I agree with Joan's suggestion that the theories with the most support should be given more weight in the textbooks. However, I propose other reasons to explain why Freud is often not found in psychology testbooks:
1) It is my observation that psychology textbooks are typically NOT written by Ph.D's with clinical or counseling backgrounds. My observation (althought I haven't done a study on this yet) is that Introductory psych books are typically written by Ph.D.'s with backgrounds in bio, cognitive and social psychology. I think there may be a tendency among those trained in these areas to not to be as familiar with Freud's contributions or be as willing to give Freud his due. 2) This one is more relevant to Joan's point: Having just read the American Psychologist article on the myth of the Kitty Genovese story, I have to repeat what the authors of that article make clear: psychology textbooks are designed in part to engage and draw people into the field of psychology. Freud is familiar and his theories controversial and, at times, titalating. That's why he's mentioned, but, perhaps because of reason #1 above, given short shrift. Michael Britt [EMAIL PROTECTED] > What I have only recently started to discuss with my students is how our > textbooks in Introductory Psychology provide a very mixed message relative > to the importance of empiricism. Their chapter on research methodology > always make it crystal clear that extensive empirical data are essential > before we accept any conclusion about human behavior. Then the > author/publisher proceeds to ignore this essential foundation of science > by presenting various theories of personalities as if each has equal > weight and integrity. I conclude by stating that the theory with the most > sound empirical support is the social learning theory. The evolutionary > and genetic theories of human behavior have extensive support of > scientists in psychology though the empirical support for these two latter > perspectives are somewhat circular and need further investigation. > > I add that clinicians in psychology are not in total agreement with > experimental psychologists relative to these biases but their background > does not usually include a rigorous understanding of science. Touchy and > delicate topic? You bet. But I am no longer willing to ignore this > ability of texts to 'turn their head the other way' when discussing > various theories of personality. > > Joan > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> At 10:45 AM -0600 11/25/07, Beth Benoit wrote: >>>From today's New York Times: >>><http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/weekinreview/25cohen.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/weekinreview/25cohen.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref > >> Before you have empirical verification you must have specific >> testable predictions (hypotheses). >> Until Freudian (neoFreudian, postFreudian, whatever) theory can >> attain any sort of scientific status it must be restated in a way >> that makes specific predictions possible. >> -- >> The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that >> people believe in it. >> >> * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * >> > > > > > --- > -- Michael Britt, Ph.D. Host of The Psych Files Psychology in Everyday Life [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
