Mapping the field of psychology: Trends in research topics 1995–2015

Primacy of theory? Exploring perspectives on validity in conceptual psychometrics

Several conceptions of validity have emphasized the contingency of validity on theory. Here we revisit several contributions to the discourse on the concept of validity, which we consider particularly influential or insightful. Despite differences in metatheory, both Cronbach and Meehl's construct validity, and Borsboom, Mellenbergh and van Heerden's early concept of validity regard validity as a criterion for successful measurement and thus, as crucial for the soundness of psychological science. Others, such as Borgstede and Eggert, regard recourses to validity as an appeal to an (unscientific) folk psychology. Instead, they advocate theory-based measurement. It will be demonstrated that these divergent positions converge in their view of psychological theory as indispensable for the soundness of psychological measurement. However, the formulation of the concept (and scope) of scientific theory differs across the presented conceptions of validity. These differences can be at least partially attributed to three disparities in metatheoretical and methodological stances. The first concerns the question of the structure of scientific theories. The second concerns the question of psychology's subject matter. The third regards whether, and if, to which extent, correlations can be indicative of causality and therefore point toward validity. These results indicate that metatheory may help to structure the discourse on the concept of validity by revealing the contingencies the concrete positions rely on.

Fostering inclusion in EEG measures of pediatric brain activity

The past two decades have seen a rapid increase in neuroscientific evidence being used to characterize how contextual, structural, and societal factors shape cognition and school readiness. Measures of functional brain activity are increasingly viewed as markers of child development and biomarkers that could be employed to track the impact of interventions. While electroencephalography (EEG) provides a promising tool to understand educational inequities, traditional EEG data acquisition is commonly limited in some racial and ethnic groups due to hair types and styles. This ultimately constitutes unintentional systemic racism by disproportionately excluding participants from certain racial and ethnic groups from participation and representation in neuroscience research. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of how cultural considerations surrounding hair density, texture, and styling consistently skew samples to be less representative by disproportionately excluding Black and Latinx participants. We also provide recommendations and materials to promote best practices.

Development of Three Psychology Sub-Disciplines Over the Past 30 Years: A Citation Analysis

At the end of the last century, there was a debate about whether cognitive psychology had superseded behavioral psychology and psychoanalysis, and the question was raised of whether the latter two might even be dead. The aim of this study was to investigate how these sub-disciplines have developed since then. The citation count, Journal Impact Factor (JIF), and Immediacy Index of four leading journals from each sub-discipline were abstracted for the years 1998, 2008, and 2018. Trends were analyzed using joinpoint regression analysis. The average number of times each sub-discipline’s journals were cited increased between 1988 and 2018. The cognitive journals’ JIF increased slightly, the behavioral journals’ doubled, and the psychoanalytic journals’ remained at the same level. The average annual percentage change for citations to the International Journal of Psychoanalysis showed that the number of citations statistically significantly increased over the years. This was also the case for the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Its JIF trend changed at one point: it decreased up through 2006, after which it increased. Citations to Cognitive Psychology also increased over time, while there was no evidence that its JIF changed. This shows that all three sub-disciplines are still alive and relevant.

Toward a (“Dissolved”) Psychology of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Relations: A Complexity-Informed Proposal

Our world is in a state of critical transition demanding new, creative, ecosystemically fit and sustainable responses to complex challenges. We need both new types of knowledge and new modes of knowledge production. Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity have the potential to support more congruently complex forms of knowledge (differentiated, integrated, recursive, emergent, ecosystemically fit). Their success is dependent on a deeper understanding of their own organizational complexity. In this paper, I highlight key knowledge gaps and research questions for the development of a richer knowledge base to guide the intentional management and facilitation of Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinary Relations toward creative and abductive outcomes. I defend the investigation of creativity and abduction, as hallmarks of the complexity of Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity, from a process, relational and complexity-informed perspective, mobilizing contributions from Psychology. I discuss Psychology’s modes of engagement with Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in addressing complex challenges. In this context, I introduce the notion of “dissolution” as an Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary relational process supporting the theoretical, methodological and pragmatic enrichment or transformation and increased complexity of different disciplines, bodies of knowledge or modes of knowing. Finally, I propose a new domain for research and practice: a (“Dissolved”) Psychology of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Relations.

Measuring publication diversity among the most productive scholars: how research trajectories differ in communication, psychology, and political science

Examining research patterns across scientific fields constitutes a growing research enterprise to understand how global knowledge production unfolds. However, scattered empirical evidence has casted light on how the publication diversity of the most productive scholars differ across disciplines, considering their gender and geographical representation. This study focuses on the most prolific scholars across three fields (Communication, Political Science, and Psychology), and examine all journals where they have published. Results revealed the most common journals in which prolific scholars have appeared and showed that Communication scholars are more prone to publish in Political Science and Psychology journals than vice-versa, while psychologists’ largely neglect them both. Our findings also demonstrate that males and US scholars are over-represented across fields, and that neither the field, gender, geographic location, or the interaction between gender and geographic location has a significant influence over publication diversity. The study suggests that prolific scholars are not only productive, but also highly diverse in the selection of the journals they publish, which directly speaks to both the heterogeneity of their research contributions and target readers.