Describe and discuss how the North American context in terms of the discipline of psychology

Describe and discuss how the North American context in terms of the discipline of psychology

Describe and discuss how the North American context in terms of the discipline of psychology and the public at large, played a role in the acceptance or rejection of the theories and practices espoused by Freud (1920) and by Skinner (1990).  As part of your discussion, reflect on the match (or lack thereof) between their respective commitments and the contextual characteristic(s) upon which you are focusing.

· Notice that the question asks about (1) the discipline of psychology and (2) the public at large. 1st, have a sense of what “mainstream” psychology was like at the time (i.e., what commitments and practices were generally espoused by psychologists), and keep in mind that mainstream psychology changed with time.  You may incorporate the voices of the new frameworks as well.?Tip:  I’d recommend using some of the contextual articles (e.g., Nicholson’s, Hornstein’s, & Rutherford’s) or some of the articles that explicitly (though perhaps indirectly) reacted to mainstream psychology (e.g., Freud’s, Wertheimer’s, etc.) to give you a sense of the theoretical commitments and practices of the time(s). Have a sense of how the public (i.e., lay persons, or people in general) reacted to Freud and Skinner from Hornstein’s and Rutherford’s articles.

· 2nd, have a sense of the commitments of Freud (1920) and Skinner (1990) — that is, what did they think we should study, how should we study it, and why should we do so (i.e., why study that and why using those methods).   You can augment this with lecture content, but don’t rely entirely on lectures because they are intended to complement (not replace) the readings.

· To answer this question:

· Describe the context(s) in which Freud and Skinner were situated.

· Compare/contrast Skinner to psychologists’ and the public’s commitments, then compare/contrast Freud’s to psychologists’ and the public’s commitments.  ?As part of this discussion, students may compare/contrast psychologists’ and the public’s reactions to Freud with their reactions to Skinner.

· To give yourself sufficient room in which to address the different parts of this question, your descriptions of Freud’s and Skinner’s work should focus on the aspects most directly related to the question (i.e., avoid long lists of less central details).

Freud, S. (1920). The psychology of errors (G. S. Hall, Trans.). In A general introduction to psychoanalysis (pp. 10-22). New York, NY, US: Horace Liveright. doi:10.1037/10667-002

Skinner, B. F. (1990). Can psychology be a science of mind? American Psychologist, 45(11), 1206-1210. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.11.1206

Nicholson, I. M. (1998). Gordon Allport, character, and the ‘culture of personality,’ 1897–1937. History of Psychology, 1(1), 52-68. doi:10.1037/1093-4510.1.1.52

Hornstein, G. A. (1992). The return of the repressed: Psychology’s problematic relations with psychoanalysis, 1909-1960. American Psychologist, 47(2), 254-263.

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.2.254

Rutherford, A. (2003). B. F. Skinner’s technology of behavior in American life: From consumer culture to counterculture. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 39, 1-23. doi:10.1002/jhbs.10090

Compare/contrast the role of the psychologist in helping the public at large from the perspectives of Rogers (1956) and either Witmer (1907/1996) or Gilbreth (1947).

When answering this question:

· Describe the perspectives of Rogers and of Witmer and/or Gilbreth in the articles re: psychologist’s roles, focusing primarily on details that will be part of your discussion of their similarities and/or differences.

· Incorporate/Rely upon the ideas advanced in the papers listed, not just on lecture content.

· If you’d like, you may incorporate both Witmer (1907/1996) and Gilbreth (1947).

· The term “public at large” refers to lay persons or people in general (i.e., not psychologists), wherein helping them could occur for/with one, some, many, or all people at a time (i.e., however that psychologist frames it).

Rogers, C. R. (1956). Becoming a person: Some hypotheses regarding the facilitation of personal growth. Pastoral Psychology, 7(61), 9-13. doi:10.1007/BF01560065

Witmer, L. (1907/1996). Clinical Psychology. American Psychologist, 51(3), 248-251. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.3.248

Gilbreth, L. M. (1947). Scientific management and human resources. Occupations, 26, 45-49.