Trends in Psychology

I. Research Question or Problem
Yes. The question is clearly stated. The purpose of this study is to examine trends in the prominence of four widely recognized schools of scientific psychology, and which, if any, is most prominent (Robins, Gosling, Craik, 1999).
II. Introduction
Yes. The introduction indicates the importance of how psychologists should evaluate trends in the prominence of four schools of psychology empirically not intuitively. Nine sources are cited in the introduction. Many contentions and declarations have evaluated trends intuitively as to which psychological school is most prevalent (Leahey, 1991, pp.118-119). Scientific prominence is examined using three indexes that will measure convergence across the same trends (Robins et al. 1999, p. 118).
III. Methodology
The first index of prominence was measured through selecting flagship publications, specifically, “ The American Psychologist, Annual Review of Psychology, Psychological Bulletin, and Psychological Review” (Robins et al., 1999, p.120). PsychINFO database was used to retrieve articles containing specific word stems. For each school, the percentage of articles published included one or more key words selected to represent that school. The trends were plotted and computed annually from 1950 to 1997 (p.120).
The second index of prominence, the researchers measured and examined the “subject matter of doctoral dissertations” retrieved from PsychINFO from 1967-1994 (p. 120-121). This index was computed by calculating the percentage of dissertations providing it included one or more key words selected to represent each school (p. 121).
The third index was measured by trying to replicate findings using non-keyword index. The researchers selected representative schools they used “Friman et. al.’s (1993) criteria to select journals (p.121). For neuroscience, the researchers used “ratings of prominence by neuroscientists working within psychology departments” (p.121). Twenty relevant journals were nominated. These nominated journals were separately rated on the journal’s overall “influence, importance, relevance, and centrality to psychology”. Rated by an independent group of neuroscientists, included were seven professors, and one doctorial fellow. The journals with a mean rating below 2.5 were omitted, and the top four were selected (p.121). Sixteen journals were included in this analysis, the top four from each school. The number of times per year the flagship publications cited articles published was computed. Then the number was summer across the four journals associated with each school, and an index was obtained showing each school’s prominence
IV. Results
This detailed section explained exactly the statistics the researchers used to analyze the data and the findings. The results tied back directly to the purpose of this study. Graphs were present to illustrate the trends in the four schools from 1950-1997. The plotted values were associated with keywords relevant to the four schools being researched. The data was presented accurately, fluently, and was understandable (Robins et al., 1999, pp. 122-126).
V. Discussion/Conclusions
The results of the analysis suggested four major conclusions. First, little attention was paid to research published in psychoanalytic flagship articles over the past several decades (Robins et al., 1999, p.127). Second, behavioral psychology has been on the decline. Behavioral psychology’s prominence “sometime during the 1970’s” gave way to the ascension of cognitive psychology (p. 127). Third, cognitive psychology is “the most prominent of the four schools” (p.127). The researchers conclude there are many factors that can explain the prominence of this school, the major factor being the computer revolution. Fourth, none of the three indexes showed an increase in prominence in neuroscience. However, research shows that neuroscience has been increasing dramatically since being founded in 1970 (p. 127). The researchers stated that future research should explore other indicators such as hiring trends, research, and training grants (p.128). VI. List of References
The format used listing references was consistent, and all the references given were cited in this journal. A variety of sources were sited, given the number of noteworthy trends in the history of psychology.
VII. Personal Reaction
I found this to be an interesting study. The research provided identified numerous noteworthy trends in psychology’s history. I agree with the proposal that the rise in cognitive school attained most of its prominence due to the rise in communication networks in publishing scientific products, where they are easily published and accessible (Robins, 1999, p.127). The study confirms that psychologists should “evaluate trends empirically and not intuitively” (p.117) as many researchers have a hypothesis of why a school is more prominent.

Reference:

Leahey, T. H. (1991). A history of modern psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Robins, R. W., Gosling, S. D., & Craik, K. H. (1999). An empirical analysis of trends in psychology. American Psychologist, 54(2), 117-128.

References: The format used listing references was consistent, and all the references given were cited in this journal. A variety of sources were sited, given the number of noteworthy trends in the history of psychology. VII. Personal Reaction I found this to be an interesting study. The research provided identified numerous noteworthy trends in psychology’s history. I agree with the proposal that the rise in cognitive school attained most of its prominence due to the rise in communication networks in publishing scientific products, where they are easily published and accessible (Robins, 1999, p.127). The study confirms that psychologists should “evaluate trends empirically and not intuitively” (p.117) as many researchers have a hypothesis of why a school is more prominent. Reference: Leahey, T. H. (1991). A history of modern psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Robins, R. W., Gosling, S. D., & Craik, K. H. (1999). An empirical analysis of trends in psychology. American Psychologist, 54(2), 117-128.