Those who’ve been following the most recent controversy over the replicability of psychological findings (see here, here, here, here, and here for a primer), may be interested in the latest output from the PsyBorgs Digital History of Psychology Laboratory. Michael Pettit (left) has created an interactive timeline of replication controversies over psychology’s history:
This interactive timeline offers the reader a brief guide to this longer history. I define replication fairly broadly, but attempt to not simply offer a history of psychology in its entirety. Instead, I have focused on famous replication controversies from the past alongside the development of psychology’s favored research methods.
I am personally quite agnostic as to the value of the current interest in direct replication. My worry is that it distracts (as is often the case in psychology) from questions of external validity. My goal is to provide a richer context for contemporary controversies animating psychology.
I welcome corrections, updates, and suggestions of relevant topics. Please contact me at mpettit at yorku.ca
The timeline can be explored in full here.
Share on Facebook
Elisabeth Young-Bruehl demonstrates ‘One Hundred Years of Psychoanalysis a Timeline: 1900-2000 from Caversham Productions on Vimeo.
A timeline of the history of psychoanalysis, One Hundred Years of Psychoanalysis, A Timeline: 1900-2000, has recently been written by Elisabeth Young-Bruehl and Christine Dunbar. The nearly seven foot long timeline graphically depicts the activities of the various schools of psychoanalysis across the twentieth century. In the above video, Young-Bruehl demonstrates the timeline and discusses its content. As Young-Bruehl describes on the publisher’s website,
Share on Facebook
We felt that a timeline of psychoanalysis should be Darwinian in the sense that it should show a descent from an original ancestor, Freud. It should show graphically the evolution of different groups and concerns out of an original powerful impulse and vision. But it should not accept the assumption common among analysts that the early, pre-WWI, schismatic history of psychoanalysis produced groups -Adlerians, Rankians, Jungians-that simply had no place in the later history of psychoanalysis or stopped evolving or became extinct after they split from Freud. However, we did not want to imply that the sub-speciation of psychoanalysis was a “survival of the fittest” phenomenon… So we organized our story on what might be called Plutarchian principles, showing “parallel lives” or life forms of psychoanalysis.