Person, Population, Mechanism. Three Main Branches of Psychological Science

There are different ways of dividing psychology into subdisciplines. The purpose of the present paper is to explore one specific meta-perspective on psychological science, seen as having three main branches: person psychology, population psychology, and mechanism psychology, linked to three different levels of research. Person-level research focuses on psychological phenomena as experienced and enacted by individual persons in their interaction with other persons and other parts of the environment, and in their development over time. Population-level research focuses on populations of individuals, frequencies of various psychological phenomena in a population, risk factors, and population-level effects of various psychological interventions. Mechanism-level research focuses on psychological functioning as explained in terms of neurophysiological mechanisms and information processes at a sub-personal level. It is argued that the failure to differentiate clearly between research questions at these three levels lead to questionable research practices. Most notably, a failure to differentiate clearly between the population level and the person level leads to problem-method mismatches in the form of researchers trying to answer questions about persons by research on populations. Also, because of a failure to differentiate between the person level and the mechanism level, explanations in terms of sub-personal mechanisms are too often seen as providing answers about what occurs at the person level, thereby failing to study persons as intentional agents in interaction with other persons and other parts of the environment. It is argued that a clear differentiation between three levels of psychological science - population, person, and mechanism - may contribute to an increased clarity in these matters and may thereby contribute to the development and maturation of psychological science.

Destigmatizing Borderline Personality Disorder: A Call to Action for Psychological Science

Despite recognition that borderline personality disorder (BPD) is one of the most stigmatized psychological disorders, destigmatization efforts have thus far focused on the views and actions of clinicians and the general public, neglecting the critical role that psychological science plays in perpetuating or mitigating stigma. This article was catalyzed by recent concerns about how research and editorial processes propagate stigma and thereby fail people with BPD and the scientists who study BPD. We provide a brief overview of the BPD diagnosis and its history. We then review how BPD has been stigmatized in psychological science, the gendered nature of BPD stigma, and the consequences of this stigmatization. Finally, we offer specific recommendations for researchers, reviewers, and editors who wish to use science to advance our understanding of BPD without perpetuating pejorative views of the disorder. These recommendations constitute a call to action to use psychological science in the service of the public good.

Accelerating the science and practice of psychology beyond WEIRD biases: Enriching the landscape through Asian psychology

More than a decade has passed since major concerns emerged about the WEIRD-centric focus of mainstream psychological science. Since then, many calls have been made for the discipline of psychology (and other disciplines within the social sciences) to become more broadly representative of the human species. However, recent evidence suggests that progress toward improving the inclusivity and generalizability of psychological science has been slow, and that the dominance of WEIRD psychology has persisted. To build a more comprehensive psychological science that truly represents the global population, we need strategies that can facilitate more rapid expansion of empirical evidence in psychology beyond WEIRD biases. In this paper, we draw on several examples (i.e., non-duality and dialectical interaction, Wu-Wei, Zhong Yong) to illustrate how principles of Asian psychology could contribute to reshaping mainstream psychology. We discuss some strategies for advancing a global psychological science, along with some complementary practical suggestions that could enrich the WEIRD-centric landscape of current psychological science.

The Effects of Editorial-Board Diversity on Race Scholars and Their Scholarship: A Field Experiment

Psychological science is in a unique position to identify and dismantle the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that maintain and increase racial inequality, yet the extent to which psychological science can do so depends on the extent to which race scholarship is supported in psychological science. We theorized that the lack of racial diversity among editors at mainstream journals might obstruct the advancement of race scholarship by signaling to race scholars that their research is not valued by mainstream journals and that they should submit their research elsewhere for publication. Indeed, in a preregistered field experiment with 1,189 psychology Ph.D. students, we found that under all-White editorial boards, race scholars were less likely than non-race scholars (a) to believe that the journal valued racial diversity, research on race, or their own research; (b) to believe that the journal would publish their research; and (c) to be willing to submit their research to the journal for publication. Under racially diverse editorial boards, however, we find no differences between race scholars and non-race scholars. In fact, we found that under diverse editorial boards, compared with under all-White editorial boards, both race scholars and non-race scholars had more positive perceptions of the journal. We argue that racially diverse editorial boards are good for race scholars and their scholarship and for the field more broadly.

Comparing dream to reality: an assessment of adherence of the first generation of preregistered studies

Preregistration is a method to increase research transparency by documenting research decisions on a public, third-party repository prior to any influence by data. It is becoming increasingly popular in all subfields of psychology and beyond. Adherence to the preregistration plan may not always be feasible and even is not necessarily desirable, but without disclosure of deviations, readers who do not carefully consult the preregistration plan might get the incorrect impression that the study was exactly conducted and reported as planned. In this paper, we have investigated adherence and disclosure of deviations for all articles published with the Preregistered badge in Psychological Science between February 2015 and November 2017 and shared our findings with the corresponding authors for feedback. Two out of 27 preregistered studies contained no deviations from the preregistration plan. In one study, all deviations were disclosed. Nine studies disclosed none of the deviations. We mainly observed (un)disclosed deviations from the plan regarding the reported sample size, exclusion criteria and statistical analysis. This closer look at preregistrations of the first generation reveals possible hurdles for reporting preregistered studies and provides input for future reporting guidelines. We discuss the results and possible explanations, and provide recommendations for preregistered research.

Historically recontextualizing Sidman's Tactics: How behavior analysis avoided psychology's methodological Ouroboros

Psychology is undergoing major cultural changes methodologically, with efforts to redefine how psychologists analyze and report their data. Davidson (2018) argued that psychology's methodological crises stem from mechanical objectivity involving the adoption of an analytic tool as source of dependable knowledge. This has led to institutionalization, and eventually uncritical ritualistic use, such as happened with null hypothesis statistical testing. Davidson invoked the mythological symbol of the Ouroboros to represent the endless churning of statistical fads. Sidman (1960), in his Tactics of Scientific Research provided a shield from these problems in terms of the premium he placed on the experience, expertise, judgement, and decision-making of the scientist, that appear to be absent in psychology's ritualized processes.

Research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) that has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represents the greatest international biopsychosocial emergency the world has faced for a century, and psychological science has an integral role to offer in helping societies recover. The aim of this paper is to set out the shorter- and longer-term priorities for research in psychological science that will (a) frame the breadth and scope of potential contributions from across the discipline; (b) enable researchers to focus their resources on gaps in knowledge; and (c) help funders and policymakers make informed decisions about future research priorities in order to best meet the needs of societies as they emerge from the acute phase of the pandemic. The research priorities were informed by an expert panel convened by the British Psychological Society that reflects the breadth of the discipline; a wider advisory panel with international input; and a survey of 539 psychological scientists conducted early in May 2020. The most pressing need is to research the negative biopsychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to facilitate immediate and longer-term recovery, not only in relation to mental health, but also in relation to behaviour change and adherence, work, education, children and families, physical health and the brain, and social cohesion and connectedness. We call on psychological scientists to work collaboratively with other scientists and stakeholders, establish consortia, and develop innovative research methods while maintaining high-quality, open, and rigorous research standards.

Aligning dissemination and implementation science with health policies to improve children's mental health

The prevalence of mental health problems among children (ages 0-21) in the United States remains unacceptably high and, post-COVID-19, is expected to increase dramatically. Decades of psychological knowledge about effective treatments should inform the delivery of better services. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has been heralded as a solution to the persistent problem of poor quality services and has, to some extent, improved our understanding of the contexts of delivery systems that implement effective practices. However, there are few studies demonstrating clear, population-level impacts of psychological interventions on children. Momentum is growing among communities, cities, states, and some federal agencies to build "health in all policies" to address broad familial, social, and economic factors known to affect children's healthy development and mental health. These health policy initiatives offer a rare opportunity to repurpose D&I science, shifting it from a primary focus on evidence-based practice implementation, to a focus on policy development and implementation to support child and family health and well-being. This shift is critical as states develop policy responses to address the health and mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on already-vulnerable families. We provide a typology for building research on D&I and children's mental health policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

(Re)Introducing Vygotsky's Thought: From Historical Overview to Contemporary Psychology

Theories formulated by Russian psychologist and educator Lev Vygotsky currently range from being applied and celebrated across multiple contexts to be considered outdated. In this paper, we maintain that such inconsistency in application stems from the overreliance on translated or reformulated Vygotskian theories, the attempts to understand these ideas in isolation from the scientific historical context of their development, and the impact of Vygotsky's personal life circumstances on the development of his scholarship. It is known that Vygotsky's untimely death prevented him from elaborating on his theoretical views and expanding his early empirical work. We suggest that Vygotsky's scholarship could be better understood in light of the core principles that transcend all aspects of his work. In this paper, we elaborate on two such core principles: theories of language development and their relation to the integrated systemic approach to psychological development. We argue that although linguistic and historical boundaries have shaped the common perception of Vygotskian theories in anglophone research in a specific way, there is a potential for a renewed application of these theories to modern psychology that might be especially relevant in light of the increasingly interdisciplinary character of the modern science. To support our argument, we provide a brief overview and examples of potential connections between Vygotsky's scholarship with contemporary landscape in psychological science. The paper presents a brief introduction to the topic of Vygotskian work and its application to modern psychology, rather than an addition to the field of Vygotskian scholarship. It is geared toward non-Vygotskian scholars and invites researchers working in interdisciplinary areas of psychology.

Social psychological research on prejudice as collective action supporting emergent ingroup members

Why does social psychological research on prejudice change across time? We argue that scientific change is not simply a result of empirical evidence, technological developments, or social controversies, but rather emerges out of social change-driven shifts in how researchers categorize themselves and others within their larger societies. As mainstream researchers increasingly recategorize former outgroup members as part of a novel ingroup, prejudice research shifts in support of emergent ingroup members against their emergent outgroup opponents. Although social change-driven science results in valuable opportunities for researchers, it also results in significant risks for research - collective, scientific biases in the inclusion and exclusion of social groups in prejudice research that are not readily detected or managed by traditional controls. We present the Emergent Ingroup Model (EIM) to encourage reflection on shared biases, as well as to spark a broader conversation on how to strengthen our field for a rapidly changing and increasingly global world.

Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population

Two primary goals of psychological science should be to understand what aspects of human psychology are universal and the way that context and culture produce variability. This requires that we take into account the importance of culture and context in the way that we write our papers and in the types of populations that we sample. However, most research published in our leading journals has relied on sampling WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) populations. One might expect that our scholarly work and editorial choices would by now reflect the knowledge that Western populations may not be representative of humans generally with respect to any given psychological phenomenon. However, as we show here, almost all research published by one of our leading journals, Psychological Science, relies on Western samples and uses these data in an unreflective way to make inferences about humans in general. To take us forward, we offer a set of concrete proposals for authors, journal editors, and reviewers that may lead to a psychological science that is more representative of the human condition.

Evolving Concepts of Emotion and Motivation

This review takes a historical perspective on concepts in the psychology of motivation and emotion, and surveys recent developments, debates and applications. Old debates over emotion have recently risen again. For example, are emotions necessarily subjective feelings? Do animals have emotions? I review evidence that emotions exist as core psychological processes, which have objectively detectable features, and which can occur either with subjective feelings or without them. Evidence is offered also that studies of emotion in animals can give new insights into human emotions. Beyond emotion, motivation concepts have changed over decades too, and debates still continue. Motivation was once thought in terms of aversive drives, and reward was thought of in terms of drive reduction. Motivation-as-drive concepts were largely replaced by motivation-as-incentive concepts, yet aversive drive concepts still occasionally surface in reward neuroscience today. Among incentive concepts, incentive salience is a core motivation process, mediated by brain mesocorticolimbic systems (dopamine-related systems) and sometimes called 'wanting' (in quotation marks), to distinguish it from cognitive forms of desire (wanting without quotation marks). Incentive salience as 'wanting' is separable also from pleasure 'liking' for the same reward, which has important implications for several human clinical disorders. Ordinarily, incentive salience adds motivational urgency to cognitive desires, but 'wanting' and cognitive desires can dissociate in some conditions. Excessive incentive salience can cause addictions, in which excessive 'wanting' can diverge from cognitive desires. Conversely, lack of incentive salience may cause motivational forms of anhedonia in depression or schizophrenia, whereas a negatively-valenced form of 'fearful salience' may contribute to paranoia. Finally, negative 'fear' and 'disgust' have both partial overlap but also important neural differences.

An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological Science

Reproducibility is a defining feature of science. However, because of strong incentives for innovation and weak incentives for confirmation, direct replication is rarely practiced or published. The Reproducibility Project is an open, large-scale, collaborative effort to systematically examine the rate and predictors of reproducibility in psychological science. So far, 72 volunteer researchers from 41 institutions have organized to openly and transparently replicate studies published in three prominent psychological journals in 2008. Multiple methods will be used to evaluate the findings, calculate an empirical rate of replication, and investigate factors that predict reproducibility. Whatever the result, a better understanding of reproducibility will ultimately improve confidence in scientific methodology and findings.

Mathematical Psychology: Prospects For The 21 Century: A Guest Editorial

The twenty-first century is certainly in progress by now, but hardly well underway. Therefore, I will take that modest elasticity in concept as a frame for this essay. This frame will serve as background for some of my hopes and gripes about contemporary psychology and mathematical psychology's place therein. It will also act as platform for earnest, if wistful thoughts about what might have (and perhaps can still) aid us in forwarding our agenda and what I see as some of the promising avenues for the future. I loosely structure the essay into a section about mathematical psychology in the context of psychology at large and then a section devoted to prospects within mathematical psychology proper. The essay can perhaps be considered as in a similar spirit, although differing in content, to previous editorial-like reviews of general or specific aspects of mathematical psychology such as Estes (1975), Falmagne (2005), Luce (1997) that have appeared in this journal.