Template talk:Psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Most important authors in psychology

Everyone has their pet theories and theorists, so some objective measure is needed to determine who the most important authors in psychology are. (Even though a good case could be made that psychodynamic theories and radical behaviorism have been largely abandoned by psychology departments these days, we'll not pursue this.) I've chosen the psychologists determined to be the most historically important throughout the 20th century by a multi-method empirical study (Haggbloom, S.J. et al, 2002, The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 2, 139–152.) The authors combined most frequently cited in the professional psychological journal literature, most frequently cited in introductory psychology textbooks, and most frequently named in a survey of members of the Association for Psychological Science, in addition to 3 qualitative variables converted to numerical scores. While a case could be made to chose a more recent period, namely, that outdated theories and theorists are more represented in a list going back so far, it nevertheless seems more appropriate to represent the whole period, including outdated theories, in an encyclopedia article. Someone can format this if they like (though it might take up a lot of vertical space):

Table 4. The 100 (99 Reported) Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century
Rank Name JCL rank TCL rank SL rank NAS APA award/president Eponym
1 B.F. Skinner 8 2 1 1950 1958/— Skinnerian
2 Jean Piaget 2 4 2 1966 1969/— Piagetian
3 Sigmund Freud 1 1 3 — —/— Freudian
4 Albert Bandura 5 3 5 — 1980/1974 Bandura’s social learning theory
5 Leon Festinger 12 19 11.5 1972 1959/— Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory
6 Carl Rogers 28.5 5 9.5 — 1956/1947 Rogerian therapy
7 Stanley Schachter 46 6 24 1983 1969/— Schachter’s affiliation studies
8 Neal E. Miller 13 9 14.5 1958 1959/1961
9 Edward Thorndike 40 50 9.5 1917 —/1912 Thorndike’s puzzle box
10 Abraham Maslow 37 14 19 — —/1968 Maslow’s hierarchy
11 Gordon Allport 51 18 14.5 — 1964/1939 Allport A–S reaction study
12 Erik Erikson 16 11 17 — —/— Erikson’s psychosocial stages
13 Hans Eysenck 3 30 24 — —/— Eysenck personality inventory
14 William James — 29 6.5 1906 —/1904 James–Lange theory of emotion
15 David McClelland 34 10 31 — 1987/—
16 Raymond Cattell 7 37 31 — —/— Cattell 16 Factor Personality Questionnaire
17 John B. Watson — 17 4 — —/1915 Watsonian behaviorism
18 Kurt Lewin 47 73.5 8 — —/— Lewinian psychology
19 Donald O. Hebb 58 — 11.5 1979 1961/1960 Hebbian
20 George A. Miller 43 46 67 1962 1963/1969
21 Clark L. Hull 73 73.5 14.5 1936 —/1936 Hullian
22 Jerome Kagan 20 23 67 — 1987/—
23 Carl Jung 50 40 39.5 — —/— Jungian
24 Ivan Pavlov — 22 6.5 — —/— Pavlovian
25 Walter Mischel 48 24.5 67 — 1982/—
26 Harry Harlow 100 7 51 1951 1960/1958
27 J. P. Guilford 10 61 — 1954 1964/1950 Guilford–Martin personnel inventory
28 Jerome Bruner 14 70.5 31 — 1962/1965
29 Ernest Hilgard 67 27 51 1948 1967/1949
30 Lawrence Kohlberg 39 16 97 — —/— Kohlberg stages of moral development
31 Martin Seligman 93 13 31 — —/1998
32 Ulric Neisser 59 71 31 1984 —/—
33 Donald T. Campbell 11 — 67 1973 1970/1975 Campbell’s design approach
34 Roger Brown 30 8 — 1972 —/—
35 Robert Zajonc — 21 39.5 — 1978/— Zajonc social facilitation
36 Endel Tulving 32.5 47.5 — 1988 1983/—
37 Herbert Simon 32.5 — 24 1953 1969/—
38 Noam Chomsky — 28 39.5 1972 1984/—
39 Edward E. Jones 57 44.5 — — 1977/— Jones’s correspondent inference theory
40 Charles E. Osgood 9 — 97 1972 1960/1963 Osgood’s transfer surface
...

Remember that this is a psychology template, not a psychiatry template. -DoctorW 17:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was looking for something like this to help ID "Selected psychologists" for the Psychology portal. :-) Rfrisbietalk 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there any such objective criteria for pre-20th century psychologists? The current template makes it seem like there were no psychological thinkers before the 20th century. Also, why does the article only mention experimental psychologists and not any clinical psychologists? Jagged 85 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Call for comments on adding Nathaniel Branden

I'd like to recommend Nathaniel Branden for addition to this list for the following contributions:

1) His pioneering work in self-esteem and the impact that has had,
2) He also did ground-breaking work in group therapy (Life-time achievement award for techniques of individual therapy in a group setting),
3) His Sentence-stem technique is one of the most powerful theraputic tools I've run across, and
4) His philosophy of psychology (from the first half of his first book on self-esteem) models the kind of foundation any theoretical approach should have.

He is often thought of as a pop-psychologist which isn't true given the depth of his work and the impact on the field as a whole. He is also criticized for his association with Ayn Rand when young - but that isn't relevant to his work as a psychologist. I'll let this sit for a while, as a kind of request for comments, before adding his name. Steve 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what is above? -DoctorW 23:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I read it. And I appreciate your effort and the intent to create an objective standard. But in the end it is hard to find methods that don't carry a bias of some sort or another - particularly when you are attempting what, at its root, is a subjective evaluation (top 100). That is why I put this in as a call for comments. I'm hoping to hear from other editors. You have created an excellent navigation template - But I'm assuming, that like the rest of WP, it is here to be edited. Steve 00:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Nathaniel Who? Famousdog 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic scholars

Thanks for reverting those edits, DoctorW. "Ill-conceived" is the word. This is outright boosterism. Perhaps Jagged85 would like to create a separate template to push his POV that Muslim scholars did everything hundreds of years before Europeans. Famousdog (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember ever claiming anything of the sort... was that meant to be a personal attack by any chance? I'll admit I didn't read this talk page before updating the template at the time, but the "objective criteria" above only lists 20th century psychologists. Why aren't there any pre-20th century psychologists or any clinical psychologists mentioned on the template? Most of the medieval Muslim scholars I added before were very similar to what we would today consider to be clinical psychologists, so I don't see any reason why they (or at least the most important ones) shouldn't be included on the template. Jagged 85 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of entries in multi-method empirical study

The order of entries in the template was taken from the order found in the multi-method empirical study, that is, in order by importance. The length of the list was decided by the somewhat subjective judgment that Jung and Pavlov should be on it but the next several names were not as important and list shouldn't be too long. Rearranging them by alphabetical order suggests that this particular group is some kind of canonical list. It makes a lot more sense to me to keep it in order of importance, suggesting that it trails off after the names included. One could also cite the rationale behind ordering disambiguation pages by importance, though in this case there is the added argument that a continuation of the list is implied.

In any case, people making a substantial change to the template should probably argue for their change here. -DoctorW 14:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)