Journal Article Critique of 'an Empirical Analysis of Trends in Psychology'
Article:
An Empirical Analysis of Trends in Psychology
By Richard W. Robins, Samuel D. Gosling and Kenneth H. Craik
Presented by: Cassandra Brown
AU ID: 3130858
PSYC 290
Journal Article Critique 1
Tutor: Cristela D’Elia
June 1st, 2013
I. Research Question or Problem
The journal article question is clearly stated. The question asks whether the behaviourist, the psychoanalytic, the cognitive, or the neuroscientific perspective is most intellectually significant and most prominent in psychology today (Robins, Goling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117).
II. Introduction
The introduction presents differing contentions regarding which school of psychology is most prominent. Five references have been cited in the introduction. It is believed by some that the cognitive perspective reigns over psychoanalysis and behaviourism (Baars, 1986; Gardner, 1985; Hunt, 1993; Sperry, 1988, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117). An opposing conviction, however, states that this belief is merely a representation of cognitive psychologists’ opinion of their own field rather than an accurate statement based on facts (Friman, Allen, Kerwin, & Larzelere, 1993, p. 662, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117). Furthermore, it is argued that the belief in a “cognitive perspective revolution” is simply a method for scientists to justify their practice (Leahey, 1991, p.362, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117). Other theories have indicated, without empirical evidence however, that behaviourism continues to flourish despite the loss of “mentor B.F Skinner” (Salzinger, 1994, p. 816; p. 461, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117). Lastly, it is contented by some that the neuroscientific perspective continues to prosper (Churchland, 1998, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117), and that the entire field of psychology will eventually become a subfield of neuroscience (Bechtel, 1988, as cited in
An Empirical Analysis of Trends in Psychology
By Richard W. Robins, Samuel D. Gosling and Kenneth H. Craik
Presented by: Cassandra Brown
AU ID: 3130858
PSYC 290
Journal Article Critique 1
Tutor: Cristela D’Elia
June 1st, 2013
I. Research Question or Problem
The journal article question is clearly stated. The question asks whether the behaviourist, the psychoanalytic, the cognitive, or the neuroscientific perspective is most intellectually significant and most prominent in psychology today (Robins, Goling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117).
II. Introduction
The introduction presents differing contentions regarding which school of psychology is most prominent. Five references have been cited in the introduction. It is believed by some that the cognitive perspective reigns over psychoanalysis and behaviourism (Baars, 1986; Gardner, 1985; Hunt, 1993; Sperry, 1988, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117). An opposing conviction, however, states that this belief is merely a representation of cognitive psychologists’ opinion of their own field rather than an accurate statement based on facts (Friman, Allen, Kerwin, & Larzelere, 1993, p. 662, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117). Furthermore, it is argued that the belief in a “cognitive perspective revolution” is simply a method for scientists to justify their practice (Leahey, 1991, p.362, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117). Other theories have indicated, without empirical evidence however, that behaviourism continues to flourish despite the loss of “mentor B.F Skinner” (Salzinger, 1994, p. 816; p. 461, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117). Lastly, it is contented by some that the neuroscientific perspective continues to prosper (Churchland, 1998, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117), and that the entire field of psychology will eventually become a subfield of neuroscience (Bechtel, 1988, as cited in
References: Robins, R. W., Gosling, S. D., & Craik, K. H. (1999). An empirical analysis of trends in psychology. American Psychologist, 54(2), 117-128. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.2.117