The role of neuroscience within psychology: A call for inclusiveness over exclusiveness.

Abstract

In the present article, we appraise the increasingly prominent role of neuroscience within psychology and offer cautions and recommendations regarding the future of psychology as a field. We contend that the conflict between eliminative reductionism (the belief that the neural level of analysis will eventually render the psychological level of analysis superfluous) and emergent properties (the assumption that higher-order mental functions are not directly reducible to neural processes) is critical if we are to identify the optimal role for neuroscience within psychology. We argue for an interdisciplinary future for psychology in which the considerable strengths of neuroscience complement and extend the strengths of other subfields of psychology. For this goal to be achieved, a balance must be struck between an increasing focus on neuroscience and the continued importance of other areas of psychology. We discuss the implications of the growing prominence of neuroscience for the broader profession of psychology, especially with respect to funding agency priorities, hiring practices in psychology departments, methodological rigor, and the training of future generations of students. We conclude with recommendations for advancing psychology as both a social science and a natural science. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrating Culture and Biology in Psychological Research: Conceptual Clarifications and Recommendations

“…The field of cultural neuroscience has enjoyed tremendous growth in recent years (Kim & Sasaki, 2014), riding the broader wave of neuroscience perspectives that are permeating all areas of psychology (Schwartz et al, 2016). In social cognitive neuroscience, however, arguably the biggest threat to reproducibility is under-powered studies (Yarkoni, 2009).…”

“…Evidence for biological processes can be interpreted as though the evidence is natural and immutable (Gould & Heine, 2012). At the same time, the current zeitgeist of valuing biological processes in psychological research means that cultural work that includes a biological component may have a greater chance of receiving grant funding and getting published in high-visibility journals (Schwartz et al, 2016). This confluence of factors suggests that great care must be taken with conceptualization issues when doing research on culture and biology.…”

Mental Disorders are Not Real: Using Skepticism and Critical Thinking to Challenge Key Myths in the Science of Mental Health

“…None of this is to say, of course, that biomedical variables are irrelevant-just that they are not the only factors involved. In other words, psychology (and therefore psychopathology) must be approached with an appreciation for both its natural science and social science components [13]. As an example, consider the widely utilized diathesis-stress model [14], which combines nature and nurture in its attempt to explain the causes of mental disorders.…”

Preprint of "Lost Connections" Book Review

“…Turkheimer's paper, and more recent analyses like it (Kendler, 2012;Miller, 2010;Schwartz, Lilienfeld, Meca, & Sauvigné, 2016), quickly came to mind this spring while I was reading Johann Hari's (2018) new book "Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression-and the Unexpected Solutions." Hari, a British journalist, provides a rich and sweeping account of the etiology of mood disorders and how we can go about lessening the burden of depressive illness.…”