanizing influence of
- 126. a rigorous scientific approach to the study of psychology. Sociocultural Perspective Human behavior is highly influenced by membership in cultural and social groups. For exam- ple, as we see in Chapter 4, your gender is very closely related to your beliefs, values, and behaviors. Similarly, your ethnicity, religion, social class, and peer groups exercise profound influences on who you are and how you act. Chapter 8, which deals with social psychology, explores the power of social groups and influences and looks at how these can affect your attitudes, opinions, and behaviors. Concern with the influences of cultural and social groups and subgroups defines the sociocultural perspective in psychology. Biological/Physiological/Psychological Approaches There are a number of other important orientations in the study of psychology. Evolution- ary psychology is marked by an emphasis on biology and genetics as a source of explana- tions for human learning and behavior. Evolutionary psychologists look at the evolution of human behavior and try to explain human characteristics in terms of historical pressures of adaptation. Neuroscience is another important and highly current, biologically based orientation. Using powerful new brain-imaging techniques, neuroscientists look to the nervous system, espe- cially the brain, for explanations of consciousness and of mental processes like thinking, imagining, problem solving, and remembering. Both
- 127. evolutionary psychologists and neuro- scientists make extensive use of genomics, the study of genes and how they relate to human behaviors and characteristics. Other models, like the biopsychosocial model, are general approaches that attempt to take into account all the forces that are involved in human thought and behavior. Biopsychosocial approaches, which are often found in areas of psychology that deal with human health, view behavior as a combined function of three classes of influences: biological (genetics, hormones, and other physical characteristics), psychological (thoughts and emotions), and sociocultural (ethnicity, culture, social group membership). (See Figure 1.2.) © 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 1.4Psychology as a Science Figure 1.2: Historical and current approaches in psychology ሁ Orientations in the study of human behavior and mental processes. f01.02 Structuralism Used introspection to try to discover the basic elements (the structure) of the mind (Wilhelm Wundt) Functionalism
- 128. Emphasized an exploration of the purposes (functions) of behavior (William James) Behaviorism Concentrates on observable behavior (responses), its causes (stimuli), and the forces that shape it (such as its consequences) (John Watson; Fred Skinner) Psychodynamic theory Looks at the interplay of unconscious, instinct-based forces, especially as they relate to mental disorders (Sigmund Freud) Cognitivism Focuses on intellectual (cognitive) events, such as thinking, problem solving, imagining, symbolizing, and anticipating (Jean Piaget; Albert Bandura) Humanism Rejects the dehumanizing emphases of more “scienti�c” approaches; stresses the uniqueness and the positive characteristics of the individual (Abraham Maslow; Carl Rogers) Sociocultural perspective Tries to understand human behavior by looking at the in�uence of the social and cultural groups to which the individual belongs
- 129. Biological/ physiological/ psychological orientations Looks at genetic contributions to human characteristics and behaviors; explores the relationship between human physiology— especially the brain and nervous system—and human psychology; one orientation, the biopsychosocial approach, looks at a combination of biological, psychological, and social in�uences 1.4 Psychology as a Science Psychology is a science, but what does that mean? In one sense, science can mean a collection of information in a field of study. For example, the science of physics is a collection of information about the nature of matter and energy and how they interact. And the science of psychology is a collection of information about human thought and behavior and how they interact. © 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 1.4Psychology as a Science In another very important sense, science is a way of dealing with information. As such, it is both an attitude and a set of guidelines that insist on objectivity,
- 130. precision, and consistency. As a result, science stands in sharp contrast to ways of knowing that are based principally on subjective analysis or introspection. Attempts to explain and organize the observations of science take the form of theories. Theo- ries are collections of related statements that clarify observations and permit predictions (hypotheses). Put another way, hypotheses are preliminary attempts to answer questions; they are tentative predictions that are made before extensive and thorough investigation. Theories, by contrast, are the result of careful research; they summarize and organize the findings of science. In spite of science’s preoccupation with matters that are objective, many topics of interest to psychology cannot be observed and measured directly, but can only be inferred from behav- ior or from highly subjective self-reports. Emotions and thoughts, for example, are subjective rather than objective. And even though these might lead to behavior from which an observer might guess the underlying emotion or thought, this is not always so. For example, I might be very angry or very sad because I now know for sure that my dog does not much like me; but you would not necessarily know my emotion from my behavior because I can easily pretend I do not care. One of the tasks of psychology is to devise ways of examining nonobjective events and states, and of studying them as objectively and scientifically as
- 131. possible. Studying phenomena objectively and scientifically means using what is often labeled the sci- entific method—an approach designed to ensure that observations are as accurate and valid as possible and that they can be replicated by other investigators. The sciences have now been using the scientific method for more than a hundred years to find and assemble pieces of the human puzzle. It can be described in terms of five systematic steps (Figure 1.3): 1. Ask a question. (For example: Would after-school detention be effective in stopping a group of boys from stealing iPods and smartphones?) 2. Develop a hypothesis. On the basis of observation and a careful examination of relevant investigations and theory, make a prediction—a hypothesis. By definition, a scientific hypothesis is unproven and can be falsified (proven incorrect). Hence, the outcome of a scientific investigation can lead to the rejection of the hypothesis. (Hypothesis: After-school detention will be effective in curtailing thefts of electronic devices.) 3. Collect relevant observations. As we see in the next section, science suggests many different ways to collect observations. The nature of the question being asked, as well as constraints related to money, time, instrumentation, and the availability of suitable participants, usually determine which method is best.
- 132. (Method: Detain the group of thieves after school; monitor subsequent thefts.) 4. Analyze observations to test the hypothesis. Do your observations indicate that the hypothesis should be rejected? Even if they do not, might these observations be due to chance? Science is very concerned that outcomes might be just chance happen- ings, in which case, they do not mean very much at all. For this reason, investigators often use special statistical procedures to determine whether observations are sta- tistically significant. These are mathematical procedures that allow investigators to determine the likelihood that the outcomes of experiments are due to factors other © 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 1.4Psychology as a Science than chance. (For example: How many devices disappeared before the detention? How many disappeared after?) 5. Reach and share conclusions. If science is to progress, the hypothesis has to be rejected or not rejected. If it is not rejected, it may be accepted as tentatively valid (we can seldom be absolutely certain). (For example: As many electronic devices disap- peared after as before detention. Tentative conclusion:
- 133. Detention is not an effective deterrent in this case.) Following this, the conclusions of the research need to be shared. This means communicating the findings to others so they can apply them, and so they can continue the research and learning process. Figure 1.3: Five common steps of the scientific method ሁ Science insists on precision, objectivity, and replicability. These five steps increase the likelihood of meeting these conditions. f01.03 Ask a question. Develop a hypothesis. Collect relevant observations. Analyze observations to test the hypothesis. Reach and share conclusions. Is after-school detention effective in stopping a group of boys from stealing electronics? After-school detention will curtail thefts of electronic devices. Detain the group of boys after school; monitor