Systemic Considerations in Child Development and the Pursuit of Racial Equality in the United States

In this commentary on Lewis’ (2021) article in Psychological Inquiry, we expand on ways that both systemic and interpersonal contexts contribute to and uphold racial inequalities, with a particular focus on research on child development and socialization. We also discuss the potential roadblocks that may undermine the effectiveness of Lewis’ (2021) recommended strategy of relying on experts as a driving force for change. We conclude by proposing additional strategies for pursuing racial equality that may increase the impact of experts, such as starting anti-racist socialization early in development, family-level interventions, and teaching people about racial injustices and their connections to systemic racism.

Further Developments in the Panel of Psychological Inquiry Method of Case Study Research: The Case of "Ronan"

In 2011 our research group published a pilot study—the Case of "Anna"—employing the Panel of Psychological Inquiry (PPI) Clinical Case Study Method. The present study—the Case of "Ronan"—is a second example of the PPI method in action. The Case of Ronan has a number of modifications in method compared to the Case of Anna. First, the Case of Ronan involves the evaluation of a more complex and controversial written case study of a 20-month old boy who was diagnosed with moderate to severe autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and who was treated in a comprehensive therapeutic daycare center program where the core approach was based upon Greenspan’s (2009) "Developmental, Individual-differences, Relationship-based" ("DIR"/ "Floortime") model. DIR/Floortime was originally developed for use by parents in their own homes, and the Case of Ronan demonstrates how a therapeutic pre-school environment can use DIR/Floortime as a model for most adult-child interactions in a pre-school therapeutic environment. In addition to the application of the PPI model to a radically different clinical diagnosis, there were modifications to the methodology itself including: (a) reduction in the number of judges from five to three; (b) having a key witness in the case testify remotely before the Panel; (c) the writing of a much more detailed judges’ opinion on the aspects of the case that most influenced their decisions; and (d) a further development of the logic of a quasi-judicial approach to clinical case studies in psychology. By examining how the civil law’s basic framework for proving causality in cases of personal injury (who did what harm to whom), the process by which knowledge claims that emerge out of clinical practice (who provided what benefit to whom) is further explicated.

The Adjudicated Case Study Method, Part 2: Editor’s Introduction

This article introduces readers to the present PCSP issue on the "adjudicated case study method." This method employs concepts from the law for evaluating qualitative information to determine the truth of statements about human psychology and behavior, including causal statements about psychotherapy outcome. Two models of the adjudicated case study method, which were originally presented in PCSP in 2011, are covered: Ronald Miller’s "Panels of Psychological Inquiry" (PPI), and Arthur Bohart’s "Research Jury Method." The issue concludes with a Commentary by Robert Elliott, Susan Stephen, and Anna Robinson.

Major Theories in Social Psychology

A synopsis of major theories of social psychology is provided with reference to three major domains of social-psychological inquiry: attitudes and attitude change, motivation regulation, and group behavior. Despite the heterogeneity of research topics, there is considerable overlap in the basic theoretical principles across all three domains. Typical theories that constitute the common ground of social psychology rely on rules of good Gestalt consistency, on psychodynamic principles, but also on behaviorist learning models and on semantic-representation and information-transition models borrowed from cognitive science. Prototypical examples that illustrate the structure and the spirit of theories in social psychology are dissonance theory, construal-level, regulatory focus, and social identity theory. A more elaborate taxonomy of pertinent theories is provided in the first table in this article.

Shoring up the shaky psychological foundations of a micro-economic model of ideology: Adversarial collaboration solutions

Commentary on Gries, T., Mueller, V., & Jost, J. (2021). The market for belief systems: A formal model of ideological choice. Psychological Inquiry.

She Must Have Done Something

This chapter emphasizes that noncustodial mothers, whether voluntarily or not, often experience some form of stigma in relation to their status as mothers without primary custody of their children. It explains stigma as a robust subject of sociological and psychological inquiry, in which sociological literature is replete with studies of mental health, sexual orientation, and teenage pregnancy. It also cites Bernice Pescosolido and Jack Martin's extensive review of the theoretical developments and widening scope of the application of the concept of stigma, such as to singlehood, gambling, and stripping. The chapter describes noncustodial mothers that experience a spoiled identity, a “blemish of individual character.” It investigates how spoiled identities operate, which in turn confer a whole host of additional negative traits to the stigmatized person while searching for a reason to explain the blemish.

Ethics

How has ethics been connected with the science and profession of psychology? Has ethics been essential to psychology? Or have psychologists increasingly developed objective psychological understandings free of ethical biases? Is ethics in psychology limited to research ethics and professional ethics? Understanding the various connections among ethics and psychology requires conceptual clarity about the many meanings of ethics and related terms (such as moral, ideal, and flourishing). Ethics has included, but goes beyond, research and professional ethics, since ideas about what is good or bad, right or wrong, obligatory or virtuous have shaped psychological inquiry. In moral psychology, psychologists have sought to understand the psychology of ethical dimensions of persons, such as prejudice or altruism. Some psychologists have worked to minimize ethical issues in psychology in general, but others embraced psychologies tied to ethical visions, like advancing social justice. Many ethical issues (beyond professional ethics) have also been entangled in professional practice, including understanding the problems (“not good” states of affairs) for which clients seek help and the (“good”) goals toward which psychologists helped people move. Cutting across the various ways ethics and psychology have been interconnected is an enduring tension: Although psychologists have claimed expertise in the science of psychology and in the provision of psychological services, they have had no disciplinary expertise that equips them to determine what is good, right, obligatory, and virtuous despite the fact that ethical issues have often been deeply intertwined with psychology.

We are in it together

This is a commentary on Sherman and Rivers (2021) "There’s Nothing Social about Social Priming: Derailing the 'Train Wreck.'" for Psychological Inquiry. I suggest that the 1990s-2000s had two distinct subcultures of social psychology conducting priming research, and that we are individually and collectively responsible for the credibility of the scientific literature.