No abstract

In the past 30 years, the "new history of psychology" and its adherents have advocated a critical approach to scholarship, increased use of primary sources, a focus on sociopolitical forces, and the active inclusion of psychologists from underrepresented groups. This article argues that many scholars exaggerate the differences between old and new history of psychology, and that where the differences are indeed large, those discrepancies reveal certain limitations unique to the new history approach. These limitations, presented in the form of 5 questions posed to new historians, lead to a discussion of professional issues in the history of psychology.

SCT is a clinical construct worthy of additional study, particularly among college students.

Four studies document underestimations of the prevalence of others’ negative emotions, and suggest causes and correlates of these erroneous perceptions. In Study 1A, participants reported that their negative emotions were more private or hidden than their positive emotions; in Study 1B, participants underestimated the peer prevalence of common negative, but not positive, experiences described in Study 1A. In Study 2, people underestimated negative emotions and overestimated positive emotions even for well-known peers, and this effect was partially mediated by the degree to which those peers reported suppression of negative (vs. positive) emotions. Study 3 showed that lower estimations of the prevalence of negative emotional experiences predicted greater loneliness and rumination and lower life satisfaction, and that higher estimations for positive emotional experiences predicted lower life satisfaction. Taken together, these studies suggest that people may think they are more alone in their emotional difficulties than they really are.

Students with ADHD diagnoses reported significantly more ADHD symptoms and academic concerns, but none of the 18 symptoms or 6 concerns proved to be both sensitive and specific to ADHD. Poor specificity of symptoms and academic complaints casts doubt on the utility of this self-reported information in diagnosis, particularly if used alone and without regard to severity or extent of impairment.