Journal Article Critique of ‘an Empirical Analysis of Trends in Psychology’ Essay

I.Research Question or ProblemThe diary oblige question is draw inly stated. The question asks whether the behaviourist, the psychoanalytic, the cognitive, or the neuroscientific position is most intellectually significant and most prominent in psychology today (Robins, Goling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117).II. inletThe introduction presents differing contentions regarding which school of psychology is most prominent. Five references moderate been cited in the introduction. It is believed by some that the cognitive placement reigns over psychoanalysis and behaviorism (Baars, 1986 Gardner, 1985 Hunt, 1993 Sperry, 1988, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117). An opposing conviction, however, states that this belief is merely a commission of cognitive psychologists opinion of their own field sort of than an accurate financial statement based on facts (Friman, Allen, Kerwin, & Larzelere, 1993, p. 662, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117).Furthermore, it i s argued that the belief in a cognitive perspective revolution is simply a method for scientists to exempt their practice (Leahey, 1991, p.362, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117). Other theories have indicated, without empirical depict however, that behaviourism continues to flourish despite the loss of mentor B.F Skinner (Salzinger, 1994, p. 816 p. 461, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117). Lastly, it is contented by some that the neuroscientific perspective continues to prosper (Churchland, 1998, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117), and that the entire field of psychology will eventually induce a subfield of neuro comprehension (Bechtel, 1988, as cited in Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 117).III.MethodsThe authors employed three poweres to conduct their issue the subject-matter index of psychologys Flagship publications, the subject-matter index of psychology dissertations and the citation index of Flagship publications. For the psychologys Flagship publications, authors selected some(prenominal) word stems in a database called psychINFO, including psychoanal, cognit, neurosci, strengthen, and conditioning. At that time, they calculated the percentage of denominations published in the Flagship publications surrounded by 1950 to 1997 and charted their findings over time (Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 118). For the psychology dissertations, authors once again employed psychINFO, this time, to try out the motifs presented in doctoral dissertations between 1967 to 1994. Then, they calculated the percentage of dissertations for individually of the intravenous feeding psychological perspectives (Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 119). Finally, for the citation index of Flagship publications, authors surveyed trends regarding the number of citations found concerning each perspective in the Flagship publications. Then, they selected the top four journals in each perspective apply a rating system operated by prominent neuroscientists (Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 119). Applying these findings, authors calculated the summation number of times per year the flagship publications cited articles published in each sub-disciplinary journal (Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p. 119).IV. ResultsThe results undoubtedly provided answers to the question/hypothesis. The findings indicated that articles regarding the cognitive perspective appeared most frequently in all three indexes, followed by the behavioural perspective. Articles regarding the psychoanalytic and neuroscientific perspective, however, were essentially non-existent end-to-end the studied period. Authors provided graphs and tables in order to pose their findings over time for each index (Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p.121-126).V.Discussion/ConclusionsDue to their compelling findings, the authors were able to construct several conclusions. Firstly, psychoanalytic journals, dissertations, and flagship articles hav e not been in the spotlight of mainstream psychology for the past several decades (Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p.123, 124). Secondly, with the focus currently on cognitive psychology, behavioural psychology has and continues to ebb in scientific psychology (Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p.124). Moreover, the authors state that one reason cognitive psychology is transcending behavioural psychology is due to the immeasurable role of computers in modern society. For example, thanks to computers, considerable changes have taken place in regards to scientists understanding of memory, information processing, etc (Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p.124). Lastly, mainstream psychology does not yet recognize neuropsychology however, there is an obvious increase in popularity that is underway. Authors recommend further look to explore the growing prominence of neuropsychology (Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p.125).VI.ReferencesAuthors used a clear and consistent citation format, and e ach of the references was properly cited within the article. The authors used a variety of sources ranging from the 1930s to the year prior to the study. The older references were used to demonstrate variations of theories over time.VII.Personal ReactionI consider this article to be rather thought-provoking. From the beginning, I agreed with the theorists who believed that cognitive psychology was the leading school of psychology. Although this article was written fourteen years ago, I believe it continues to be confessedly today. I was not aware of the serious decline of the behavioural perspective however, after reading about the impact computers have had on science and scientists, it became clear (Robins, Gosling, & Craik, 1999, p.124). One limitation that I feel could have bear upon the results was the manner in which they selected the top four journals. I wonder if the results would have varied had different journals been chosen. In my opinion, the sample size of four journal s seems close to confining to the research. Even so, this was a very interesting article. I would be rather intrigued to read a current study of the same topic and see if the results are equivalent.