Talk:Applied History of Psychology

Note to Prof. Ferrari
Thanks for your efforts this term. I was just wondering if there is any way we could get some feedback/comments as a class on this project? I feel like we've put so much work into this and I have no idea as to whether we have met expectations, etc. It sort of feels like being left hanging because I have no idea what you think about what we've done here. Is there any way that perhaps you could post some feedback/comments on this message board before the grades are submitted to the registrar's office? Thanks in advance, --LisaCouper 16:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

URGENT - PLEASE READ
Hi everyone... Please do not change the names of our chapters, which are links on our main page, without adhering to the following procedure. Basically what happens if you just change the name of the link is that a new page is created and all the contents of the previous chapter/link name are lost. So, the best thing to do is to copy and paste the contents of the chapter into word, then change the chapter/link name, click on it, and paste the chapter contents back in. If you are not entirely confident of this procedure, please refrain from changing chapter/link names on our main page and have someone do it who is. Anyone who is urgent to make changes to our main page (who is not clear on what I am talking about) can email me at lcouperthwaite@oise.utoronto.ca or post a message here. Thanks! --LisaCouper 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Final To Dos for History and Systems Class
The restructuring of our book is complete! --LisaCouper 15:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A HUGE thank you to Lisa and Patricia for completing all this restructuring!! Thank you so much --Abuxton 18:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes that you soooo much the new structure looks great and is very organized and comprehensive --Jhieminga 23:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

NOW EVERYONE... Please Sign-up for the Following Tasks! and Indicate whether it is DONE!

Review Introduction to the Book
DONE--but feel free to fill-out further. Given time constraints I kept it short. --Jtheule 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Each Section

 * Part 1 - COMPLETE --LisaCouper 23:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Part 2
 * Part 3
 * Part 4 Jen and Renita will do the intro for this section. DONE--Jhieminga 00:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Part 5 - DONE (Introduction added to this section)--Lpbatho 16:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added mini introductions to the two chapters that I edited but does anyone know how to fix the numbers in the table of contents so that the numbering is continuous even with the captions added in? Sorry, I'm not that technologically savvy. If it is not possible, then we will just have to let Michel know given that I think that this is what he stated he wanted as an 'introduction' to each chapter - Krisgass

I have tried to find a way to fix this... I found that adding a html tag worked, but there may be a better way. --Ppoulin 18:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatting & Proofreading (flow & grammar) of Each Section

 * Part 1 - Early Contributions to the Development of the Field of Psychology
 * '''Philosophical Roots of Psychology -- Done --BFletcher 23:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscientific Schools of Thought -- DONE --Lpbatho 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Establishment of the field/Wundt -- DONE--Lpbatho 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Part 2 - Models of Development
 * AttachmentPoulin DONE
 * Personality Development AND Personality Testing - Krisgass --- DONE
 * Cognitive Development - Krisgass --- DONE
 * Social Development - DONE --Jpereira 00:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Moral Development - I'll do this --Krisgass 00:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC) - shared by --Krisgass 00:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)--Aregina 00:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Controversies about Human Development - I'll work on proof reading this section and writing a caption now --Aregina 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC) shared by --Aregina 00:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Part 3 - Models of Learning, Intelligence, and Assessment
 * Learning Theory - DONE [User:Jpereira|Jpereira]] 00:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Theories of Intelligence--Proofreading Done --User:Claudiavf
 * Models of Assessment -- Am in the middle of proofreading this one-- --Pigondan 00:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC) -- DONE--Pigondan 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Part 4 - "Mental Disorder": Identification, Treatment, and Controversy
 * DSM and other diagnostic systems and controversy--DONE--Jtheule 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC) :Done introduction on main page--Abuxton 23:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Clinical treatment: Key Figures, models of treatment, effectiveness Introduction on main page done --Abuxton 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Specific Disorders Editing of ADHD section DONE--Lpbatho 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC),-- Done proofreading of ADHD sectionclaudiavf 23:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Part 5 - Special Topics
 * Research on Attention -- Proofreading Treisman section-- claudiavf-- Done proofread intro and Stroop section--Pigondan 23:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)-- Proofreading of Introduction to The History of Research on Attention and JR Stoop and the Stroop Effect -- DONE--Pigondan 05:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Idea for a new structure
I think today is the day we were going to decide on a structure for the book and work on creating linkages, etc.

I was looking over the content posted up to now (noon on Tuesday) and I was thinking that maybe we'd like to break the book into 4 sections, which could then be subdivided into chapters.

After the initial introduction, I was thinking the sections would go:

1. Early Contributions to the Field of Psychology a. Philosophical Roots of Psychology b. Pseudoscientific Schools of Thought c. Establishment of the field/Wundt. 2. Models of Development a. Attachment b. Personality Development AND Personality Testing c. Cognitive Development d. Social Development e. Moral Development f. Controversies about Human Development INCLUDING Nature/Nurture Debate 3. Models of Learning, Intelligence, and Assessment a. Learning Theory b. Theories of Intelligence c. Models of Assessment d. Research on Attention 4. Mental "Disorder": Identification, Treatment, and Controversy a. DSM and other diagnostic systems and controversy b. Clinical treatment: Key Figures, models of treatment, effectiveness c. Specific Disorders

I think this outlines includes everything except Edward K. Strong and vocational testing (it's only a paragraph though, so we could probably just cut it) and the Attention section, which is very large, but I was having a hard time fitting it in. There's a few places I could see it sort of fitting, but it's so large, it will overwhelm everything else. Should we give it its own section?

Anyway, this was just an idea. I thought it might give us a starting point for our discussion tonight. --Jtheule 16:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds pretty good to me, I think... EXCEPT for the part on "Development of the field of Psychology" because that is way to sparse to be its own section. We are missing stuff about the physiological roots of psychology (i.e. Darwin, Broca, etc)... to have a section like that we should also probably have a sub-sections on Freud, Behaviorism, the cognitive revolution, etc.  I'm not sure how we do this because a lot of these things are elaborated upon in other sections.  For example, I know the part on attention has a lot about behaviorism and there is stuff on Freud in various sections, and there's info on the cognitive revolution within the "Models of Development" section.  So... I'm not sure that we should make only  "Philosophical Roots of Psychology", "Pseudoscientific Schools of Thought" and "Establishment of the field/Wundt" under such a huge "section" of Development of the Field of Psychology... I think the whole wikibook undertakes to display this development.  Maybe we need to talk about the development of the field of psychology in the introduction and say that this is displayed throughout the paper in various sections... also touch on the point that this project is far from all inclusive, and probably elude to this being a "mosaic" of ideas and that it therefore is like a patchwork quilt, without everything necessarily flowing from one section to the next.  Just some ideas... looking forward to talking about this more tonight. --LisaCouper 18:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I really like the newly proposed structure. Here are some of my suggestions: I am wondering if we could include the attention section and the vocational section under a category called "Special Topics".  Also, I am wondering if we need a foreword before each section that will describe what the reader can expect to read about?--Aregina 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The linked pages have been created based on the proposed structure & discussion. Lisa and I will continue to move text to these sections, if anyone wants to work on the sections that have already been moved! Go ahead! And if there is anything that is not quite right with the work done, please step in!--Ppoulin 10:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All text have now been moved into the new sections. Writing of introductions to each section can now begin!  Let's make this flow now and I think we will be finished (although I think this will have to continue to remain a work in progres for other classes)... --LisaCouper 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

opps!
I just realized, after doing some extensive editing and adding of new info that I was not "logged in". Now I am wondering how many other times I may have contributed things to the wikibook this way. For the record, activity today from IP address 74.117.144.205 was from me! For others who may have done the same at some point and wish to receive credit for their work, perhaps you may want to add a note like this for Michel's awareness. Thanks everybody... --LisaCouper 21:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on this issue. I just noticed I did the same thing. So, just for the purpose of identifying contributions, I just posted under Freud, which came up as IP address 74.112.162.158. I also need to examine what other parts of the book this was an issue for me this weekend. --Jpereira 05:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Jessica Pereira


 * Me too... I think I was logged off by accident. I just posted under Human Development  - Longstanding Questions, which came up as IP address  69.158.97.34.  Thanks for alerting me to the issue.--Aregina 07:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have this problem too!!! I posted the following sections: Existential therapy & key figures, Gestalt therapy & key figures, & Solution Focused Brief Therapy & Key Figures. My IP address is 74.99.40.187. Sorry for the confusion! --Abuxton 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just worked on the reference section. My IP address is 142.150.97.218 --LHobbes 23:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To complete or not?
I think we're all struggling with the idea of how to complete this project in any satisfactory way in the week we have left.

I was wondering whether we might want to take a whole different approach.

It's my understanding that another section of this course will be taught in the fall.

I was thinking that maybe we'd design our project to be taken over by them. Over successive generations of this course that may actually result in a real History of Psychology textbook being created! It would of course have both negative and positive effects on future classes (e.g., it would give them a starting place, but would also restrict their choices of topic somewhat--there's still lots to be covered though!). The idea of this book going through different groups also seems very "wiki" to me. Any thoughts? The idea would of course be subject to Michel's approval, but would help us deal with issues of not covering a broad enough scope. --Jtheule 23:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a fantastic idea! --LisaCouper 23:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I second this idea. An evolving wiki is what is supposed to happen, right? Although I think there is a different instructor for the course in the Fall term. --Abuxton 17:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitely think that that is a good idea. I think that the professors name is Richard Volpe. He has taught the course before I believe so he may already have an outline he is used to following. However, running this by him may be successful so it is worth a shot. If not, I would recommend in the future to maybe only attempt this project during terms running from sept-april. It is a good idea and has been an interesting project but I think that a summer school class goes by so quick that it is difficult to grasp, learn, and complete such a project fully in 5 or 6 weeks.--Mattinaj 17:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you all are doing a great job, and this is a good idea if the intent is to allow another class to continue where you left off. If you want I can make a PDF version of what you all have done so far (when you're finished that is, no point to doing one now when you're gonna continue editing it), just leave a message on my talk page. It could be interesting just to see the result of all your hard work in an easy to see (and static) format! Regards to all, Mattb112885 (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision made on June 5th regarding completing the project
The last day to submit contributions to the main text is Tuesday June 12 by the beginning of the class. We will have a discussion about the structure of the text during that class and spend the last few days focusing on structuring / tying & tidying things up.

If you have any suggested structure, bring something concrete so we can compare notes and make some decisions. --Ppoulin 00:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

ADHD Section
Hi everyone,

I had written some stuff on ADHD when it was in the "linked" page. I notice that it has been unlinked and included in the text, but the content I had written is gone too. I take no offense to that, but wanted to check in that that was intentional and not just the by-product of it being moved into the main text. Can someone just clarify that they will write that section and then I'll move on and go do something else? --Jtheule 23:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi... you should be able to go back in the history and recover. Maybe someone can help you with this in class on Tues? I see some things have been added recently, so maybe this is ok now? Let me know and I can try to help in class if needed.  --LisaCouper 21:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm one of the people who wrote in the ADHD section, and I just asked the other two people, and none of us have deleted your section (so, definitely not intentional!). As Lisa said, I'm sure it can be recovered by looking through the history, and when you find it, please feel free to integrate as needed it into what's there now.--Pigondan 18:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Structure of the main page
I suggest adding a third header in the "Clinical" subsection called: biopsychosocial. This would allow for integrative material to be added there as opposed to be forced into a "biological" or "psychological" category. --Ppoulin 00:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, this is quite legitimate suggestion, -- I can only wonder why you did not actually add it :) --Yasya 18:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Professor
Hello, my name is Whiteknight, and I'm a staff member here at wikibooks. I am trying to get in touch with the professor of this class project. Could somebody please tell me who the professor is, and how i can get in touch? --Whiteknight (talk)
 * Hi, Whiteknight! I am facilitating the technological part of this project, so, please, feel free to contact me --Yasya 01:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Referencing question
I was just curious if we cited a source what we are to do in regards to referencing it? Should we make a reference chapter? Any suggestions? *--Mattinaj 17:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess, at this point we can use the footnote references, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes --Yasya 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Stigma or Damage of Labelling in Diagnostic Issues section
See the lively debate in this section. --Leef 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you like, perhaps, to identify the conflicting issues in the main text? --Yasya 00:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do believe it is possible to integrate these views so that we have a coherent text...--Ppoulin 03:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we make different sections? Potential benefits associated with diagnosis... potential harm associated with diagnosis?--Ppoulin 11:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinions about assigning Homework in Psychotherapy
This section has been developed due to a discussion I had with a fellow classmate about the use of homework in therapy. My own opinion is that homework to clients throughout therapy, and encouraging compliance, is beneficial to the client. Coming from a CBT perspective, I have made use of many homework assignments that have been mutually agreed upon and devised by myself and clients. Anyone else's view about this issue would be welcome. --Mattinaj 00:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly encourage individuals to engage in therapy-related activities outside sessions (e.g., take time to do mindfulness exercise, journal experience). My approach is bridges mindfulness-based clinical care & process experiential therapy. However, I don't give "homework" and I do not see "compliance" as necessarily a "good thing." Homework and checking compliance can set the therapist up as "parent" or "teacher." I.e., "Did you do your homework?" And can start setting up the client as having done something "wrong" or "letting the therapist down" for not having completed homework. I can see that in short term therapy focusing on a very specific issue, that this would not be detrimental and the homework could be beneficial. But in longer therapy, these dynamics can be detrimental.--User:Ppoulin


 * Much of my clinical training and experience in the provision of psychotherapy has been within the cognitive-behavioral fold too, and certainly homework assignments have been an integral part of the treatment programs in which I’ve been involved. Cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) is the dominant paradigm in correctional and forensic psychiatric settings when the explicit aim of treatment is a reduction in criminal, particularly violent, behavior (although psychopharmacology is obviously also an element, often as an adjunct to CBT, in cases involving psychiatric disorders as well as impulse and aggression control difficulties).  For example, in the treatment of sexual offenders, foci for homework assignments include the identification of thinking errors, the enhancement of empathy, elucidation of pathways to offence behaviors, and social skills development.  CBT for sexual offenders follows a fairly standardized model in North America, Europe, and Australasia with homework (which might be more appropriately but less therapeutically labeled ‘cell work’ for offenders participating in programs while incarcerated) frequently providing the source of much in-session discussion.  In group settings I’ve found that offenders seem better able to grasp the issues when things are more concretely considered; the group’s scrutiny of homework presentations often greatly facilitates this process.  Unfortunately, process variables have been somewhat neglected in evaluation research in this area and relatively little attention has been given to the impact of homework on outcome or the possible role of homework as a mediating or moderating variable.  I’ll have a look at the broader psychotherapy literature and see if I can prepare a paragraph or two with a historical slant for inclusion in the project. --LHobbes 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In regard to the second posting in this discussion, I agree that “homework” and “compliance” are not “necessarily” a good thing in that ‘homework’ without therapeutic benefit and a patient’s ‘compliance’ (instead of investment and engagement in the therapy process) would not be expected to predict positive outcomes. If a patient doesn’t see the benefit of a ‘between session’ undertaking (whether a written assignment encouraging reflection on an issue or experience, or an in vivo experiment such as inviting a colleague out for a coffee) the undertaking is unlikely to have the effect that the therapist desires.  But this seems more a failure of the therapist to effectively ‘collaborate’ with the patient and ensure that any therapeutic work (done during or between sessions) is mutually agreed upon (see first posting in this discussion).  I found one study that showed that patients’ follow-through on therapists’ recommendations during therapy varied according to the degree of ‘match’ between the patient’s problem and the recommendation, the difficulty level of the recommendation, and the degree to which the recommendation drew on the client’s strengths (Conoley et al., 1994).  These three variables seem like a good set for guiding therapists when they are devising self-help assignments with their patients.  The other point I wanted to comment on here concerned the dynamics you mention.  I agree that the dynamics you describe (“set the therapist up as "parent" or "teacher." I.e., "Did you do your homework?"… setting up the client as having done something "wrong" or "letting the therapist down" for not having completed homework”) are likely counterproductive in most psychotherapeutic contexts.  But I don’t see an unavoidable link between these dynamics and the use of self-help assignments in therapy.  I also don’t see why the use of self-help assignments that are agreed upon and carried out in between therapy sessions “could be beneficial” in short term psychotherapy but would necessarily be “detrimental” in longer term psychotherapy.  I appreciate we’re being pretty general here (space and time preclude more specific consideration of presenting problems and concerns of patients) but why the presumed difference in effectiveness as a function of therapy length? --LHobbes 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree fully with this last post. In line with what I stated at the beginning of this discussion, I would argue that homework assignments, and compliance with homework would be beneficial if mutually devised and agreed upon. Any attempts on the therapists part to force tasks on the client (within or outside of the therapy session), would likely result in a poor response on the clients part and be detrimental to the therapeutic relationship. Furthermore, the idea of being the teacher or parent may come about if a therapist presents him/herself as this. However, if the therapist is successful in creating a safe space, and does not take the "expert" role necessarily, and discusses options with the clients and reviewing possible pro's and con's, I do not see this process leading all clients to feel inferior and subordinate. And finally, I am too a bit confused why you believe that homework may be successful for short term rather than longer term therapy. My guess would be that it may be more successful in longer term therapy as it would allow the client and therapist to form a stronger bond before getting involved in tasks outside of session.--Mattinaj 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the shrot vs long term therapy comment, I was referring to the risk / benefits of transference / countertransferance that can arise with therapist becoming more directive with regard to homework in the long run. Of course, this happens with or without homework and agreement on extra-therapy work does not have to be done in a directive manner. --Ppoulin 11:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rich dicussion! I don't disagree with homework. On the contrary, I find that engagement with therapeutic actions outside the therapy room can be very beneficial. Individuals can be encouraged to take charge of their process and become more autonomous. I simply have some caution... --Ppoulin 11:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Cognitive and Social Development: Same or Different?
Students of both cognitive and social development have recently tried to bridge the two sub-disciplines. This trend has been influenced by the notion that cognitions and emotions are inextricably linked, and thus cannot be studied in isolation of each other. However, at which point did the study of social and cognitive development diverge into two distinct areas of focus? Should they continue to be different? Can we attribute this divergence to the "cogntiive revolution", and if so, is it up to the "cognitivists" to bridge the gap? --Leef 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. Although I risk over-simplifing the differences (in theory, methodologies, etc.) between these two areas, my view is that the two (social and cognitive psychology) do share common ground, as represented by the general approach to the study of the individual in a social context known as social cognition.  Social cognition is concerned with the types and content of information stored in memory, how this information is represented and organized, the influence that such information has on perceiving and interpreting social information, and how new information is integrated with existing knowledge and memories (Bodenhausen & Lambert, 2003; Sherman, Judd, & Park, 1989).  The approach has generated a considerable body of research that has greatly advanced understanding of the way people function as active social perceivers.  Importantly, all individuals have limited cognitive resources (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998) so some processing must be automatic (that is, beyond conscious awareness or at least conscious control, Bargh, 1994, 1999), involving heuristic strategies (mental short cuts and rules of thumb) based on pre-existing knowledge (Strack & Mussweiler, 2003; Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994) to offset the demands of engaging in systematic, effortful processing.  In conjunction with motivations (Higgins & Molden, 2003), the content and organization of prior knowledge and memories is a key determinant, through the generation of expectancies (Hamilton & Garcia-Marques, 2003) and hypothesis-confirming biases (Darley & Gross, 1983), of what is attended to and how it is appraised.  Given the active role of the social perceiver in this essentially subjective process, it is unsurprising that errors of interpretation and judgment can result (Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).


 * Having read this over I appreciate that I have neatly neglected the developmental aspect of your question, Jon. I only go into as much detail as I have because a number of clinical disorders and maladaptive behaviours have been productively considered from the social cognition (and cognitive science) approach (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994; Ingram, 1986; Huesmann, 1998; Wenzel & Rubin, 2005).  The chief relevance of my comments to your initial question lie in the possible value of including social cognition and cognitive science as an approach (or approaches, depending on how sharply one chooses to distinguish between the two) that has contributed to theory and treatment in the psychotherapy section on which we're working.--LHobbes 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of C. Psych
Although I do not remember anybody following up on this discussion, I was curious about the term C. Psych. Instead of C. Psych meaning a Ph.D in Clinical Psychology, I found out that as one of our classmates pointed out, it stands for ==> Certified (Registered) Psychologist in Ontario

As such, those of us in the Counselling Psychology Program, who meet criteria to register as a psychologist would have this label as well. I do not believe there are any other psychology programs that prepare students to register, but if anybody else knows of any I would interested to know?--Mattinaj 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lost Client Centered Info while Formatting
I had originally wrote quite a bit under client centered therapy and carl rogers, which was linked to another page. I no longer see the link and notice that everything has been put into one full wiki book. Unless I missed it I wonder if by accident somebody erased the whole section? If so, is there a way to retrieve it and then cut and paste it?--Mattinaj 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Justin, I think you can have access to the "earlier version" and then use cut and paste to fix things up in the current text.--Ppoulin 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After you have logged in, click "my contributions" in the top-right corner of the screen. Whatever you have written will be referenced there. Alternatively, here it is. Just in case, the section you are looling for is Client Centred Therapies - principles, theory, and key figures. --Yasya 21:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding Pictures to Wikibook??
I am having difficulties adding a picture to the project, and when i go to "help", and then the appropriate link it does not explain what I am to do. Instead, it goes to a page that looks like I am supposed to edit text. Any help would be appreciated. --Mattinaj 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess what you wnat to do is to upload an image [file]: see Special:Upload. Particularly, I would suggesting considering the copyright guidelines established in wiki projects. --Yasya 00:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

General info re face-to face discussion
Hi everyone, I've tried to represent the endpoint of our discussion in class tonight here. These aren't necessarily my opinions, but are the consensus (I think--please correct me where I'm wrong).

One important step for the implementation of the other steps is that everyone post everything they have immediately. If you're going to write something, but haven't had a chance, an outline indicating the topic of each paragraph may be helpful.
 * Quite an impressive overview, thnx! Just for our records: this discussion took place on May, 24, 2007. --Yasya 05:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Title/guiding theme
It was suggested we change the title of our Wikibook to: A History of Psychology: People, Concepts, and Applications.

It was further suggested, that rather than having a a guiding question or theme to direct our book, we use this title and the structure it implies.


 * I like this new title much better than the original one, I say we keep it.--JaneM 23:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The new title gives a better understanding as to what this book is really about and I think it would be a very good change for the sake of the reader.--Nylanm 00:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Structure of book
It was suggested we use the new title of the book to structure it. This means that each section would have a people, concepts, and applications subsection.

I'm not sure how this fits, but I have written down that we should organize book by "people" and within each section we should organize the information chronologically.

We would also put a short introduction at the beginning of each chapter (the people who worked on this chapter could discuss this) and a "why we chose this question/discussion question" at the end of each section. We could discuss the importance of this information to us personally on the Discussion page.

There was some concern though that the three-part structure above, does not fit all sections well (e.g., diagnostics). Michel pointed out though that we will still receive credit for sections we eventually choose to delete.

Linked pages
We will also "bring in" all linked pages. We may choose to link out lots of pages at the end, but for now it seems that this is an easier way to monitor the book.


 * Great idea!! I personally didn't even know that we had linked pages until this issue came during our class discussion.--JaneM 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction & "work in progress"
The introduction needs to be rewritten. It was suggested that it specifically comment that this is a "work in progress" and that the gaps are a result of this being a student project representing the interests and knowledge of the class.

Further, it should not be written until the book is more filled-out.
 * Work in progress can be indicated by such neat wikibooks tool as Wikibook Development Stages, see Help:Development stages.
 * Example: beside the title of a section/chapter on the main page we can put    (meaning that as of May 25, 2007 the section is 25% complete), which will be represented as such icon:  (meaning actually the same). :Here is a full table of development stages: :-- just change the percent number in the code above, which may have one of the following values: 0--25--50--75--100. For some examples of how it looks in real life :), see, for instance, such projects as Social Psychology (in its inception for the last two years) or Introduction to Sociology (featured book, a very well developed--yet still incomplete!!--project).  Hope this helps --Yasya 06:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting Team
Everyone seems to be all for a formatting team of about 3 classmates. In exchange for reduced expectations for content contributions, they would determine an appropriate and consistent format for the book and implement it.

Some specific tasks for them include: standardizing the bulletting and bolding, and noticing gaps in the book and indicating them (in the text of the book itself).

I think this team would be responsible for ensuring the other structure, etc. suggestions get put into practice. (Can someone else please confirm this impression?)
 * And here is a caveat: if these three individuals will be the only persons who will know the formatting conventions for the whole project, we will inevitably face a pretty weird situation when the text that will be continuously produced by the 'writers' will necessarily have to be reformatted by the editors. Instead, I would propose the idea that actually was also expressed during our meeting: developing a universal formatting conventions for the overall project (and this, indeed, might be the work for a number of 'designers' or might also be a group decision by all team members), familiarizing everyone with our 'style', and using it while producing the text. That would save a lot of time and energy, I believe. In this case, I guess, the point of discussion in this section should be Formatting Conventions rather than Formatting Team... --Yasya 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that we could have a team responsible for formatting (i.e. three classmates) yet still have the formatting conventions known to all. That way, we could try our best to stick to the agreed-upon format, but the "formatting team" would be the experts and ensure things are corrected.  Thus, such a team would inherently need to be made up of perfectionists!  I'm sure we have lots of those in this class... this is, afterall, graduate school! --LisaCouper 23:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, if we decide to have such formatting team I would suggest yet another responsibility they might assume: monitoring for overall discourse coherence across the different themes/chapters.--Yasya 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We have formed a group of 4 to take on the formatting of the book. Please let us know if anyone has any objections or wants to join. We will add formatting guidlines for those who wish to follow from now on. If you have already added your info no worries we will move references to the reference page, reformat, restructure etc. to fit the formatting guidline. --Jhieminga 00:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC) --Pigondan 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC), --Lpbatho 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC), --Renita5 00:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am wondering if there will be any open discussion of the formatting guidlines in wiki (which I guess would be more advantageous) or if everybody is fine with the group of experts preparing the guidelines. --Yasya 00:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your idea to "add formatting guidlines for those who wish to follow from now on" is really great. Please let me know if I could be of any help with wiki-specific formatting tricks. For example, I thought we might want to add wiki-timelines or some other a bit more sophisticated features.--Yasya 00:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Our plan is to go through and make the book look consistent. In the interest of time (only 2 weeks left)we thought we would come up with a structure ourselves that was consistent. However, if anyone does not like a change we make let us know and we will alter the book again another way. Similarly, if anyone has any suggestions for how they think it should look let us know. --Jhieminga 00:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting Guidelines --Lpbatho 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paragraphs will be separated by a blank line and will not be indented.
 * Long quotes (more than 30 words) will be placed in a separate paragraph and indented once.
 * Any lists (including timelines) will be formatted with bullets. For timelines, the date will be bolded.
 * All references will be in APA format, and listed at the end of the book. Referencing will be done throughout the document in the form (Author, Year) and if using a direct quotation, (Author, Year, p. #).
 * The chapters will be organized into different general sections, and under each section will be the specific topics. For instance, Models of Human Development (3) is the chapter, with Personality Development (3.1) as the section, and Sigmund Freud (3.1.1) as the topic.
 * Subheadings in each section will be in bold.
 * All information will be on the main page.

When did the concept of "Childhood" begin? What impact has it had on psychology?
Developmental and child psychologists focus on childhood developments and experiences. However, it is important to consider what we mean by "childhood", and how we treat children in our culture. Historically, notions of childhood have evolved, and have therefore impacted the way society treats children. I argue that the way a culture treats its children reflects and impacts the way in which that culture treats other vulnerable members. --Leef 00:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Another question is how psychology has influenced the concept of childhood in our society. The emphasis on how childhood influences later experiences has had a particular impact on our society's attitude toward childhood. --Leef 00:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Who Defines Childhood? People in power!!! (a) Government, (b) Authors, (c) Parents, (d) Medical professionals, (e) Religious institutions. --LisaCouper 18:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In Phillipe Aries’ article from "Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life", he states that “there was no place for childhood in the medieval world” because it does not appear or exist in medieval art. Aries engages in “iconography” – the study of drawings or figures. He observed medieval art and found that actual children were absent, but in their place stood deformations of children – mainly smaller scaled men. Aries theorizes that the reason for the absence of children in medieval art is because of parental indifference due to the high infant mortality rate. Aries argues that it was in the 17th century when childhood was discovered because portraits of children became more common, especially the nude child. He points out the image of the “putto” or the “putti” cherubs – the precursor to the child nude.


 * Some flaws in Aries’ claims are as follows:
 * a. He ignored other medieval sources.
 * b. Medieval art focused on status as documents for the person’s position – and therefore children were at a lower rank and not painted.
 * c. He assumes a modern concept that he can recognize. The failure of the theory is our fault that we do not know about medieval childhood because we were not there.
 * d. He stops at the 17th century and the 18th is a crucial part in the theory and depiction of childhood.
 * e. He read the art with an answer already in his mind.


 * I think that Aries did bring a lot of awareness, despite his flaws. He emphasizes changes over time and place, as well as shifts in attitude with social history. He was very groundbreaking in his claims. He brought forth many ideas that are still debated and researched today. --LisaCouper 18:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Skinner
I had the opportunity to hear Skinner's daughter and her husband speak on the topic of Verbal Behaviour at the ABA conference in San Diego a few weeks ago. It was extremely interesting to hear about the making of his book from the perspective of his daughter who herself is a behaviour analyst. She showed many original handwritten drafts of Skinner's letters to Keller regarding the book he took so many years to write entitled Verbal Behavior. She also showed charts that Skinner made comparing himself to Darwin and his writing of the Origin of Species. For example, Darwin took from 1830 to 1859 (29years) to write Origin of the Species and Skinner took from 1934 to 1957 (22years) to complete Verbal Behavior. The underlying process of Darwin's book was Uniformitarism requiring millions of years and Skinners underlying process of VB was uniform relations (from lab) requiring time to evolve. Darwin's book covered the continuity of life and Skinner's the continuity of behaviour etc.

From the few personal reflections Skinner's daughter made on her childhood it sounded as though Skinner was a very caring and concerned father. For example, he moved his research to be near a school he thought would be best for his 2 daughters he raised his daughters himself for a year while his wife traveled the world. She spoke highly of her father and her childhood negating any preconceived notion that I may have had that Skinner was a workaholic and a man who analyzed his daughters behaviour as if they were an experiment. These preconceived notions of mine came from his research that he did entitled The Baby Tender which he had published in a womens magazine called Lady's Home Journal. The Baby Tender which was designed to enclose heat in his daughters crib using plexiglass windows and to protect her from getting a limb stuck in between the bars of the crib (both concerns of his wifes). He was very proud of his invention but confusion between the the Baby Tender and the 'Skinner box' inevitably occurred a controversy Skinner never formally addressed (perhaps because it was an outrageous accusation that had no truth). Notable his daughter Deborah has no ill feelings or bad memories of this experience and did not try to kill herself because of it. Sounds like an E True Hollywood story!!!--Jhieminga 23:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Piaget
Based on our discussion in class this evening we sketched out Affect as stages related to Piaget's Intelligence stages. It it implied that you must have attained the previous stage prior to moving on to the next stage of affect. However, I would questions that a person could be missing a stage of affect and still display characteristics of further stages. For example, we sketched out that one moves from no object relations (momentary interests)to sympathy (others have feelings) to having will and finally to idealogy. Could a person who lacks sympathy and does not appear aware or care about others feelings not have will and ideology? Just a thought. Any further thoughts?--Jhieminga 23:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Piaget's stage model has been criticized for underestimating children's abilities (for example, child are less egocentric than he believed), and for not taking into account contextual factors that could influence a child's development (such as culture and heredity). There is also research that indicates that not all adults reach the formal operations stage. Thus, there are many reasons why Piaget's stage model (both for cognitive development and affect) does not hold for all individuals. I agree that it is possible for a person who lacks sympathy to have will and ideology. Also, even at the highest stage of affect (ideology, such as belief in a religion) it is possible that those individuals have not reached the formal operations stage, and thus display illogical reasoning and disregard for others' feelings. I've learned to look at Piaget's model as a general description of development that is not attained in full (or even in sequence) for many individuals, but is interesting nonetheless for contributing to discussions of development and education. --Lpbatho 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Treatment effectiveness
I just read the section on treatment effectiveness, really great by the way, and something came to mind. This actually came up as a discussion question in class but I wonder what other people's opinions are. Would you continue using a treatment that was not empirically valid or had no empirical research on it when treating clients? In my line of work, (ABA for children with autism) I would say no. Parents claim that alternative therapies with no research behind them often work, and are the cause of the behaviour change of their child, not the comprehensive behaviour intervention programs developed by myself and the rest of the clinical team. What do people think about "fad" or "trendy" treatments? Some that come to mind for treating children with autism include water therapy, GFCF (Gluten free, casein free) diets, vitamin/mineral supplements, holding therapy, dolphin therapy and other animal therapies, floor time play, sensory integration, auditory integration, the Son Rise method, yoga therapy, and the list goes on... If clients/parents think these treatments are working is it ethical for us as practitioners to continue to use them?


 * This is a very interesting question. Many people who are experiencing suffering will rely on a number of approaches to support their recovery or that of their children. I do think that we have a role to play in supporting individuals to make informed choices, I also feel that we should be cautious about adopting practices that are not supported by research, but I disagree with saying that we should only rely on EBT... some approaches lend themselves well to a randomized control design but others do not and shouldn't necessarily be discarded because of that (although the onus is on us to carefully weight the reasons why we would or would not adopt or continue to use these approaches).


 * I focus here on the fact that many people will rely on traditional forms of medicines that are part of their culture or that they have been exposed to. Roy Moodley focuses his work on the integration of traditional healing in counselling and psychotherapy (see Moodley & West, 2005). Premature termination and poor outcome can result from lack of sensitivity to the various ways of healing that our clients value. In some cases, integrating these forms of healing is a crucial ingredient to recovery for individuals and their community (e.g., use of ceremony for some indigenous peoples' recovery / healing).


 * A number of psychologist have taken the time to train in various forms of traditional healing (e.g., Aryurveda, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Homeopathy). These individuals are sough after by many who want this integrated form of care or even by psychologists/psychiatrists/physicians who have clients who do not respond well to "conventional" therapy. Some of the treatments they integrate are time-tested (for what this is worth), but may not lend themselves well to "our" standards. Others have a large body of research supporting their utilization but such research is often not recognized by "western-trained" individuals because of conflicting epistemologies/ontologies (e.g., large body of litterature on acupuncture). --Ppoulin 12:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For an interesting perspective on research methodologies, check out Linda Tuhiway Smith's book: Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous people.

Orphaned pages
The following pages are not linked to by this book. Please link to them if they are desired, merge them into existing content and mark them with, or mark them with if they are no longer desired. Thanks. -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Applied History of Psychology/Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
 * 2) Applied History of Psychology/Cognitive Therapies - principles, theory, and key figures
 * 3) Applied History of Psychology/Cognitive Therapy - principles, theory, and key figure
 * 4) Applied History of Psychology/Cross-Battery Assessment (Cattell-Horn-Carroll) model
 * 5) Applied History of Psychology/Dynamic Assessments
 * 6) Applied History of Psychology/Group Therapy - principles, theory, and key figures
 * 7) Applied History of Psychology/Mindfulness Based Therapy - principles, theory, and key figures
 * 8) Applied History of Psychology/Perspectives on Psychological Trauma
 * 9) Applied History of Psychology/Research on Attention