Opening Pandora's Box: Person-Sensitive Conceptualization and Measurement in Psychological Science.

Although distinctions between the study of persons, the study of populations, and the study of mechanisms are helpful for illuminating mismatches between research assumptions, problems, and methods, it may be difficult to construe these as entirely discrete branches of psychological science. I suggest that it is more appropriate to view person-levelness (or person-sensitivity) as an ideal we should actively aspire toward, within the constraints placed by other goals such as generalizability and feasibility, when pursuing knowledge about individuals. It is an ideal that we can never hope to perfectly realize-the degree to which it is realized will always be a matter of degree, and there is therefore no clear line of demarcation between the person level and other branches of psychology. This ideal can nonetheless stimulate more person-sensitive conceptualizations, measurements, and analyses.

Person, Population, Mechanism. A Rejoinder to Critics and an Elaboration of the Three-Branch Model.

In a previous paper (Lundh, 2023), it was argued that psychological science can be seen as having three main branches, corresponding to three levels of research: research at the person level, at the population level, and at the mechanism level. The purpose of the present paper is to discuss the critique that has been raised against this model by Lamiell (2024) and Nilsson (2024) and to elaborate and specify the three-branch model in more detail. This is done by an incorporation of Nilsson's concept of person-sensitivity into the model, and by a clearer differentiation between the two contrasts involved: (1) the methodological focus either on individual persons or on populations of individuals; and (2) the theoretical focus either on whole-person functioning or on sub-personal mechanisms.

Mindfulness, Phenomenology, and Psychological Science.

Most present-day research on mindfulness treats mindfulness as a variable that is studied in relation to other variables. Although this research may provide us with important knowledge at the population level and mechanism level, it contributes little to our understanding of the phenomenon of mindfulness as it is experienced and enacted at the person level. The present paper takes a person-oriented phenomenological perspective on mindfulness, comparing this perspective with that of von Fircks' (2023). In a first part of the paper, mindfulness is discussed as a phenomenological practice that can be studied by means of experimental phenomenology. It is argued that there is room for the development of an immense variety of personalized mindfulness practices that may serve people's health and well-being. The second part of the paper contains a brief discussion of the possible role of mindful observation and reflection in psychological research. It is argued that mindfulness skills may be important both for improving the quality of phenomenological observation and to facilitate creative thinking in connection with the development of psychological theory. A main implication is that an integration between mindfulness and phenomenology may serve as an important part of this process.

Person, Population, Mechanism. Three Main Branches of Psychological Science.

There are different ways of dividing psychology into subdisciplines. The purpose of the present paper is to explore one specific meta-perspective on psychological science, seen as having three main branches: person psychology, population psychology, and mechanism psychology, linked to three different levels of research. Person-level research focuses on psychological phenomena as experienced and enacted by individual persons in their interaction with other persons and other parts of the environment, and in their development over time. Population-level research focuses on populations of individuals, frequencies of various psychological phenomena in a population, risk factors, and population-level effects of various psychological interventions. Mechanism-level research focuses on psychological functioning as explained in terms of neurophysiological mechanisms and information processes at a sub-personal level. It is argued that the failure to differentiate clearly between research questions at these three levels lead to questionable research practices. Most notably, a failure to differentiate clearly between the population level and the person level leads to problem-method mismatches in the form of researchers trying to answer questions about persons by research on populations. Also, because of a failure to differentiate between the person level and the mechanism level, explanations in terms of sub-personal mechanisms are too often seen as providing answers about what occurs at the person level, thereby failing to study persons as intentional agents in interaction with other persons and other parts of the environment. It is argued that a clear differentiation between three levels of psychological science - population, person, and mechanism - may contribute to an increased clarity in these matters and may thereby contribute to the development and maturation of psychological science.

System-Centered Care: How Bureaucracy and Racialization Decenter Attempts at Person-Centered Mental Health Care.

This article presents a study exploring structural biases within mental health organizations, in the context of person-centered care-an emerging framework for health systems globally. Findings revealed how surrounding institutional structures conditioned a powerful influence on clinical operations, in which there is a risk for clients to be systemically seen as a non-person, that is, as a racialized or bureaucratic object. Specifically, the article elucidates how racial profiles could become determinants of care within institutions; and how another, covert form of institutional objectification could emerge, in which clients became reduced to unseen bureaucratic objects. Findings illuminated a basic psychosocial process through which staff could become unwitting carriers of systemic agenda and intentionality-a type of "bureaucra-think"-and also how some providers pushed against this climate. These findings, and emergent novel concepts, add to the severely limited research on institutional bias and racism within psychological science.

Destigmatizing Borderline Personality Disorder: A Call to Action for Psychological Science.

Despite recognition that borderline personality disorder (BPD) is one of the most stigmatized psychological disorders, destigmatization efforts have thus far focused on the views and actions of clinicians and the general public, neglecting the critical role that psychological science plays in perpetuating or mitigating stigma. This article was catalyzed by recent concerns about how research and editorial processes propagate stigma and thereby fail people with BPD and the scientists who study BPD. We provide a brief overview of the BPD diagnosis and its history. We then review how BPD has been stigmatized in psychological science, the gendered nature of BPD stigma, and the consequences of this stigmatization. Finally, we offer specific recommendations for researchers, reviewers, and editors who wish to use science to advance our understanding of BPD without perpetuating pejorative views of the disorder. These recommendations constitute a call to action to use psychological science in the service of the public good.

The Effects of Editorial-Board Diversity on Race Scholars and Their Scholarship: A Field Experiment.

Psychological science is in a unique position to identify and dismantle the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that maintain and increase racial inequality, yet the extent to which psychological science can do so depends on the extent to which race scholarship is supported in psychological science. We theorized that the lack of racial diversity among editors at mainstream journals might obstruct the advancement of race scholarship by signaling to race scholars that their research is not valued by mainstream journals and that they should submit their research elsewhere for publication. Indeed, in a preregistered field experiment with 1,189 psychology Ph.D. students, we found that under all-White editorial boards, race scholars were less likely than non-race scholars (a) to believe that the journal valued racial diversity, research on race, or their own research; (b) to believe that the journal would publish their research; and (c) to be willing to submit their research to the journal for publication. Under racially diverse editorial boards, however, we find no differences between race scholars and non-race scholars. In fact, we found that under diverse editorial boards, compared with under all-White editorial boards, both race scholars and non-race scholars had more positive perceptions of the journal. We argue that racially diverse editorial boards are good for race scholars and their scholarship and for the field more broadly.

Accelerating the science and practice of psychology beyond WEIRD biases: Enriching the landscape through Asian psychology.

More than a decade has passed since major concerns emerged about the WEIRD-centric focus of mainstream psychological science. Since then, many calls have been made for the discipline of psychology (and other disciplines within the social sciences) to become more broadly representative of the human species. However, recent evidence suggests that progress toward improving the inclusivity and generalizability of psychological science has been slow, and that the dominance of WEIRD psychology has persisted. To build a more comprehensive psychological science that truly represents the global population, we need strategies that can facilitate more rapid expansion of empirical evidence in psychology beyond WEIRD biases. In this paper, we draw on several examples (i.e., non-duality and dialectical interaction, Wu-Wei, Zhong Yong) to illustrate how principles of Asian psychology could contribute to reshaping mainstream psychology. We discuss some strategies for advancing a global psychological science, along with some complementary practical suggestions that could enrich the WEIRD-centric landscape of current psychological science.

Discurso psicológico e população LGBTI: endereçamentos de uma ação clínica e política / Psychological discourse and the LGBTQ+ population: directions of a clinical and political action / Le discours psychologique et la population LGBTQ+: orientations d'une action clinique et politique / El discurso psicológico y la población LGBTI: un camino hacia una acción clínica y política

Resumo A clínica psicológica, acompanhando entrelaces e experiências diversas no campo da saúde e da educação, é entendida como espaço de recolhimento de questões que tematizam a existência humana. Por meio de leitura bibliográfica, pretendemos dialogar com fenômenos humanos que, sob o caos cotidiano, reverberam compreensões para a clínica psicológica como campo político de ação. Partimos de apontamentos de Hannah Arendt para abordar uma possível ação clínica que faz interface com a política. Buscamos evidenciar as identidades de gênero e orientações sexuais como constructos que permeiam e são permeados por forças que ora direcionam, ora excluem, dadas as confusões em torno do poder e da violência que desde tenra história revelam a sua não-conformidade com a ciência psicológica. Questionamos o lugar do fazer e do saber da psicologia, salientando que sua atitude deveria caminhar numa direção ética e dialogar com uma ação clínica e política.

Abstract The psychological clinic, involving different experiences and interrelations between health and education, is mainly understood as a space of recollection of questions that characterize human existence. By means of a bibliographical reading, this study investigates human phenomena that, understood under the everyday chaos, echoes understandings for the psychological clinic as a political arena. Based on Hannah Arendt, the text begins by discussing a possible clinical action interfacing with politics. It highlights gender identities and sexual orientations as constructs that permeate and are permeated by forces that sometimes direct and sometimes exclude, given the confusions regarding power and violence that from antiquity reveals their non-conformity with psychological science. It calls into question the place of psychology, as knowledge and praxis, pointing out that the psychologist's attitude should move towards ethics and dialogue with a clinical and political action.

Résumé La clinique psychologique, impliquants différents expériences et entrelacements entre la santé et l'éducation, est largement comprise comme un espace de recueillement des questions qui caractérisent l'existence humaine. Par le biais d'une lecture bibliographique, cette étude examine des phénomènes humains qui, compris dans le chaos quotidien, font échos à la compréhension de la clinique psychologique en tant que champ politique d'action. En se basant sur Hannah Arendt, le texte commence par discuter d'une possible action clinique en interface avec la politique. Il souligne les identités de genre et les orientations sexuelles comme des constructions qui imprègnent et sont imprégnées par des forces qui parfois dirigent et parfois excluent, étant donné la confusion concernant le pouvoir et la violence qui, depuis l'antiquité, révèlent leur non-conformité avec la science psychologique. Il remet en question la place de la psychologie, en tant que savoir et praxis, en soulignant que l'attitude du psychologue devrait s'orienter vers une éthique et le dialogue avec une action clinique et politique.

Resumen La clínica psicológica al seguir entrelaces y experiencias diversas, sobre todo, en el campo de la salud y la educación se entiende como un espacio de recogida de cuestiones que tematizan la existencia humana. Por medio de una lectura bibliográfica, pretendemos dialogar con fenómenos humanos que, al caos cotidiano, reflejan conocimientos para la clínica psicológica como un campo político de acción. Partimos de apuntes de Hannah Arendt para tematizar una posible acción clínica que hace interfaz con la política. Buscamos evidenciar las identidades de género y orientaciones sexuales como constructos que permean y están impregnados por fuerzas que ora dirigen, ora excluyen, dadas las confusiones en torno al poder y la violencia, que desde tiempos remotos revela la no conformidad de tales existencias con la ciencia psicológica. Cuestionamos el lugar del hacer y del saber de la psicología, demarcando que una actitud del psicólogo debería caminar hacia la ética y dialogar con una acción clínica y política.

Comparing dream to reality: an assessment of adherence of the first generation of preregistered studies.

Preregistration is a method to increase research transparency by documenting research decisions on a public, third-party repository prior to any influence by data. It is becoming increasingly popular in all subfields of psychology and beyond. Adherence to the preregistration plan may not always be feasible and even is not necessarily desirable, but without disclosure of deviations, readers who do not carefully consult the preregistration plan might get the incorrect impression that the study was exactly conducted and reported as planned. In this paper, we have investigated adherence and disclosure of deviations for all articles published with the Preregistered badge in Psychological Science between February 2015 and November 2017 and shared our findings with the corresponding authors for feedback. Two out of 27 preregistered studies contained no deviations from the preregistration plan. In one study, all deviations were disclosed. Nine studies disclosed none of the deviations. We mainly observed (un)disclosed deviations from the plan regarding the reported sample size, exclusion criteria and statistical analysis. This closer look at preregistrations of the first generation reveals possible hurdles for reporting preregistered studies and provides input for future reporting guidelines. We discuss the results and possible explanations, and provide recommendations for preregistered research.

Intersectionality Research in Psychological Science: Resisting the Tendency to Disconnect, Dilute, and Depoliticize.

Psychological science has been slow to incorporate intersectionality as a concept and as a framework for conducting research. This limits not only the potential for intersectionality theory, but also limits the potential impact of the research claiming to use it. Mennies and colleagues conducted a study of psychopathology and treatment utilization using a large racially diverse sample of youth and frame their work as intersectional because they compare across three social categories (race, sex, and social class) and consider social issues that may impact the groups studied. We argue that while this represents a preliminary step, it does not represent intersectionality theory and praxis. In this article we review intersectional theory and praxis, examine psychological science and its resistance to fully incorporating intersectionality, and highlight how research must shift to be truly intersectional. Finally, we issue a call to the field to integrate intersectionality theory and praxis and to resist the tendency to dilute and depoliticize intersectionality theory and disconnect from its social justice frame.

Historically recontextualizing Sidman's Tactics: How behavior analysis avoided psychology's methodological Ouroboros.

Psychology is undergoing major cultural changes methodologically, with efforts to redefine how psychologists analyze and report their data. Davidson (2018) argued that psychology's methodological crises stem from mechanical objectivity involving the adoption of an analytic tool as source of dependable knowledge. This has led to institutionalization, and eventually uncritical ritualistic use, such as happened with null hypothesis statistical testing. Davidson invoked the mythological symbol of the Ouroboros to represent the endless churning of statistical fads. Sidman (1960), in his Tactics of Scientific Research provided a shield from these problems in terms of the premium he placed on the experience, expertise, judgement, and decision-making of the scientist, that appear to be absent in psychology's ritualized processes.

Research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) that has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represents the greatest international biopsychosocial emergency the world has faced for a century, and psychological science has an integral role to offer in helping societies recover. The aim of this paper is to set out the shorter- and longer-term priorities for research in psychological science that will (a) frame the breadth and scope of potential contributions from across the discipline; (b) enable researchers to focus their resources on gaps in knowledge; and (c) help funders and policymakers make informed decisions about future research priorities in order to best meet the needs of societies as they emerge from the acute phase of the pandemic. The research priorities were informed by an expert panel convened by the British Psychological Society that reflects the breadth of the discipline; a wider advisory panel with international input; and a survey of 539 psychological scientists conducted early in May 2020. The most pressing need is to research the negative biopsychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to facilitate immediate and longer-term recovery, not only in relation to mental health, but also in relation to behaviour change and adherence, work, education, children and families, physical health and the brain, and social cohesion and connectedness. We call on psychological scientists to work collaboratively with other scientists and stakeholders, establish consortia, and develop innovative research methods while maintaining high-quality, open, and rigorous research standards.

Unfairness and Radicalization.

This article reviews the relationship between people's perceptions of unfairness and their tendencies to think, feel, and act in radicalizing ways. Various theories of radicalization processes are reviewed that examine key aspects of the psychology of perceived unfairness. The review shows that experienced group deprivation and perceived immorality are among the core judgments that can drive Muslim radicalization, right-wing radicalization, and left-wing radicalization. Symbols of injustice, the legitimization of revolutionary thought, and the experience of unfair treatment can also increase radicalization. The review also examines core moderators (e.g., uncertainty and insufficient self-correction) and mediators (e.g., externally oriented emotions) of the linkage between perceived unfairness and core components of radicalization (e.g., rigidity of thoughts, hot-cognitive defense of cultural worldviews, and violent rejection of democratic principles and the rule of law). The review discusses how the study of unfairness and radicalization contributes to a robust and meaningful science of psychology.

(Re)Introducing Vygotsky's Thought: From Historical Overview to Contemporary Psychology.

Theories formulated by Russian psychologist and educator Lev Vygotsky currently range from being applied and celebrated across multiple contexts to be considered outdated. In this paper, we maintain that such inconsistency in application stems from the overreliance on translated or reformulated Vygotskian theories, the attempts to understand these ideas in isolation from the scientific historical context of their development, and the impact of Vygotsky's personal life circumstances on the development of his scholarship. It is known that Vygotsky's untimely death prevented him from elaborating on his theoretical views and expanding his early empirical work. We suggest that Vygotsky's scholarship could be better understood in light of the core principles that transcend all aspects of his work. In this paper, we elaborate on two such core principles: theories of language development and their relation to the integrated systemic approach to psychological development. We argue that although linguistic and historical boundaries have shaped the common perception of Vygotskian theories in anglophone research in a specific way, there is a potential for a renewed application of these theories to modern psychology that might be especially relevant in light of the increasingly interdisciplinary character of the modern science. To support our argument, we provide a brief overview and examples of potential connections between Vygotsky's scholarship with contemporary landscape in psychological science. The paper presents a brief introduction to the topic of Vygotskian work and its application to modern psychology, rather than an addition to the field of Vygotskian scholarship. It is geared toward non-Vygotskian scholars and invites researchers working in interdisciplinary areas of psychology.

Social psychological research on prejudice as collective action supporting emergent ingroup members.

Why does social psychological research on prejudice change across time? We argue that scientific change is not simply a result of empirical evidence, technological developments, or social controversies, but rather emerges out of social change-driven shifts in how researchers categorize themselves and others within their larger societies. As mainstream researchers increasingly recategorize former outgroup members as part of a novel ingroup, prejudice research shifts in support of emergent ingroup members against their emergent outgroup opponents. Although social change-driven science results in valuable opportunities for researchers, it also results in significant risks for research - collective, scientific biases in the inclusion and exclusion of social groups in prejudice research that are not readily detected or managed by traditional controls. We present the Emergent Ingroup Model (EIM) to encourage reflection on shared biases, as well as to spark a broader conversation on how to strengthen our field for a rapidly changing and increasingly global world.

Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population.

Two primary goals of psychological science should be to understand what aspects of human psychology are universal and the way that context and culture produce variability. This requires that we take into account the importance of culture and context in the way that we write our papers and in the types of populations that we sample. However, most research published in our leading journals has relied on sampling WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) populations. One might expect that our scholarly work and editorial choices would by now reflect the knowledge that Western populations may not be representative of humans generally with respect to any given psychological phenomenon. However, as we show here, almost all research published by one of our leading journals, Psychological Science, relies on Western samples and uses these data in an unreflective way to make inferences about humans in general. To take us forward, we offer a set of concrete proposals for authors, journal editors, and reviewers that may lead to a psychological science that is more representative of the human condition.