Brien 1
Jack Brien
Mrs. Nicole Varty
English 1020, Sec 055
10 November 2015 2015
A New Perspective on Psychology
Beginning in the twentieth century, psychology experienced an unprecedented amount of
growth as a science and an academic discipline among the scientific community. This rapid
growth led to new ideas and concepts explored by many different psychologists, leading to
various schools of thought, or “perspectives.” These perspectives have shaped psychology into
the far-reaching science it is today, however many of the very perspectives that helped
popularize psychology are in danger of being discarded by “mainstream psychology” (Elkins
278, Overskeid 131). This discarding of perspectives may lead to unforeseen and possibly even
negative consequences, as there have already been negative impacts on certain perspectives
simply by being unpopular (Elkins 278, Koch 629). Although the severity of the situation is not
immediately present and noticeable, how can one know what might happen if perspectives such
as humanism, cognitivism, psychoanalysis and others like them are left to wither on the vine?
With these matters in mind, it makes sense to propose solutions for this looming decision that
many psychologists will have to face: whether or not perspectives should be abandoned. The
proposal that is most feasible, deployable and researchable is as follows. Psychologists should
continue to explore and update perspectives, such as humanism, that have been neglected rather
abandon them, because psychology as a whole is a hub which brings various fields and concepts
together using these very same perspectives in order to further advance the sciences.
Brien 2
Building off of this proposal, a concise and clear solution emerges: continue to explore
and experiment with different perspectives, despite that particular school of thought falling out of
favor with the mainstream. Of course, these perspectives must be recognized or used by the
American Psychological Association (APA) and any work must be peer reviewed as per their
standards (Bieling and Hadjistavropoulos 156-157). The reasoning behind this, is that there is
always the possibility that one of the newly unpopular perspective might once again be picked up
by the mainstream, or vice versa in the case of cognitivism (Overskeid 131). Little can be done
to predict the ever-changing field of psychology, especially in an age where rapid advancements
in technology often immediately reshape all of science as a whole.
There are also the possibilities of breakthroughs, which can happen at any time within
any area of study, that fundamentally shift all of psychology, for better or for worse. These
breakthroughs are especially influential in psychology, where science is often on the cutting edge
of research and development, and the mind and its behavior are still considered to be one of the
greatest mysteries within science (Wilke 135). Breakthroughs such as that of the humanistic
perspective on psychology, which many saw as a revolution in psychology by adding a new
appreciation for the human experience (Bugental 563). Who knows what might have happened if
psychology as a whole had ignored humanism as a perspective just because at its conception it
wasn’t considered mainstream. Psychology as it is known today might simply not exist, and the
advent of humanism is not the only example. How can it possibly be known what modern
psychology would be like if John B. Watson had not challenged the popular views of the
functionalists and psychoanalysts of his day, for his ideas on behaviorism (Watson 166) would
provide a foundation for generations of behaviorists, including many psychologists of today.
Brien 3
Despite the solution being a fairly straightforward one, there are others who have in the
past and present felt an alternate solution to be much more suitable: do nothing. By simply
allowing these perspectives to essentially “die off,” these psychologists and researchers feel that
less time is wasted on what is perceived as trivial work. For even with the evidence displayed
before, there are others who believe that it is the non-mainstream perspectives that hold
psychology back through their smaller size. One of the more famous denouncements of the
offshoot perspectives is, ironically enough, B. F. Skinner on humanistic and cognitive
psychology. Published in the journal The American Psychologist, “Whatever Happened to
Psychology as the Science of Behavior?” by B. F. Skinner was the great behavioral
psychologist’s attack against the forces that he believed were holding psychology back: the
smaller and newer perspectives. In the paper he expresses his distaste for what he calls “the
antiscience stance of humanistic psychology, the practical exigencies of the helping professions,
and the cognitive restoration of the royal House of Mind…” (784) and how they have all
“worked against the definition of psychology as the science of behavior” (784). He then goes on
to say that “Psychology should confine itself to its accessible subject matter and leave the rest of
the story of human behavior to physiology” (785).
B. F. Skinner’s paper is one of the prime examples of why psychology should not
abandon its numerous perspectives. Although his goal was to call for psychology to become a
field of study that only concerns itself with the study of human behavior, his arguments of
ignoring these less popular perspectives so that psychology could advance would ultimately turn
against him. For soon after his paper was published, cognitive psychology quickly was adopted
into the mainstream due to its appeal as a branch of psychology rooted more in technology,
biology, and chemistry. Behaviorism was quickly left by the wayside, and it would be quite some
Brien 4
time until psychologists would feel the perspective warranted serious consideration again
(Overskeid 132). Skinner’s prized behaviorism was no longer the dominating perspective, and
with its ebb in power also came a decreased interest in his own school of thought, radical
behaviorism (Skinner 781). If the argument of doing nothing was followed, it would not be a
stretch to assume that radical behaviorism as it exists today wouldn’t be here. Instead, because
many behaviorists stuck with the perspective and continued to explore new ideas (Overskeid
134). The concept of this proposal is even further strengthened by humanistic psychology’s
findings during this time, for despite its status as outside the mainstream, one of its preeminent
psychologists Carl Rogers was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 (Elkins 280).
So even though there have been and will be plenty of arguments to do so, it appears that
in the past doing nothing with the perspectives has not been proven effective in improving
psychology as a whole. Rather it seems that by allowing the continuation of experiments and
findings by perspectives, despite their status being outside “mainstream psychology,”
psychology as a whole benefits and learns. This is of course all occurring within the past and
present standards of credibility as outlined by the American Psychological Association (Bieling
and Hadjistavropoulos 156-157).
Now that the solution has been presented and compared with others, some might ask,
“What are the actual goals of the solution?” By continuing to examine and keep current each
perspective, it is the hope that: present perspectives are kept from simply becoming history,
psychology does not become a single-perspective science, and growth occurs among new
schools of thought. These goals are all realistic as well as attainable. Preventing present
perspectives from becoming just history is simple in that as long as psychologists are not
discouraged or prevented from studying and researching as they have been in the past (Elkins
Brien 5
279, Donlevy 92, Krampen and Schui 61-62, Skinner 784), very few to no perspectives should
be lost. Contrary to what some psychologists believe or believed (Overskeid 133, Skinner 784),
psychology should not be a one perspective science, as it has been shown that even polar
opposite perspectives such as psychoanalysis and humanism can still have some overlap while
also covering their own areas (Hansen 24-27), further demonstrating the need for psychology to
be diverse as possible. Finally, growth occurring among new schools of thought is probably the
easiest of all, as even today perspectives such as positive psychology are slowly growing in
popularity (Krampen and Schui 61-63), and one would be hard pressed to find evidence to the
contrary.
With these goals in mind, next one can move on to the actual steps used to implement the
purposed solution to the psychological perspective problem. Once again, the amount of steps as
well as their simplicity highlight the overall feasibility of the aforementioned solution. First, the
APA should review all of the current schools of thought and deem them worthy or not of being
called a perspective according to guidelines set by the organization. Next, using this information,
the APA should find and identify which perspectives might be struggling in comparison to their
counterparts, such as positive psychology (Krampen and Schui 61-62), and provide any
monetary or bodily support. Through these and other programs, the next step is achieved, where
abandonment of perspectives is avoided by citing its importance within history and by ensuring
that ideas that have been peer reviewed and evaluated are all shared equally, no matter the
current trends. The very last step in order to implement this solution is to review how the various
schools of thought, both major and minor, are represented in textbooks and academic curriculum,
for in order to effectively apply anything at all, consideration for future generations must be
some part of the plan.
Brien 6
When considering at a solution, probably one of the most important parts is what kind of
positive or negative consequences it may have. Looking at the solution of continuing to test and
examine with different perspectives despite their favorability (Donlevy 92), rather than avoiding
or ignoring them (Skinner 784), it is plain to see the positives. By following the steps outlined
beforehand, one of the positives is psychologists, the APA in particular, have a much closer view
on each perspective, allowing for a more detailed review of its impact. Another positive is
providing psychology with a more unified, and less fragmented image as a science. For if the
APA and other psychologists become more open to the ideas of other perspectives that they had
previously disregarded, a more unified and self-aware field of psychology emerges.
Specifically when implementing the last step from the paragraph above, one of the best
positive outcomes is the future interest created by exposing more schools of thought to up and
coming psychologists, giving them more opportunities to find their interests and to have access
to more knowledge from different perspectives. On top of providing positive outcomes, the
solution might also avoid negative ones. As stated previously, with the implementation of the
proposition and the following of all the steps outlined, it is possible that abandonment of
legitimate perspectives is no longer a concern. Another negative outcome avoided is once again,
the suppression of perspectives that aren’t quite as popular by the followers of the more
mainstream one. For if every perspective is allowed to exist in its own way within the
framework, there is no need for perspectives to feel threatened by other, foreign perspectives.
Of course, all of these various steps, positive and negative outcomes, and goals all rely on
exactly how feasible this proposal is. Technically speaking, if all the steps were followed and the
subsequent policy changes were made, then enforced, and the textbooks and curriculum updated,
then it would most likely be a lengthy process. Although it may appear simple on paper, the APA
Brien 7
council must meet, then agree on the policy, and then finally implement and enforce it, all of
which takes time. There will also more likely than not be opposition to the solution, as
demonstrated by the various sources who showed they were against the various smaller
perspectives from their onsets (Overskeid 133, Skinner 784). Despite all of this, after a span of a
few years, this policy could be working and changing the face of psychology. In the past the
APA council has been forced to deal with things quickly, such as the passing of the policy
banning all members from any forms of participation in enhanced interrogation techniques in
2015 after only a few weeks of public outcry (Bohannon, news.sciencemag.org). Probably the
lengthiest part of the entire implementation would be the new curriculum and text book changes,
which are long processes as it stands today, but shouldn’t be seen as a major hindrances. Overall,
the policy is fairly feasible and could be implemented relatively quickly if it came to it.
The proposal is a straightforward one: Psychologists must be allowed to continue in
modernizing and exploring within perspectives that are not considered mainstream instead of
abandoning them because when psychology is viewed as a whole, it is seen as a science that
unites as well as advances many different concepts and fields together by utilizing those very
same perspectives that some deem unnecessary. No longer should the perspectives within
psychology fight to be “mainstream.” Rather, they should all work in tandem to achieve new
heights in research and ideas, allowing for the science of psychology as a complete discipline to
come to greater prominence. Students please be open-minded to the ideas of others, even if you
don’t personally believe them valid. Teachers, psychologists and other faculty: consider the
points made in this paper by various psychologists throughout history as each of you decides
whether this is the correct way of solving this problem.
Brien 8
Works Cited
Bugental, J. F. T. “The American Psychologist: Humanistic Psychology: A New Breakthrough.”
18 Vol. American Psychological Association, 1963. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Bohannon, John. "APA Overhauling Policies and Leadership after Torture Report."
ScienceInsider. AAS, 14 July 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Elkins, David. “Why Humanistic Psychology Lost Its Power and Influence in American
Psychology: Implications for Advancing Humanistic Psychology.” Journal of Humanistic
Psychology. 2009. 267-91. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
Hadjistavropoulos, Thomas, and Peter J. Bieling. "When Reviews Attack: Ethics, Free Speech,
and the Peer Review Process." Canadian Psychology. 2000. 152-9. ProQuest. Web.
10 Nov. 2015.
Brien 9
Hansen, James T. “Journal of Counseling and Development: Psychoanalysis and Humanism: A
Review and Critical Examination of Integrationist Efforts with some Proposed
Resolutions.” 78 Vol. American Association for Counseling and Development, 01/2000.
Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Joseph, Stephen, and P. Alex Linley. “A Positive Psychological Theory of
Therapeutic Practice.” Positive Therapy. John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2004. Web. 5 Nov.
2015.
Koch, Sigmund. “Psychological Science Versus The Science-Humanism Antinomy: Intimations
Of A Significant Science Of Man.” American Psychologist 16.10 (1961): 629-639.
PsycARTICLES. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.
Overskeid, Geir. "THEY SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES: THE
CRISIS OF COGNITIVISM AND A SECOND CHANCE FOR BEHAVIOR
ANALYSIS." The Psychological Record. 2008. 131-51. ProQuest. Web. 10 Nov.
2015.
Brien 10
Schui, Gabriel. “Health and Well-being: Bibliometric Analyses on the
Emergence and Present Growth of Positive Psychology.” 2 Vol. Applied Psychology
Blackwell Publishing, 03/2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Skinner, B. F. “The American Psychologist: Whatever Happened to Psychology as the Science
of Behavior?.” 42 Vol. American Psychological Association, 1987. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Watson, John B. “Psychological Review: Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it.” 20 Vol.
American Psychological Association, 1913. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Wertz, F. J. “The Role of the Humanistic Movement in the History of Psychology.” 38 Vol.
The Journal of Humanistic Psychology. Sage Publications, 01/1998. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Wilke, Marko. "The Neuronal Basis of Intelligence: A Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery?"
Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2007. 172. ProQuest. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.