Alejandro Hermida Carrillo, Clemens Stachl, Sanaz Talaifar
Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to revolutionize a key aspect of the scientific process-hypothesis generation. Banker et al. (2024) investigate how GPT-3 and GPT-4 can be used to generate novel hypotheses useful for social psychologists. Although timely, we argue that their approach overlooks the limitations of both humans and LLMs and does not incorporate crucial information on the inquiring researcher's inner world (e.g., values, goals) and outer world (e.g., existing literature) into the hypothesis generation process. Instead, we propose a human-centered workflow (Hope et al., 2023) that recognizes the limitations and capabilities of both the researchers and LLMs. Our workflow features a process of iterative engagement between researchers and GPT-4 that augments-rather than displaces-each researcher's unique role in the hypothesis generation process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"A workflow for human-centered machine-assisted hypothesis generation: Commentary on Banker et al. (2024).","authors":"Alejandro Hermida Carrillo, Clemens Stachl, Sanaz Talaifar","doi":"10.1037/amp0001256","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001256","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to revolutionize a key aspect of the scientific process-hypothesis generation. Banker et al. (2024) investigate how GPT-3 and GPT-4 can be used to generate novel hypotheses useful for social psychologists. Although timely, we argue that their approach overlooks the limitations of both humans and LLMs and does not incorporate crucial information on the inquiring researcher's inner world (e.g., values, goals) and outer world (e.g., existing literature) into the hypothesis generation process. Instead, we propose a human-centered workflow (Hope et al., 2023) that recognizes the limitations and capabilities of both the researchers and LLMs. Our workflow features a process of iterative engagement between researchers and GPT-4 that augments-rather than displaces-each researcher's unique role in the hypothesis generation process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142298909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence are revolutionizing many aspects of human life, and as Banker et al. (2024) illustrate, generative artificial intelligence may also facilitate hypothesis generation in academic research. But while it is easy to imagine this idea generating some alarm (i.e., hypothesis generation may seem like the most creative, human part of research), their work actually raises an even more important question: Why should we believe that the current (human) method of hypothesis generation is somehow ideal in the first place? This article discusses the implications of their work and outlines how automated content analysis and machine learning can also help researchers determine what hypotheses deserve attention in the first place. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
机器学习和人工智能的进步正在彻底改变人类生活的许多方面,正如Banker等人(2024年)所言,生成式人工智能也可以促进学术研究中的假设生成。不过,尽管很容易想象这一想法会引起一些恐慌(也就是说,假设生成似乎是研究中最具创造性、最人性化的部分),但他们的工作实际上提出了一个更重要的问题:我们为什么要相信目前(人类)提出假设的方法是最理想的?本文讨论了他们工作的意义,并概述了自动内容分析和机器学习如何帮助研究人员确定哪些假设首先值得关注。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
{"title":"Machines, psychology, and hypothesis generation: Commentary on Banker et al. (2024).","authors":"Jonah Berger","doi":"10.1037/amp0001258","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001258","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence are revolutionizing many aspects of human life, and as Banker et al. (2024) illustrate, generative artificial intelligence may also facilitate hypothesis generation in academic research. But while it is easy to imagine this idea generating some alarm (i.e., hypothesis generation may seem like the most creative, human part of research), their work actually raises an even more important question: Why should we believe that the current (human) method of hypothesis generation is somehow ideal in the first place? This article discusses the implications of their work and outlines how automated content analysis and machine learning can also help researchers determine what hypotheses deserve attention in the first place. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142298911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Social psychology research projects begin with generating a testable idea that relies heavily on a researcher's ability to assimilate, recall, and accurately process available research findings. However, an exponential increase in new research findings is making the task of synthesizing ideas across the multitude of topics challenging, which could result in important overlooked research connections. In this research, we leverage the fact that social psychology research is based on verbal models and employ large natural language models to generate hypotheses that can aid social psychology researchers in developing new research hypotheses. We adopted two methodological approaches. In the first approach, we fine-tuned the third-generation generative pre-trained transformer (GPT-3) language model on thousands of abstracts published in more than 50 social psychology journals in the past 55 years as well as on preprint repositories (PsyArXiv). Social psychology experts rated model- and human-generated hypotheses similarly on the dimensions of clarity, originality, and impact. In the second approach, without fine-tuning, we generated hypotheses using GPT-4 and found that social psychology experts rated these generated hypotheses as higher in quality than human-generated hypotheses on dimensions of clarity, originality, impact, plausibility, and relevance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Machine-assisted social psychology hypothesis generation.","authors":"Sachin Banker, Promothesh Chatterjee, Himanshu Mishra, Arul Mishra","doi":"10.1037/amp0001222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001222","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social psychology research projects begin with generating a testable idea that relies heavily on a researcher's ability to assimilate, recall, and accurately process available research findings. However, an exponential increase in new research findings is making the task of synthesizing ideas across the multitude of topics challenging, which could result in important overlooked research connections. In this research, we leverage the fact that social psychology research is based on verbal models and employ large natural language models to generate hypotheses that can aid social psychology researchers in developing new research hypotheses. We adopted two methodological approaches. In the first approach, we fine-tuned the third-generation generative pre-trained transformer (GPT-3) language model on thousands of abstracts published in more than 50 social psychology journals in the past 55 years as well as on preprint repositories (PsyArXiv). Social psychology experts rated model- and human-generated hypotheses similarly on the dimensions of clarity, originality, and impact. In the second approach, without fine-tuning, we generated hypotheses using GPT-4 and found that social psychology experts rated these generated hypotheses as higher in quality than human-generated hypotheses on dimensions of clarity, originality, impact, plausibility, and relevance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142298910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2023-11-16DOI: 10.1037/amp0001232
Christian Rominger, Andreas Fink, Bernhard Weber, Mathias Benedek, Corinna M Perchtold-Stefan, Andreas R Schwerdtfeger
Research indicated an association of acute and chronic physical activity with creative ideation performance. However, no study to date applied ecologically valid ambulatory methods with the potential to generalize these positive relationships to everyday life contexts. This study assessed acute and chronic physical activity (i.e., number of steps assessed via acceleration sensors) as well as creative ideation performance (in the verbal and figural domain) with an ecological momentary assessment approach in a sample of 157 young adults. We found that both single bouts of walking and walking regularly were associated with more original verbal ideas. Positive affect did not mediate this association; however, for figural creativity, the indirect path of acute physical activity via acute positive affect was significant. Although the relationship between walking and creativity seems to be domain-specific, the study findings suggest that the positive effects of physical activity on creativity transfer to everyday life contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Step-by-step to more creativity: The number of steps in everyday life is related to creative ideation performance.","authors":"Christian Rominger, Andreas Fink, Bernhard Weber, Mathias Benedek, Corinna M Perchtold-Stefan, Andreas R Schwerdtfeger","doi":"10.1037/amp0001232","DOIUrl":"10.1037/amp0001232","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research indicated an association of acute and chronic physical activity with creative ideation performance. However, no study to date applied ecologically valid ambulatory methods with the potential to generalize these positive relationships to everyday life contexts. This study assessed acute and chronic physical activity (i.e., number of steps assessed via acceleration sensors) as well as creative ideation performance (in the verbal and figural domain) with an ecological momentary assessment approach in a sample of 157 young adults. We found that both single bouts of walking and walking regularly were associated with more original verbal ideas. Positive affect did not mediate this association; however, for figural creativity, the indirect path of acute physical activity via acute positive affect was significant. Although the relationship between walking and creativity seems to be domain-specific, the study findings suggest that the positive effects of physical activity on creativity transfer to everyday life contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136399849","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In their commentaries, Berger (2024) and Carrillo et al. (2024) raise several thoughtful questions regarding machine-assisted hypothesis generation in the social sciences. We discuss their ideas and build upon them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"The future of large language models in social science research: Reply to Berger (2024) and Carrillo et al. (2024).","authors":"Sachin Banker, Promothesh Chatterjee, Himanshu Mishra, Arul Mishra","doi":"10.1037/amp0001287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001287","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In their commentaries, Berger (2024) and Carrillo et al. (2024) raise several thoughtful questions regarding machine-assisted hypothesis generation in the social sciences. We discuss their ideas and build upon them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142298912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2023-11-20DOI: 10.1037/amp0001253
Timothy P Melchert, Raquel W Halfond, Nayla R Hamdi, Lynn F Bufka, Steven D Hollon, Michael J Cuttler
A science-based approach to understanding health and disease emerged gradually over the past two centuries, while the modern evidence-based approach to health care emerged only about a half-century ago. The evidence-based approach to practice in health service psychology (HSP) gained significant traction after the American Psychological Association (APA) adopted it as policy in 2005, and in 2021, APA approved the first comprehensive set of guidelines for practicing HSP in an evidence-based manner. Several authors of this 2021 set of guidelines along with an additional subject matter expert wrote the current article. This article outlines the development of evidence-based practice in psychology, discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each of the three components of evidence-based practice (i.e., best available research, clinical expertise, and patient characteristics, culture, and preferences), and highlights the complexity involved in integrating related considerations during clinical decision making. The article then discusses strategies for the systematic application of this approach in HSP to improve the effectiveness of behavioral health care and strengthen population health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Evidence-based practice in psychology: Context, guidelines, and action.","authors":"Timothy P Melchert, Raquel W Halfond, Nayla R Hamdi, Lynn F Bufka, Steven D Hollon, Michael J Cuttler","doi":"10.1037/amp0001253","DOIUrl":"10.1037/amp0001253","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A science-based approach to understanding health and disease emerged gradually over the past two centuries, while the modern evidence-based approach to health care emerged only about a half-century ago. The evidence-based approach to practice in health service psychology (HSP) gained significant traction after the American Psychological Association (APA) adopted it as policy in 2005, and in 2021, APA approved the first comprehensive set of guidelines for practicing HSP in an evidence-based manner. Several authors of this 2021 set of guidelines along with an additional subject matter expert wrote the current article. This article outlines the development of evidence-based practice in psychology, discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each of the three components of evidence-based practice (i.e., best available research, clinical expertise, and patient characteristics, culture, and preferences), and highlights the complexity involved in integrating related considerations during clinical decision making. The article then discusses strategies for the systematic application of this approach in HSP to improve the effectiveness of behavioral health care and strengthen population health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138048216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-01Epub Date: 2023-11-20DOI: 10.1037/amp0001223
Todd B Kashdan, Fallon R Goodman, Patrick E McKnight, Bradley Brown, Ruba Rum
Theoretically, purpose serves as a basic dimension of healthy psychological functioning and an important protective factor from psychopathology. Theory alone, however, is insufficient to answer critical questions about human behavior and functioning; we require empirical evidence that explores the parameters of purpose with respect to measurement, prediction, and modification. Here, we provide empirically supported insights about how purpose can operate as a beneficial outcome (e.g., marker of well-being), a predictor or mechanism that accounts for benefits that a person derives (such as from an intervention), or a moderator that offers insight into when benefits arise. Advancing the study of purpose requires careful consideration of how purpose is conceptualized, manipulated, and measured across the lifespan. Our aim is to help scientists understand, specify, and conduct high-quality studies of purpose in life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Purpose in life: A resolution on the definition, conceptual model, and optimal measurement.","authors":"Todd B Kashdan, Fallon R Goodman, Patrick E McKnight, Bradley Brown, Ruba Rum","doi":"10.1037/amp0001223","DOIUrl":"10.1037/amp0001223","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Theoretically, purpose serves as a basic dimension of healthy psychological functioning and an important protective factor from psychopathology. Theory alone, however, is insufficient to answer critical questions about human behavior and functioning; we require empirical evidence that explores the parameters of purpose with respect to measurement, prediction, and modification. Here, we provide empirically supported insights about how purpose can operate as a beneficial outcome (e.g., marker of well-being), a predictor or mechanism that accounts for benefits that a person derives (such as from an intervention), or a moderator that offers insight into when benefits arise. Advancing the study of purpose requires careful consideration of how purpose is conceptualized, manipulated, and measured across the lifespan. Our aim is to help scientists understand, specify, and conduct high-quality studies of purpose in life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138048217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stephen J Ceci, Cory J Clark, Lee Jussim, Wendy M Williams
Open Science initiatives such as preregistration, publicly available procedures and data, and power analyses have rightly been lauded for increasing the reliability of findings. However, a potentially equally important initiative-aimed at increasing the validity of science-has largely been ignored. Adversarial collaborations (ACs) refer to team science in which members are chosen to represent diverse (and even contradictory) perspectives and hypotheses, with or without a neutral team member to referee disputes. Here, we provide background about ACs and argue that they are effective, essential, and underutilized. We explain how and why ACs can enhance both the reliability and validity of science and why their benefit extends beyond the realm of team science to include venues such as fact-checking, wisdom of crowds, journal reviewing, and sequential editing. Improving scientific validity would increase the efficacy of policy and interventions stemming from behavioral science research, and over time, it could help salvage the reputation of our discipline because its products would be perceived as resulting from a serious, open-minded consideration of diverse views. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
预注册、公开程序和数据以及功率分析等开放科学举措因其提高了研究结果的可靠性而理所当然地受到了赞誉。然而,一项潜在的旨在提高科学有效性的同样重要的举措却在很大程度上被忽视了。对抗性合作(ACs)指的是团队科学,在这种合作中,团队成员被选来代表不同的(甚至是相互矛盾的)观点和假设,无论是否有中立的团队成员来裁判争议。在此,我们将介绍合作研究的背景,并指出合作研究是有效的、必不可少的,但却未得到充分利用。我们解释了交流如何以及为什么能够提高科学的可靠性和有效性,以及为什么交流的益处超出了团队科学的范畴,还包括事实核查、群众智慧、期刊审阅和顺序编辑等领域。提高科学的有效性将提高源于行为科学研究的政策和干预措施的有效性,而且随着时间的推移,这将有助于挽回我们学科的声誉,因为其产品将被视为是认真、虚心地考虑不同观点的结果。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
{"title":"Adversarial collaboration: An undervalued approach in behavioral science.","authors":"Stephen J Ceci, Cory J Clark, Lee Jussim, Wendy M Williams","doi":"10.1037/amp0001391","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001391","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Open Science initiatives such as preregistration, publicly available procedures and data, and power analyses have rightly been lauded for increasing the <i>reliability</i> of findings. However, a potentially equally important initiative-aimed at increasing the <i>validity</i> of science-has largely been ignored. Adversarial collaborations (ACs) refer to team science in which members are chosen to represent diverse (and even contradictory) perspectives and hypotheses, with or without a neutral team member to referee disputes. Here, we provide background about ACs and argue that they are effective, essential, and underutilized. We explain how and why ACs can enhance both the reliability and validity of science and why their benefit extends beyond the realm of team science to include venues such as fact-checking, wisdom of crowds, journal reviewing, and sequential editing. Improving scientific validity would increase the efficacy of policy and interventions stemming from behavioral science research, and over time, it could help salvage the reputation of our discipline because its products would be perceived as resulting from a serious, open-minded consideration of diverse views. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141989207","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Heidi M Levitt, Andreas Hamburger, Clara E Hill, John McLeod, Antonio Pascual-Leone, Ladislav Timulak, Michael B Buchholz, Joerg Frommer, Jairo Fuertes, Shigeru Iwakabe, Claudio Martínez, Zenobia Morrill, Sarah Knox, Phil Langer, J Christopher Muran, Hanne Weie Oddli, Tomáš Řiháček, Alemka Tomicic, Rivka Tuval-Mashiach
To improve the provision of psychotherapy, many countries have now established clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of specific disorders and mental health concerns. These guidelines have typically been based on evidence from meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials with minimal consideration of findings from qualitative research designs. This said, there has been growing interest in incorporating qualitative research in guideline development processes from both stakeholders and guideline development bodies. In this international collaboration, 19 qualitative psychotherapy researchers from 10 countries articulated the benefits of including qualitative findings within the guideline development process and generated recommendations for guideline developers. The underlying question of this report was "Why and how should qualitative research be used in efforts to develop guidance for psychotherapy practice?" The advantages of reviewing qualitative findings included the ability to identify treatment patterns at the level of in-session dynamics, cultural contexts, interpersonal relationships, and internal experiences, thereby creating guidance that is responsive to clients' needs in the moment-to-moment therapy process. Recommendations are offered at the systemic level (e.g., guideline formation processes, methods of education, research funding priorities). Also, methodological advice is offered for guideline developers when selecting to incorporate qualitative research in the implementation of an expanded guideline development process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Broadening the evidentiary basis for clinical practice guidelines: Recommendations from qualitative psychotherapy researchers.","authors":"Heidi M Levitt, Andreas Hamburger, Clara E Hill, John McLeod, Antonio Pascual-Leone, Ladislav Timulak, Michael B Buchholz, Joerg Frommer, Jairo Fuertes, Shigeru Iwakabe, Claudio Martínez, Zenobia Morrill, Sarah Knox, Phil Langer, J Christopher Muran, Hanne Weie Oddli, Tomáš Řiháček, Alemka Tomicic, Rivka Tuval-Mashiach","doi":"10.1037/amp0001363","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001363","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To improve the provision of psychotherapy, many countries have now established clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of specific disorders and mental health concerns. These guidelines have typically been based on evidence from meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials with minimal consideration of findings from qualitative research designs. This said, there has been growing interest in incorporating qualitative research in guideline development processes from both stakeholders and guideline development bodies. In this international collaboration, 19 qualitative psychotherapy researchers from 10 countries articulated the benefits of including qualitative findings within the guideline development process and generated recommendations for guideline developers. The underlying question of this report was \"Why and how should qualitative research be used in efforts to develop guidance for psychotherapy practice?\" The advantages of reviewing qualitative findings included the ability to identify treatment patterns at the level of in-session dynamics, cultural contexts, interpersonal relationships, and internal experiences, thereby creating guidance that is responsive to clients' needs in the moment-to-moment therapy process. Recommendations are offered at the systemic level (e.g., guideline formation processes, methods of education, research funding priorities). Also, methodological advice is offered for guideline developers when selecting to incorporate qualitative research in the implementation of an expanded guideline development process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141972041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article memorializes Donald N. Bersoff (1939-2024), who provided a foundational influence on the development of American law-psychology and served as the 2013 president of the American Psychological Association (APA). Don had a long and meaningful career as a psychologist and a lawyer. One of Don's greatest interests was in training psychologist-lawyers who would make meaningful contributions to either field. After a decade as APA general counsel, he was recruited to direct the law-psychology program at Hahnemann University and Villanova School of Law. He was elected as the president of the APA in 2013; two of the major themes of his presidency involved encouraging service to military veterans and their families, and promoting diversity within the ranks of psychology to better serve an increasingly diverse population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
本文纪念唐纳德-贝尔索夫(Donald N. Bersoff,1939-2024 年),他对美国法律心理学的发展产生了奠基性的影响,并曾担任美国心理学会 (APA) 2013 年主席。作为一名心理学家和律师,唐的职业生涯漫长而有意义。唐最大的兴趣之一是培养能在这两个领域做出有意义贡献的心理学家-律师。在担任美国心理学会总顾问十年后,他受聘指导哈内曼大学和维拉诺瓦法学院的法律心理学课程。他于 2013 年当选为美国心理学会主席;他担任主席期间的两大主题是鼓励为退伍军人及其家人提供服务,以及促进心理学队伍的多元化,以便更好地为日益多元化的人群服务。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
{"title":"Donald N. Bersoff (1939-2024).","authors":"Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Naomi E Goldstein","doi":"10.1037/amp0001401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001401","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article memorializes Donald N. Bersoff (1939-2024), who provided a foundational influence on the development of American law-psychology and served as the 2013 president of the American Psychological Association (APA). Don had a long and meaningful career as a psychologist and a lawyer. One of Don's greatest interests was in training psychologist-lawyers who would make meaningful contributions to either field. After a decade as APA general counsel, he was recruited to direct the law-psychology program at Hahnemann University and Villanova School of Law. He was elected as the president of the APA in 2013; two of the major themes of his presidency involved encouraging service to military veterans and their families, and promoting diversity within the ranks of psychology to better serve an increasingly diverse population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141890588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}