There Is No Viable Path to Consensus Based on the Current Research Literature

This article is a comment on Leising et al., in press, Personality Science (https://psyarxiv.com/6btc3/). I argue that we cannot use meta-analysis, nor any other known procedure, to achieve consensus based on current psychology research practices.

Taking Psychoanalytic and Psychometric Perspectives toward a Binocular Vision of Religion

Current psychology of religion relies mostly on quantitative psychometric approaches for the description, explanation, or prediction of religious experience and behavior, risking narrow reifications of operational definitions and neglect of individual experience. Psychoanalytic concepts are rarely addressed, due to being seen as lacking a scientific foundation, such as hypothesis testing based on large samples. Psychoanalysts have been slow to discuss religion without suspicion of pathology. Recently, psychoanalysts have broadened their empirical work and a “narrative turn” is discernible in developmental and personality psychology, allowing the inclusion of subjective perspectives. Drawing on these developments a rapprochement of psychodynamic and psychometric approaches is suggested to gain more depth of vision. Examples are given for the areas of development, personality, and psychotherapy.

Using Information Theory to Develop Modern Educational Methodologies

The field of research in educational methodologies has been offering during the last decade a series of innovative and promising new initiatives. These initiatives have tried to apply to the educational environment the fruits of current psychology research. Ideas such as student motivation, gaming, multiple intelligences, project-based learning, flipping the classroom, makerspaces, and others, abound in the field of educational methodologies. These new initiatives are evaluated with traditional procedures grouped under the umbrella of the scientific method. This paper first discusses the limitations of these evaluations. Second, it describes learning and teaching as a computational process. Finally, it proposes the use of principles of Information Theory as the foundation for the design of modern educational methodologies.

Introduction

One of the purposes of the present book is to provide an updated review of the current psychology of facial expression and to acknowledge the growing contribution of neuroscientists, biologists, anthropologists, linguists, and other scientists to this field. Our aim was to allow the readers—from lay to practitioners to research scientists—to discover the most recent scientific developments in the field and its associated questions and controversies. As will become obvious, the most fundamental questions, such as whether “facial expressions of emotion” in fact express emotions, remain subjects of great controversy. Just as important, readers will find that new research questions and proposals are animating this field.

Professor Gender, Age, and “Hotness” in Influencing College Students’ Generation and Interpretation of Professor Ratings

<p>Undergraduate psychology students rated expectations of a bogus professor (randomly designated a man or woman and hot versus not hot) based on an online rating and sample comments as found on RateMyProfessors.com (RMP). Five professor qualities were derived using principal components analysis (PCA): dedication, attractiveness, enhancement, fairness, and clarity. Participants rated current psychology professors on the same qualities. Current professors were divided based on gender (man or woman), age (under 35 or 35 and older), and attractiveness (at or below the median or above the median). Using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), students expected hot professors to be more attractive but lower in clarity. They rated current professors as lowest in clarity when a man and 35 or older. Current professors were rated significantly lower in dedication, enhancement, fairness, and clarity when rated at or below the median on attractiveness. Results, with previous research, suggest numerous factors, largely out of professors’ control, influencing how students interpret and create professor ratings. Caution is therefore warranted in using online ratings to select courses or make hiring and promotion decisions. </p>