Past studies investigating trends in psychology have reported some conflicting and surprising results. This article critiques and reevaluates these reports, with a particular focus on those related to the cognitive revolution and the place of neuroscience in psychology. Based on a wide variety of indicators, the following trends are demonstrated: (a) Although cognitive psychology has grown in importance, it has not come to dominate psychology; (b) contrary to prior findings, attention to neuroscience in psychology has grown in a pattern similar to that of cognitive psychology; and (c) there are many signs that cognitive neuroscience is in the process of emergence. Trends are interpreted in light of the argument that psychology is a disunified discipline allowing for many different interests, schools, and approaches.
ChurchlandP. M. (1995). The engine of reason, the seat of the soul. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
CronbachL. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.
4.
DaltonT. C., & EvansR. B.. (2004). The life cycle of psychological ideas: Understanding prominence and the dynamics of intellectual change. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
5.
FrimanP. C., AllenK. D., KerwinM. L. E., & LarzelereR. (1993). Changes in modern psychology: A citation analysis of the Kuhnian displacement thesis. American Psychologist, 48, 658–664.
6.
FrimanP. C., AllenK. D., KerwinM. L. E., & LarzelereR. (2000). Questionable validity, not vitality. American Psychologist, 55, 274–275.
7.
FuchsS. (1993). Positivism is the organizational myth of science. Perspectives on Science, 1, 1–23.
8.
FuchsS., & SpearJ. H. (1999). The social conditions of cumulation. The American Sociologist, 30, 21–40.
9.
GalambosR. (1996). Robert Galambos. In SquireL., The history of neuroscience in autobiography (pp. 178–220). Washington, DC: The Society for Neuroscience.
10.
GalisonP., & StumpD. J.. (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
GardnerH. (1985). The mind's new science. New York: Basic Books.
12.
GibsonK. R. (2000). Corroboration. American Psychologist, 55, 271–272.
13.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
14.
GoldbergerM. L., MaherB. A., & Ebert FlattauP.. (1995). Research-doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
15.
HeidbrederE. (1933). Seven psychologies. New York: Appleton.
16.
HenriquesG. R.. (2004a). Defining psychology: Articles and commentaries on a new unified theory(Pt. 1) [Special issue]. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(12).
17.
HenriquesG. R. (2004b). Psychology defined. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 1207–1221.
18.
HenriquesG. R.. (2005). Defining psychology: Articles and commentaries on a new unified theory(Pt. 2) [Special issue]. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(1).
19.
HuntH. T. (2005). Why psychology is/is not traditional science: The self-referential bases of psychological research and theory. Review of General Psychology, 9, 358–374.
20.
HuntM. (1993). The story of psychology. New York: Doubleday.
21.
KatzkoM. W. (2002). The rhetoric of psychological research and the problem of unification in psychology. American Psychologist, 57, 262–270.
22.
KochS. (1971). Reflections on the state of psychology. Social Research, 33, 669–709.
23.
KochS. (1993). “Psychology” or the “psychological studies.”American Psychologist, 48, 902–904.
24.
LeaheyT. H. (1991). A history of modern psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25.
LeaheyT. H. (1992). The mythical revolutions of American psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 308–318.
26.
LeighlandS. (2000). On cognitivism and behaviorism. American Psychologist, 55, 273–274.
27.
LilienfeldS. O. (2004). Defining psychology: Is it worth the trouble?Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 1249–1253.
28.
MartensM. P. (2000). Difficulties in analyzing trends in psychology. American Psychologist, 55, 272–273.
29.
MartinG. N. (2000). There's more neuroscience. American Psychologist, 55, 275–276.
30.
MeyerJ. W., & RowanB. (1991). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In PowellW. & DiMaggioP., The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 41–62). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1977)
31.
MillerG. (1985). The constitutive problem of psychology. In KochS. & LearyD. E., A century of psychology as science (pp. 40–45). New York: McGraw-Hill.
32.
National Science Foundation. (1992). Science and engineering doctorates: 1960–1991, Detailed statistical tables. Washington, DC: Author.
33.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Studies. (1997). Science and engineering doctorate awards: 1996(NSF 97–329). Retrieved May 18, 2006, fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf97329
34.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics. (2006, March). Science and engineering doctorate awards: 2004(NSF 06–308). Retrieved May 18, 2006, fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06308
35.
O'DonohueW., FergusonK. E., & NaugleA. E. (2003). The structure of the cognitive revolution: An examination from the philosophy of science. Behavior Analyst, 26, 85–110.
36.
PosnerM. I., & DiGirolamoG. J. (2000). Cognitive neuroscience: Origins and promise. Psychological Bulletin, 26, 873–889.
37.
GalambosRobert. (1996). In SquireL., The history of neuroscience in autobiography: Vol. 1 (pp. 178–220). Washington, DC: Society for Neuroscience.
38.
RobinsR. W., GoslingS. D., & CraikK. H. (1999). An empirical analysis of trends in psychology. American Psychologist, 54, 117–128.
39.
RobinsR. W., GoslingS. D., & CraikK. H. (2000). Trends in psychology: An empirical issue. American Psychologist, 55, 276–277.
40.
RoeckelsteinJ. E. (1996). Eminence in psychology as measured by name counts and eponyms. Psychological Reports, 78, 243–254.
41.
ScottT. R. (1991). A personal view of psychology departments. American Psychologist, 46, 975–976.
42.
SlifeB. (2005). Testing the limits of Henriques' proposal: Wittgensteinian lessons and hermeneutic dialog. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 107–120.
43.
SpearJ. H. (2004). Cumulative change in scientific production: Research technologies and the structuring of new knowledge. Perspectives on Science, 12, 55–85.
44.
SpearJ. H. (2006). Toward a sociology of interdisciplinarity: Lessons from the sociology of science and the emergence of neuroscience. Manuscript submitted for publication.
45.
SperryR. (1975). In search of the psyche. In WordenF. G., SwazeyJ. P., & AdelmanG., The neurosciences: Paths of discovery (pp. 425–426). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46.
StaatsA. W. (1999). Unifying psychology requires new infrastructure, theory, method, and a research agenda. Review of General Psychology, 3, 3–13.
47.
StamH.. (2000). The future of theory in psychology [Special issue]. Theory and Psychology, 10(1).
48.
SternbergR. J., & GrigorenkoE. L. (2001). Unified psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 1069–1079.
49.
TaglerM. J. (2000). Neuroscience and mainstream psychology. American Psychologist, 55, 271.
50.
TatmanA. W., & GilgenA. R. (1999). Authorities emphasized in the Annual Review of Psychology, 1975–1998. Psychological Reports, 85, 89–100.
51.
TracyJ. L., RobinsR. W., & GoslingS. D. (2004). Tracking trends in psychological science: An empirical analysis of the history of psychology. In DaltonT. C. & EvansR. B., The life cycle of psychological ideas: Understanding prominence and the dynamics of intellectual change (pp. 105–130). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
52.
WilsonE. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
WyattW. J., HawkinsR. P., & DavisP. (1986). Behaviorism: Are reports of its death exaggerated?Behavior Analyst, 9, 101–105.
54.
YancharS. C., & SlifeB. D.. (2000). The problematic of fragmentation [Special issue]. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 21(3).
