Boundary Work In Psychology: The Uneasy Relationship Between Scientific and
“Pop” Psychology
Barbara Lusk, Department of Psychology
Introduction
No scientific discipline has captured the public’s imagination or seeped into its
consciousness as much as psychology. After all, psychology deals with the essence of
being human – how we think, how we feel, and how we behave. Even more seductive,
psychology claims to have the tools to uncover the reasons (both obvious and hidden) for
our own thoughts, emotions, and actions, as well as those of others. At the same time,
perhaps no discipline has been as misunderstood. Little wonder. Dr. Phil, now entering
his tenth year on television, draws between four and five million viewers each week. At
its peak, The Dr. Laura Program was the second-highest-rated radio show after The Rush
Limbaugh Show, and was heard on more than 450 radio stations. “Dear Abby” routinely
receives 10,000 letters and emails each week, appears in close to 1,400 newspapers, and
has a daily readership of more than 110 million worldwide. Roughly 3,500 self-help
books are published annually, with only a handful written or screened by scientific
experts, and the total yearly “take” of this type of book is estimated to be roughly twelve
billion dollars. So-called experts boasting psychology credentials appear regularly on
cable news programs offering their opinions of this or that headline of the day.
Psychologists are portrayed in various guises in such television programs as HBO’s In
Treatment and re-runs of Fraser. New wave psychology is lampooned in Showtime’s
Enlightened. Portrayals of psychologists and the discipline in film are no less problematic.
Given this, it is no surprise that students entering my psychology classes have a rather
distorted perception of what practitioners do and what the discipline has to offer.
As one might expect, the academic discipline of psychology, concerned that these
popular manifestations of the field damage its scientific credibility and threaten its
standing, has pushed back. In fact, an uneasy, ambivalent, and emotionally charged
relationship between scientific psychology and “public” or “pop” psychology has dogged
the discipline since its inception. Long before psychology became an established and
legitimate discipline, there was a public psychology, rooted in such pseudo-sciences as
phrenology, physiognomy, graphology, mesmerism, spiritualism, and mental healing.
These were featured in books, newspaper columns, home study courses, psychology
clubs, mail-order degrees, and in the scores of popular psychology magazines that began
appearing in the 1890s. More to the point, much of the public found this work to be both
useful and comforting. The new academic psychologists, struggling to forge their
professional identity and attain both legitimacy and respectability, found themselves in a
quandary – how to demarcate scientific psychological inquiry from the works associated
with quacks and hucksters, while at the same time selling the practical value of their
discipline and earning public support.
For this study grant I propose to investigate how academic psychologists address
this ongoing quandary. In so doing, I shall trace the history of the uneasy relationship
between academic and “pop” psychology, beginning in the late 1800s and continuing
2
today. As shall be seen, academic psychologists have been engaged – and continue to be
engaged – in what historians and sociologists of science call “boundary work”: the
conscious drawing of borders and boundaries that demarcate the division between areas
of science and non-science. As expected, these boundaries, once created, become
somewhat fluid as they are typically challenged and then defended by the faithful. And
the stakes are high.
Rationale
During the course of my research in the history of psychology I have heard many
scholars make reference to the discipline’s “identity crisis” – and with good reason. My
own background in the field is a case in point. Educated and trained as a clinical
psychologist, my perspective was skewed. I was taught that psychology is, foremost, a
helping profession, its experimental branch serving to support its applied function. This
limiting view, I have learned during my years of teaching, has been a consistent
misperception among students enrolled in my credit classes, as well as the individuals in
the community who attend my public presentations. Confounding things even further is
the wide gulf between what the lay public thinks psychology is – which is ordinarily
some variant of “pop psychology” – and the actual state of affairs.
This proposed research, then, in addition to furthering my own intellectual growth
as a historian of psychology through examination of the continual relationship between
professional and “pop” psychology, will also be of significant value for my students. The
psychology major is one of the most popular options at the undergraduate level across the
country. In fact, the major is typically among the top three choices nationally. In the
case of students at the community college level who have not yet decided upon a major,
psychology classes also rank as some of the most popular courses offered. General
psychology in particular meets one of the core requirements for many degree and
certificate plans. When examining the motivation of students who take a psychology
class, beyond the “it’s required” rationale, many are initially drawn to the course out of a
desire to understand themselves better or “to help people.” Their surprise when
confronted with the complexity of the discipline and with the discovery that psychology
is defined as the scientific study of mind and behavior is a matter of some interest. I
believe that a careful study of the very foundation of these misperceptions can only serve
to enhance the education of these students who should be exposed to much more than the
one to two page overview of history that is in most introductory psychology texts. With
this grant, I shall be able to fill this void by providing a more nuanced and complete
account of psychology’s history and the somewhat shaky interaction between scientific
and “pop” psychology.
Additionally, members of the community who enroll in non-credit psychology
classes can also benefit from a more accurate understanding of the discipline. For the past
six years, I have been an invited speaker for Collin College’s Seniors Active in Learning
Visiting Professor series. Here I present a four-week seminar on topics related to the
social sciences. These older and presumably wiser men and women frequently express
many of the same mistaken notions typical of the “credit” students and often sign up for
3
my classes for similar reasons. Thus, I plan to suggest a series of lectures devoted to the
history of psychology as detailed in this study grant proposal.
Last, after completion of this research I intend to present papers at the annual
meetings of the American Psychological Association, the discipline’s national
organization, and Cheiron, the International Society of the History of the Behavioral
Sciences. Eventually, I will submit papers on this topic to peer-reviewed journals in the
history of psychology.
Study Plan
I am requesting funding for the Summer II, 2013 semester. As such, I have
organized my readings into eight sections. The sources I shall be examining are written,
for the most part, by eminent scholars in the history of psychology. Additional sources,
typically accounts and reviews of what has come to be known as “pop” psychology that
appear in the more general mass media, are included as well. In all, these sources consist
of four types: (1) extensive biographies of prominent figures in the early development of
psychology – such as Hugo Munsterberg, John Watson, and Henry H. Goddard – when
its applied aspects were used as “selling points” for the discipline, (2) specific historical
accounts of the development of both academic and popular psychology that appear in the
major journals in the behavioral sciences, (3) feature articles that appear in publications
aimed at a more general audience such as Psychology Today, (3) “new wave” magazines,
and (4) movie and television reviews of films and programs depicting psychologists
and/or the profession.
In what follows, I present a general overview of the topics I shall be covering in
each of the eight sections I have created for the study. Included in this narrative is a small
sampling of the sources to be examined. For a complete listing of topics and sources,
please consult the section-by-section bibliography provided below.
I shall begin this study by reading historical accounts of some of the popular
precursors to academic psychology. The sources listed in Section 1 focus upon the
dissemination of mesmerism in America in the mid-nineteenth century, animal
magnetism in southern New England, the growth and popularity of phrenology, and the
public’s fascination with spiritualism and psychic phenomenon.
The efforts of academic psychologists to establish clear boundaries between their
work and those on the fringe of the discipline are the main focus of the sources I shall
read in Section 2. Two specific cases of boundary work take center stage. The first case,
psychic phenomena, illustrates that academic psychologists can differ among themselves
when engaged in building boundaries. As shall be seen, one of psychology’s founding
fathers, G. Stanley Hall, with the assistance of Amy Tanner, expended considerable effort
to debunk psychic phenomena. At the same time, however, another giant in the field,
William James, had a strong interest in spiritualism and became, along with other
luminaries such as Richard Hodgson, a founder and member of the American Society for
Psychical Research, a group whose primary goal was to prove the existence of ghosts,
4
spirits, and psychic phenomena as determined by “rigorous scientific investigation.”
Michael Pettit’s account of Hall and Tanner’s indefatigable efforts to expose one of
Boston’s most re-known psychic mediums, Leonora Piper, and Deborah Blum’s
chronicle of James’ efforts in Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for Scientific
Proof of Life after Death provide interesting accounts of these two opposing positions.
Analyzed together, this controversy embodies the conflict that is the focus of this study
grant.
The second case to be examined is the discipline’s response to the growing
popularity of Freudian analysis as it seeped into the public’s consciousness. Although
most psychologists ignored psychoanalysis when it first arrived in the United States, by
1920 many took note of its rising popularity and began to argue strenuously that the
radical subjectivity at the core of the Freudian approach threatened the core scientific
assumptions of the discipline. I will read both Morawski’s and Hornstein’s excellent
accounts of the reception of Freud in the United States and the various maneuvers used
by mainstream psychologists in their attempts to ward off this new threat to their
discipline. To provide some needed comparisons, I shall also consult Rapp’s work on the
public’s reception of Freud in Great Britain.
Next, in Section 3 I turn to mainstream psychology’s efforts to craft its image in
such a way that the public could realize the applied value of the academic discipline. To
set the stage, I shall begin with Dennis’ examination of the press coverage psychology
received in the New York Times. I will then look more specifically at how academic
psychologists touted the tools of their trade in their scholarly publications. Psychology, it
was claimed, could make meaningful contributions in a number of institutional settings.
Hugo Munsterberg was one of the foremost advocates and popularizers of the new
applied psychology. Hale’s acclaimed biography of Munsterberg will undoubtedly
provide examples of his application of psychological principles in the criminal justice
system – he created the field of “forensic psychology” – and business settings – his work
on organizational efficiency launched the field of “industrial psychology.” Benjamin’s
work will provide other examples, such as the use of psychology in advertising.
Next, I will focus on the development and application of intelligence testing in the
United States. Zenderland’s excellent biography of Henry H. Goddard, one of the leading
eugenicists in the United States, Fancher’s collective biography of many of the stalwarts
in this field, and Sokal’s edited volume on psychological testing and American society
will trace this history during the hey-day of eugenics in the United States. Of particular
interest will be psychologists’ arguments that they could provide indispensable aid to the
war effort by administering these tests to weed out defectives from serving on the
frontlines, while also identifying those recruits best suited for leadership roles.
No discussion of the applied aspects of psychology in the 1920s is complete
without a review of its contributions to the arduous task of childrearing. Leading
psychologists such as Mary Cover Jones and John B. Watson published books and
manuals instructing parents as to the best methods of childrearing, thereby creating
5
individuals with a strong work ethic and high morals. Rutherford’s biographical chapter
of the former and Buckley’s biography of the latter will outline these efforts to introduce
behavioral techniques into the family, as will Doroshow’s interesting account of the
popular use of classical conditioning – in the form of an alarm sounding – to deal with
the problem of bedwetting.
To close this section, I shall investigate two instances of the applied role of
psychology in sports. In the first, Fuchs recounts the testing of Babe Ruth’s swing and
reaction time in a psychological laboratory at Columbia University; in the second Graef
and his colleagues discuss how one of the pioneers in professional football, Paul Brown,
introduced psychological testing into the clubhouse.
Although early academic psychologists were able to push the study of psychic
phenomena outside of the boundaries of the discipline, it was of course unable to stem
public interest in research of this type. As a result, by the 1940s the new field of
parapsychology was emerging as a legitimate scientific specialty, with its own sources of
private funding, professional organizations and journals, and in fact, some positions
within established psychology departments. Readings in Section 4 will focus upon the
development of this fringe field, how it has been embraced in the “pop” psychology
movement, and the rather heated response of mainstream psychology as it attempted to
fortify its boundaries.
Next, in Section 5, I shall focus on the “radical behaviorism” of B.F. Skinner, one
of the most publicly identifiable figures in psychology of the last century, and progenitor
of what came to be known as the “behavior modification” movement. Relying upon the
work of Rutherford, I will trace how his work was portrayed, interpreted, misinterpreted,
and received by the general public throughout his career. This case, too, will illustrate
boundary work in psychology, as behavior modification became a staple in the new-wave
psychology and self-help movements that are the subjects of the next two sections.
Psychology was not immune to the forces at play in the 1960s. More to the point,
this era was considered to be the golden age of “new wave” psychology. Primal scream
therapy, nude psychotherapy, age regression therapy, Erhard Seminar Training (EST),
and encounter groups were becoming acceptable and exciting means of exploring the self
in the public’s view. Psychotherapy was no longer reserved for the mentally ill; rather,
being in therapy was a means for exploring a higher form of consciousness. Once again,
mainstream psychology believed that interlopers were storming the gates of respectable
scientific psychology. Readings in Section 6 will focus on these new wave “pop psych”
innovations, as well as the discipline’s response to what were perceived as incursions into
conventional therapeutic practices.
Much of the general public’s ideas about psychology are derived from the mass
media, and for years academic psychologists have noted and sought to correct what they
viewed as the distorted depiction of psychologists and the discipline. Movies such as
Bringing Up Baby in which Katherine Hepburn is imprisoned by a Freudian quack;
What’s New, Pussycat, where Peter O’Toole details his sex life to Dr. Fritz Fassbender,
6
played by Peter Sellers; Ken Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest with its use of
electroconvulsive therapy; Mel Brook’s comedic portrayal of Dr. Richard Thorndyke, the
administer of the Psycho-Neurotic Institute for the Very, Very Nervous in High Anxiety;
or Robin Williams’ unconventional therapeutic approach in Good Will Hunting, they
argue, do more harm than good. The films either belittle the field, present caricatures of
practitioners and their methods, or give viewers totally unrealistic expectations about the
therapeutic process, should they seek professional assistance.
Psychologists and their work on television suffer from the same maladies, and
then some. Here, they are not only portrayed as comedic fictional characters, such as in
The Bob Newhart Show, and Fraser, but also as serious therapists, as in the HBO series
In Treatment. At the same time, commentators with degrees in psychology on various
cable news networks give their diagnoses – often in sound-bytes – of people in the news,
while still others, like Dr. Phil or Dr. Ruth, dispense their expert advice to all and sundry
characters willing to go on television. Readings in Section 7, then, will focus on the
characterization of psychologists and the discipline in film and television and the
consequences of such portrayals.
Last, Section 8 concludes with an examination of the twelve billion dollar selfhelp industry, evident when one visits any free-standing bookstore and discovers that the
self-help section occupies a significant amount of physical space, or when one ventures
into the virtual world of self-help and finds thousands of websites. Self-help, of course,
has a long lineage and academic psychologists have been engaged in skirmishes with this
genre ever since Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People appeared in
1936. Other classics in this genre include Norman Vincent Peale’s The Power of Positive
Thinking, published in 1952, and, more recently, M. Scott Peck’s The Road Less Traveled,
Wayne Dyer’s Your Erroneous Zones, Leo Buscaglia’s Living, Loving, and Learning,
Thomas Harris’ I’m OK – You’re OK, John Gray’s Men Are From Mars, Woman Are
From Venus, and, of course, the entire Chicken Soup for the Soul series. Readings in this
section will analyze the history of this type of work, outline its many guises, discuss
factors that appear to enhance its appeal to the public, and illustrate, yet again, the tactics
and strategies used by academic psychologists responding to what they perceive to be
another assault on their discipline.
7
Summer Session Study Plan
Boundary Work In Psychology: The Uneasy Relationship Between Scientific
Psychology And Popular Psychology
I. Popular precursors to Academic Psychology: Mesmerism, Phrenology,
Spiritualism, and Psychic Phenomena
Schmit, David, (2005). “Re-visioning American Antebellum Psychology: The
Dissemination of Mesmerism, 1836 – 1854, History of Psychology, 8, 403 – 434.
Quinn, Sheila O., (2007). “How Southern New England Became Magnetic North:
The Acceptance of Animal Magnetism, History of Psychology, 10, 231- 248.
Cooter, Roger. (1984). The Cultural Meaning of Popular Science: Phrenology
and the Organization of Consent in Nineteenth-Century Britain, Cambridge
University Press.
Pickren, Wade and Rutherford, Alexandra. (2010). “Forging a Psychological
Sensibility: from Religion to Psychical Research.” Pp. 75 – 80 in A History of
Modern Psychology in Context, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
II. Boundary Work: From Séance and Pseudoscience to Science
Pickren, Wade and Rutherford, Alexandra. (2010). “Boundary Work and the New
Psychology: Establishing the Center and Marking the Periphery.” Pp. 80 – 89 in
A History of Modern Psychology in Context, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken,
New Jersey.
Blum, Deborah. (2006). Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for
Scientific Proof of Life after Death. Penguin Press, New York, New York.
Pettit, Michael. (2008). “The New Woman as Tied-Up Dog: Amy E. Tanner’s
Situated Knowledges,” History of Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 3, 145 – 163.
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr. (2010). “The Public’s Psychology: A History of the
Popular Psychology Magazines in America.”
Morawski, Jill G. and Hornstein, Gail A., (1991). “Quandary of the Quacks: The
Struggle for Expert Knowledge in American Psychology, 1890-1940.” Pp. 106 –
33 in Brown, JoAnne and van Keuren, David K. (Eds), The Estate of Social
Knowledge. The Johns Hopkins symposia in comparative history, Vol. 19,
Baltimore, MD, US: Johns Hopkins University Press.
A. The Diffusion of Freud into the Public Domain
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr. and Dixon, David N. (1996). “Dream Analysis by Mail.”
American Psychologist, Vol. 51, No, 5, 461 – 468.
8
Hornstein, Gail A. (1992). “The Return of the Repressed: Psychology’s
Problematic Relations with Psychoanalysis, 1909 – 1960,” American Psychologist,
47, 254 – 263.
Rapp, Dean, “The Early Discovery of Freud by the British General Educated
Public, 1912–1919, Social History of Medicine 3 (2): 217 – 243.
Rapp, Dean, (1988). “The Reception of Freud by the British Press: General
Interest and Literary Magazines, 1920–1925,” Journal of the History of the
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 24(2): 191-201.
III. Selling The New “Applied Psychology” to an Eager Public
Adams, Grace. (1928). “The Decline of Psychology,” The American Mercury,
December 1928, pp. 450-453.
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr. (1986). “Why Don’t They Understand Us?: A History of
Psychology’s Public Image,” American Psychologist, Vol. 41, No. 9, 941 – 946.
Dennis, Paul M. (2011). “Press Coverage of the New Psychology by the New
York Times During the Progressive Era,” History of Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 2,
113 – 136.
Dennis, Paul M. (2002). “Psychology’s Public Image in ‘“Topics of the Times”’:
Commentary from the Editorial Page of the New York Times between 1904 and
1947, Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 38 (4), 371 – 392.
A. Business/organizational efficiency
Hale, Matthew, (1980). Human Science and Social Order: Hugo Munsterberg
and the Origins of Applied Psychology. Temple University Press.
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr. (2003) “Harry Hollingworth and the Shame of Applied
Psychology.” Pp. 38 – 56 in Baker, David B. (ed), Thick Description and Fine
Texture, University of Akron Press, Akron, Ohio.
Benjamin, L.T., & Baker, D.B. (2004). Industrial-organizational Psychology: The
New Psychology and the Business of Advertising. Pp. 118 – 121 in From Séance
to Science: A History of the Profession of Psychology in America, California:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
B. Intelligence testing: Eugenics and the War Effort
Fancher, Raymond E. (1985). The Intelligence Men—Makers of the IQ
Controversy, W. W. Norton and Company, New York and London.
Pickren, Wade and Rutherford, Alexandra. (2010) “Psychologists as Testers:
9
Applying Psychology, Ordering Society.” Pp. 118 – 147 in A History of Modern
Psychology in Context, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Sokal, Michael M. (1987). Psychological Testing and American Society,
1890 – 1930, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick and London.
Zenderland, Leila. (1998). Measuring Minds—Henry Herbert Goddard and the
Origins of American Intelligence Testing, Cambridge University Press.
C. Child rearing
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr., and Nielsen-Gammon, Elizabeth. (1999). “B.F. Skinner
and Psychotechnology: The Case of the Heir Conditioner,” Review of General
Psychology, Vol. 3, 155 – 167.
Buckley, K. W. (1989). Mechanical Man: John Broadus Watson and the
Beginnings of Behaviorism. New York: The Guilford Press.
Doroshow, Deborah Blythe. (2010). “An Alarming Solution – Bedwetting,
Medicine, and Behavioral Conditioning in Mid-Twentieth-Century America,”
Isis, 101:312 – 337.
Rutherford, Alexandra. (2006). “Mother of Behavior Therapy and Beyond: Mary
Cover Jones and the Study of the ‘Whole Child’.” In D. A. Dewsbury, L. T.
Benjamin, Jr., and M. Wertheimer, (Eds.), Portraits of Pioneers in Psychology
(Vol. VI, chapter 12). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
D. Sports
Fuchs, Alfred H. (2009). “Psychology and Baseball: The Testing of Babe Ruth.
Pp. 144 – 167 in Green, Christopher and Benjamin, Ludy T., Psychology Gets in
the Game: Sport, Mind, and Behavior, 1880 – 1960, University of Nebraska Press.
Graef, Stephen T., Kornspan, Alan S. and Baker, David (2009). “Paul Brown:
Bringing Psychological Testing to Football. Pp. 230 – 252 in Green, Christopher
and Benjamin, Ludy T., Psychology Gets in the Game: Sport, Mind, and Behavior,
1880 – 1960, University of Nebraska Press.
IV. Skirmishes on the Border: Parapsychology, ESP and Popular Culture Revisited
Allison, Paul D. (1979). “Experimental Parapsychology as a Rejected Science. Pp.
271 – 291 in Wallis, Roy, (ed.), On the Margins of Science: The Social
Construction of Rejected Knowledge, University of Keele.
Collins, H.M. and Pinch, Trevor (1979). “The Construction of the Paranormal:
Nothing Unscientific Is Happening.” Pp. 237 – 270 in-Wallis (ed.) On the
10
Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge, University
of Keele.
Hess, David J. (1992). “Disciplining Heterodoxy, Circumventing Discipline:
Parapsychology, Anthropologically.” Pp. 191 – 222 in Hess, David and Layne,
Linda (Eds.), Knowledge and Society, Vol. 9: The Anthropology of Science and
Technology, JAI Press.
V. Behavior Modification: B.F. Skinner and the Diffusion of his work into Popular
Culture
Rutherford, Alexandra. (2000). “Radical Behaviorism and Psychology’s Public:
B.F. Skinner in the Popular Press, 1934 -1990,” History of Psychology, Vol. 3, No.
4, 371 – 395.
Rutherford, Alexandra. (2003). “B.F. Skinner’s Technology of Behavior in
American Life: From Consumer Culture to Counterculture,” Journal of History
of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 39 (1), 1 – 23.
Rutherford, Alexandra. (2009). Beyond the Box – B.F. Skinner’s Technology of
Behavior from Laboratory to Life, 1950s – 1970s, University of Toronto Press.
VI. New-Wave Psychology’s Public Allure
Williams, Paul and Edgar, Brian. (2008). “Up Against the Wall: Primal Therapy
and ‘the Sixties,’” European Journal of American Studies, Special Issue, May
2008.
Nicholson, Ian. (2007). “Baring the Soul: Paul Bindrim, Abraham Maslow and
Nude Psychotherapy,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 43
(4), 337 – 359.
Tavris, Carol. (2003). “Mind Games: Psychological Warfare Between Therapists
and Scientists,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 49, Issue 25: B7ff.
VII. Psychology’s Portrayal on the Big and Little Screens
A. Psychology in the Cinema
Gabbard, Glen O. and Gabbard, Krin, (2005). Psychiatry and the Cinema, 2nd ed.,
American Psychiatric Press, Inc.
McDonald, Andrew and Walter, Garry, (2009). “Hollywood and ECT,”
International Review of Psychiatry, 21(3): 200–206.
11
Orchowski, Lindsay M., Spickard, Brad A, and McNamara, John R. (2006).
“Cinema and the Valuing of Psychotherapy: Implications for Clinical Practice.”
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 37, No. 5, 506 – 514.
Sandis, Constantine (2009). “Hitchcock’s Conscious Use of Freud’s Unconscious,”
Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 3/2009, pp. 56 – 81.
Schultz, Harriet T. (2005). “Good, Bad, Ugly: Movie Therapy and Movies’
Impact on Therapy: Symposium General Summary.” American Psychological
Association Symposium Proceedings, Division 46, American Psychological
Association, Inc.
Sleek, Scott. (1998). “How are Psychologists Portrayed on Screen?” APA
Monitor, Vol. 29, No. 11.
B. Psychology on Television
Becker, Anne. (2008). “Rise of the TV Shrink: Why New Shows on
Psychotherapy Sessions Keep Viewers on Edge of Couch,” Broadcasting and
Cable.
Fischoff, Stuart. (1995). “Confession of a TV Talk Show Shrink,” Psychology
Today, September 1995.
Vogel, David L., Gentile, Douglas A., and Kaplan, Scott A. (2008). “The
Influence of Television on the willingness to Seek Therapy,” Journal of Clinical
Psychology, Vol. 64 (3), 276- 295.
Klonoff, Elizabeth A., (1983), “A Star Is Born: Psychologists and the Media,”
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 16 (6): 847-854.
VIII. The Twelve Billion-dollar Self-help Industry
Valiunas, Algis (2010). “The Science of Self-Help,” The New Atlantis, Sumer,
2010, pp. 85 – 100.
Zimmerman, T. S., Holm, K. E., and Haddock, S. A. (2001). “A Decade of
Advice for Women and Men in the Best-Selling Self-Help Literature,” Family
Relations, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 122-133.
Rosen, Gerald M., Glasgow, Russell E., Moore, Timothy E. (2003). “Self-help
Therapy: The Science and Business of Giving Psychology Away.” Pp. 399 – 424
in Lilienfeld, Scott O., Lynn, Steven Jay, and Lohr, Jeffrey M. (Eds), Science and
Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Ehrenreich, Barbara (2009). Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of
Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. Macmillan Press.
12
Boundary Work In Psychology: The Uneasy Relationship Between Scientific
Psychology And Popular Psychology
Complete Bibliography
Adams, Grace. (1928). “The Decline of Psychology,” The American Mercury, December
1928, pp. 450-453.
Allison, Paul D. (1979). “Experimental Parapsychology as a Rejected Science. Pp. 271 –
291 in Wallis, Roy, (ed.), On the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of
Rejected Knowledge, University of Keele.
Becker, Anne. (2008). “Rise of the TV Shrink: Why New Shows on Psychotherapy
Sessions Keep Viewers on Edge of Couch,” Broadcasting and Cable.
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr. (2003) “Harry Hollingworth and the Shame of Applied
Psychology.” Pp. 38 – 56 in Baker, David B. (ed), Thick Description and Fine Texture,
University of Akron Press, Akron, Ohio.
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr. (1986). “Why Don’t They Understand Us?: A History of
Psychology’s Public Image,” American Psychologist, Vol. 41, No. 9, 941 – 946.
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr. (2010). “The Public’s Psychology: A History of the Popular
Psychology Magazines in America.”
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr. and Dixon, David N. (1996). “Dream Analysis by Mail.”
American Psychologist, Vol. 51, No, 5, 461 – 468.
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr. and Nielsen-Gammon, Elizabeth. (1999). “B.F. Skinner and
Psychotechnology: The Case of the Heir Conditioner,” Review of General Psychology,
Vol. 3, 155 – 167.
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr. and Baker, David B. (2004). Industrial-organizational
Psychology: The New Psychology and the Business of Advertising. Pp. 118 – 121 in
From Séance to Science: A History of the Profession of Psychology in America,
California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Blum, Deborah. (2006). Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for Scientific
Proof of Life after Death. Penguin Press, New York, New York.
Buckley, K. W. (1989). Mechanical Man: John Broadus Watson and the Beginnings of
Behaviorism. New York: The Guilford Press.
13
Collins, H.M. and Pinch, Trevor (1979). “The Construction of the Paranormal: Nothing
Unscientific Is Happening.” Pp. 237 – 270 in-Wallis (ed.) On the Margins of Science:
The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge, University of Keele.
Cooter, Roger. (1984). The Cultural Meaning of Popular Science: Phrenology and the
Organization of Consent in Nineteenth-Century Britain, Cambridge University Press.
Dennis, Paul M. (2002). “Psychology’s Public Image in ‘“Topics of the Times”’:
Commentary from the Editorial Page of the New York Times between 1904 and 1947,
Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 38 (4), 371 – 392.
Dennis, Paul M. (2011). “Press Coverage of the New Psychology by the New York
Times During the Progressive Era,” History of Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 2, 113 – 136.
Doroshow, Deborah Blythe. (2010). “An Alarming Solution – Bedwetting, Medicine,
and Behavioral Conditioning in Mid-Twentieth-Century America,” Isis, 101:312 – 337.
Ehrenreich, Barbara (2009). Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive
Thinking Has Undermined America. Macmillan Press.
Fancher, Raymond E. (1985). The Intelligence Men—Makers of the IQ Controversy, W.
W. Norton and Company, New York and London.
Fischoff, Stuart. (1995). “Confession of a TV Talk Show Shrink,” Psychology Today,
September 1995.
Fuchs, Alfred H. (2009). “Psychology and Baseball: The Testing of Babe Ruth. Pp. 144 –
167 in Green, Christopher and Benjamin, Ludy T., Psychology Gets in the Game: Sport,
Mind, and Behavior, 1880 – 1960, University of Nebraska Press.
Gabbard, Glen O. and Gabbard, Krin, (2005). Psychiatry and the Cinema, 2nd ed.,
American Psychiatric Press, Inc.
Graef, Stephen T., Kornspan, Alan S. and Baker, David (2009). “Paul Brown: Bringing
Psychological Testing to Football. Pp. 230 – 252 in Green, Christopher and Benjamin,
Ludy T., Psychology Gets in the Game: Sport, Mind, and Behavior, 1880 – 1960,
University of Nebraska Press.
Hale, Matthew, (1980). Human Science and Social Order: Hugo Munsterberg and the
Origins of Applied Psychology. Temple University Press.
Hess, David J. (1992). “Disciplining Heterodoxy, Circumventing Discipline:
Parapsychology, Anthropologically.” Pp. 191 – 222 in Hess, David and Layne, Linda
(Eds.), Knowledge and Society, Vol. 9: The Anthropology of Science and Technology, JAI
Press.
14
Hornstein, Gail A. (1992). “The Return of the Repressed: Psychology’s Problematic
Relations with Psychoanalysis, 1909 – 1960,” American Psychologist, 47, 254 – 263.
Klonoff, Elizabeth A., (1983), “A Star Is Born: Psychologists and the Media,”
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 16 (6): 847-854.
McDonald, Andrew and Walter, Garry, (2009). “Hollywood and ECT,” International
Review of Psychiatry, 21(3): 200–206.
Morawski, Jill G. and Hornstein, Gail A., (1991). “Quandary of the Quacks: The
Struggle for Expert Knowledge in American Psychology, 1890-1940.” Pp. 106 – 33 in
Brown, JoAnne and van Keuren, David K. (Eds), The Estate of Social Knowledge. The
Johns Hopkins symposia in comparative history, Vol. 19, Baltimore, MD, US: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Nicholson, Ian. (2007). “Baring the Soul: Paul Bindrim, Abraham Maslow and Nude
Psychotherapy,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 43 (4), 337 – 359.
Orchowski, Lindsay M., Spickard, Brad A, and McNamara, John R. (2006). “Cinema
and the Valuing of Psychotherapy: Implications for Clinical Practice.” Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 37, No. 5, 506 – 514.
Pettit, Michael. (2008). “The New Woman as Tied-Up Dog: Amy E. Tanner’s Situated
Knowledges,” History of Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 3, 145 – 163.
Pickren, Wade and Rutherford, Alexandra. (2010). “Forging a Psychological Sensibility:
from Religion to Psychical Research.” Pp. 75 – 80 in A History of Modern Psychology in
Context, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Pickren, Wade and Rutherford, Alexandra. (2010). “Boundary Work and the New
Psychology: Establishing the Center and Marking the Periphery.” Pp. 80 – 89 in A
History of Modern Psychology in Context, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Pickren, Wade and Rutherford, Alexandra. (2010) “Psychologists as Testers: Applying
Psychology, Ordering Society.” Pp. 118 – 147 in A History of Modern Psychology in
Context, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Quinn, Sheila O. (2007). “How Southern New England Became Magnetic North: The
Acceptance of Animal Magnetism, History of Psychology, 10, 231- 248.
Rapp, Dean. (1988). “The Early Discovery of Freud by the British General Educated
Public, 1912–1919, Social History of Medicine 3 (2): 217 – 243.
Rapp, Dean. (1988). “The Reception of Freud By the British Press: General Interest and
Literary Magazines, 1920–1925,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol.
24(2): 191-201.
15
Rosen, Gerald M., Glasgow, Russell E., and Moore, Timothy E. (2003). “Self-help
Therapy: The Science and Business of Giving Psychology Away.” Pp. 399 – 424 in
Lilienfeld, Scott O., Lynn, Steven Jay, and Lohr, Jeffrey M. (Eds), Science and
Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Rutherford, Alexandra. (2000). “Radical Behaviorism and Psychology’s Public: B.F.
Skinner in the Popular Press, 1934 -1990,” History of Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 4, 371 –
395.
Rutherford, Alexandra. (2003). “B.F. Skinner’s Technology of Behavior in American
Life: From Consumer Culture to Counterculture,” Journal of History of the Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 39 (1), 1 – 23.
Rutherford, Alexandra. (2006). “Mother of Behavior Therapy and Beyond: Mary Cover
Jones and the Study of the ‘Whole Child’.” In D. A. Dewsbury, L. T. Benjamin, Jr., and
M. Wertheimer, (Eds.), Portraits of Pioneers in Psychology (Vol. VI, chapter 12).
Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
Rutherford, Alexandra. (2009). Beyond the Box – B.F. Skinner’s Technology of Behavior
from Laboratory to Life, 1950s – 1970s, University of Toronto Press.
Sandis, Constantine (2009). “Hitchcock’s Conscious Use of Freud’s Unconscious,”
Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 3/2009, pp. 56 – 81.
Schmit, David. (2005). “Re-visioning American Antebellum Psychology: The
Dissemination of Mesmerism, 1836 – 1854, History of Psychology, 8, 403 – 434.
Schultz, Harriet T. (2005). “Good, Bad, Ugly: Movie Therapy and Movies’ Impact on
Therapy: Symposium General Summary.” American Psychological Association
Symposium Proceedings, Division 46, American Psychological Association, Inc.
Sleek, Scott. (1998). “How are Psychologists Portrayed on Screen?” APA Monitor, Vol.
29, No. 11.
Sokal, Michael M. (1987). Psychological Testing and American Society, 1890 – 1930,
Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick and London.
Tavris, Carol. (2003). “Mind Games: Psychological Warfare Between Therapists and
Scientists,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 49, Issue 25: B7ff.
Valiunas, Algis (2010). “The Science of Self-Help,” The New Atlantis, Sumer, 2010, pp.
85 – 100.
Vogel, David L., Gentile, Douglas A., and Kaplan, Scott A. (2008). “The Influence of
Television on the Willingness to Seek Therapy,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 64
(3), 276- 295.
16
Williams, Paul and Edgar, Brian. (2008). “Up Against the Wall: Primal Therapy and ‘the
Sixties,’” European Journal of American Studies, Special Issue, May 2008.
Zenderland, Leila. (1998). Measuring Minds—Henry Herbert Goddard and the Origins
of American Intelligence Testing, Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, T. S., Holm, K. E., and Haddock, S. A. (2001). “A Decade of Advice for
Women and Men in the Best-Selling Self-Help Literature,” Family Relations, Vol. 50, No.
2, pp. 122-133.