Changes in Modern Psychology
A Citation Analysis of the Kuhnian Displacement Thesis
Patrick C. Friman, Keith D. Allen, Mary Louise E. Kerwin, and Robert Larzelere
Many psychologists believe a Kuhnian revolution—a
competitive event between incommensurate paradigms in
which a winner displaces losers after chaotic upheaval—
has occurred in psychology. Cognitive psychology is said
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to be displacing behavioral psychology and psychoanalysis,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
but few published data support this thesis. Social science
citation records from the leading journals in cognitive
psychology, behavioral psychology, and psychoanalysis
between 1979 and 1988 were analyzed. Results show an
increasing trend for cognitive psychology but also high
citation rates with no downward trends for behavioral
psychology. Citation rates for psychoanalysis are not as
high, but indications of decline are marginal. These find-
ings do not support the Kuhnian displacement thesis on
changes in modern psychology.
T he status and popularity of cognitive psychology
has increased substantially in recent years. A wide-
spread interpretation of this increase involves a
Kuhnian scientific revolution in which cognitive psy-
chology is displacing behavioral psychology and psycho-
analysis (e.g., Baars, 1986; Dember, 1974; Gardner, 1985;
Mackenzie, 1977; Segal & Lachman, 1972; Sperry, 1988).
Defenders of the "displaced" subdisciplines debate this
interpretation, however (e.g., Wyatt, Hawkins, & Davis,
1986; Zuriff, 1979). Those who favor alternatives to Kuhn
also debate the interpretation (e.g., Gholson & Barker,
1985; Horowitz, 1987; Manicas & Secord, 1983). Prom-
inent among such alternatives are the writings of Lakatos
(e.g., 1970, 1978) and Laudan (e.g., 1977, 1981).
Kuhn (1962, 1970) attacked the notion of purely
objective scientific evidence. He described science as a
social activity in which disciplines develop their own sets
of rules for allowable evidence. Although intended to es-
tablish an unambiguous relationship between observa-
tions and theory, the rules are necessarily influenced by
the worldviews or paradigms espoused by the scientists
who make them. These paradigms are founded on vir-
tually unquestioned (and unquestionable) core beliefs.
Kuhnian philosophy has two implications for sci-
ence. First, it presupposes subjectivity as an integral part
of an enterprise once thought to be wholly objective. Sec-
ond, it asserts that differing paradigms are incommen-
surate because their core beliefs are so resistant to change.
Thus, to Kuhnians, paradigms do not merge over time;
they displace each other after periods of chaotic upheaval
or scientific revolution (Gholson & Barker, 1985; Kuhn,
658
1962, 1970; Manicas & Secord, 1983). Kuhnians view
the history of science as a succession of paradigms (Ghol-
son & Barker, 1985).
Despite Kuhn's (1962, 1970) detailed explication of
scientific revolution accompanied by historical examples
(e.g., the Copernican revolution), determining when rev-
olutionary displacement is occurring is complicated and
controversial (cf. Horowitz, 1987; Reese & Overton, 1972;
Segal & Lachman, 1972; Wyatt et al., 1986; Zuriff, 1979).
To aid in determination, Kuhn recommended an analysis
of literature citations because changes accompanying dis-
placement would be reflected in postrevolutionary re-
search publications. He stated, "One such effect—a shift
in the distribution of the technical literature cited in the
footnotes to research reports—ought to be studied as a
possible index to the occurrence of revolutions" (Kuhn,
1970, p. ix). At a basic level of analysis, one would expect
substantial increases in citations of papers from the dis-
placing paradigms and substantial decreases in citations
of papers from the displaced paradigms.
During the past two decades, citation analysis—a
bibliometric method that uses reference citations in sci-
entific articles as its principal data—has become an im-
portant tool for evaluating various aspects of scientific
disciplines (Garfield, 1972; Garfield, Malin, & Small,
1978). It has been used to assess the relative importance
of journals, books, and major figures in psychology (e.g.,
Heyduk & Fenigstein, 1984; White & White, 1977) and
is clearly sensitive to contraction and expansion of sci-
entific disciplines (Garfield, 1972; Garfield et al., 1978).
Thus, citation analysis could shed light on some of the
questions at issue in the debate over a Kuhnian revolution
in psychology. Two major questions are (a) Have citations
Patrick C. Friman, Father Flanagan's Boys' Home and Creighton Uni-
versity School of Medicine; Keith D. Allen, Meyer Rehabilitation Insti-
tute, University of Nebraska Medical School; Mary Louise E. Kerwin,
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine; Robert Larzelere, Father
Flanagan's Boys' Home.
Frances Degen Horowitz served as action editor for this article.
Preparation of this article was supported in part by a grant to Patrick
C. Friman from the Foerderer Foundation for Excellence.
We gratefully acknowledge the journal editors who replied to our
survey. We also acknowledge the assistance of George Williams in the
data collection and Marc Atkins, Don Baer, John Belmont, Jack Finney,
Don Hantula, Kevin Moore, Edward Morris, Michael Rapoff, Charles
Rice, John Parrish, and Bill Warzak for comments on a draft of this
article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Patrick C. Friman, Youthcare Building, Boys Town, NE 68010.
June 1993 • American Psychologist
Copyright 1993 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. OOO3-066X/93/$2.OO
Vol. 48. No. 6, 658-664
 to articles in cognitive journals increased? and (b) Have
citations to behavioral and psychoanalytic journals de-
creased? To address these questions, we conducted a ci-
tation analysis ofleading journals in cognitive psychology,
behavioral psychology, and psychoanalysis between 1979
and 1988. To avoid the controversy over whether these
three areas of psychology represent true paradigms (e.g.,
Horowitz, 1987; Reese &Overton, 1972), we refer to them
as subdisciplines throughout this article.
Method
Decade Selection
We selected the decade between 1979 and 1988 because
it is the most recently available 10-year period analyzed
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
by the Social Science Journal Citation Record (SSJCR),
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
which is published annually by the Institute for Scientific
Information (Garfield, 1979-1988). The SSJCR is a
companion volume to the Social Science Citation Index
(SSCI).
Database
The SSJCR ranks journals according to several citation-
related measures. From these we selected the four that
are most relevant to questions addressed in this study:
source items, immediacy index, citation number, and
impact factor (Garfield, 1972, 1979-1988).
Source items. A source item is a citable item
published in one of the source journals processed for the
SSCI. Generally, the SSJCR counts only original articles,
technical notes, and review articles as source items.
Immediacy index. The immediacy index is a
measure of how quickly an average article is cited. It is a
ratio of all citations to journal's source items in a given
year to the number of source items in that same year.
Citation number. Citation number is the number
of times a journal has been named during a given year
in the citation lists of all other journal articles included
in the SSCI.
Impact factor. The impact factor is a measure of
how frequently an average article is cited in a specified
year. The impact factor is basically a ratio between cita-
tions and source documents. A journal's impact factor
for any given year is calculated by dividing all citations
to articles in that journal in the preceding two years by
all the journal's source items in the preceding two years.
The impact factor is important because citation number
favors journals that have a larger corpus of citable doc-
uments (i.e., older journals and journals that publish large
numbers of documents).
Data Collection
We obtained annual raw counts on the four measures for
each of the journals analyzed in each subdiscipline. Then
we added and averaged each data set for each measure
for each year over the decade. For example, we added the
impact factors for the four top cognitive journals in 1988,
yielding a total of 10.41. We then divided 10.41 by 4,
yielding a mean impact factor of 2.60 for top cognitive
June 1993 • American Psychologist
journals in 1988. We used the same method to establish
the mean citation number, immediacy index, and source
document number for each subdiscipline over the decade.
Journal Selection
We established the list of top journals in each subdiscipline
by using three criteria. First, the journals had to have a
relevant descriptor in their title (i.e., cognitive or cognition,
behavior or behavioral, psychoanalysis or psychoanalytic).
Second, they had to be reported on in the SSJCR
throughout the decade between 1979 and 1988. Third,
the mission statements for each journal had to indicate
a relationship between the descriptor and the commit-
ments of its subdisciplinary cognate (e.g., cognitive and
cognitive psychology).
Our selection criteria excluded several journals. For
example, some prominent journals were excluded because
they lacked a relevant descriptor (e.g., Psychological Rec-
ord, Psychological Bulletin, and Psychological Review).
Other selections were excluded because they were not
actually journals (e.g., Annual Review of Psychology,
Progress in Behavior Modification, and The Psychoana-
lytic Study of the Child). Some journals that had relevant
descriptors were excluded because their mission state-
ments did not indicate a strong relationship between the
descriptor and the subdiscipline that the descriptor des-
ignated in this study (e.g., Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Behavioral Medicine, Behavioral Genetics, and Com-
munity Cognition). Several journals were excluded from
each subdiscipline as a result of our decade criteria (e.g.,
Cognitive Science, Behavior Modification, and Psycho-
analytic Review). In 1988, the SSJCR reported on 12
journals in cognitive psychology, 10 in psychoanalysis,
and 14 in behavioral psychology. In 1979 it reported on
only 4 journals in cognitive psychology, 8 in psycho-
analysis, and 9 in behavioral psychology. To match the
sample sizes of behavioral psychology and psychoanalysis
to cognitive psychology, we restricted the number of jour-
nals analyzed for each subdiscipline to 4.
Selection by impact factor. Of the journals that
met our criteria in behavioral psychology and psycho-
analysis, we selected the four with the highest impact fac-
tors in 1988. This selection was moot for cognitive psy-
chology because only four met the criteria.
Validation with citation number. To assess the
accuracy of rankings by impact factor, we also established
rankings by citation number.
Validation with editor rankings. Variables
other than citation indexes contribute to the stature of a
psychological journal (Buffardi & Nichols, 1981). To as-
sess the validity of the journals included in this study, we
surveyed journal editors. We sent the survey to the editors
of all journals in each of the three subdisciplines covered
by the 1988 SSJCR. We asked them to rank the top jour-
nals in their subdiscipline in terms of influence and im-
portance. We did not recommend journals to the editors
but asked that they compile their lists from their own
resources. The survey contained blank lines for five
ranked choices. Return rates were 67% (8 of 12) in cog-
659
 nitive psychology, 71% (10 of 14) in behavioral psychol-
ogy, and 70% (7 of 10) in psychoanalysis. We scored the
returned rankings by assigning numerical values (5 for a
rank of 1, 4 for a rank of 2, . . . 1 for a rank of 5) to the
ranks, summing the ranks across judges, and ranking the
sums.
Results
Journal Selection
The four journals from each subdiscipline selected ac-
cording to rankings by impact factor in 1988 are listed
in Table 1. Review of Table 1 shows that citation number
rankings and editor rankings closely resembled impact
rankings for 1988. Except for one journal's citation num-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ber rank (Contemporary Psychoanalysis), the top four
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
journals selected according to impact factor in each sub-
discipline were also the top four journals in each subdis-
cipline according to 1988 citation number and rankings
by the editors.
Yearly Trends
We analyzed the raw citation data with a series of split-
plot 3 X 10 (Subdiscipline X Year) analyses of variance.
For citation number, both main effects and their inter-
action were significant, F(2, 9) = 6.73 for subdiscipline,
p < .05;F(9, 81) = 3.80 for year, p < .001; F(18, 81) =
6.12 for Subdiscipline X Year, p < .001. The top left
panel of Figure 1 shows that the annual number of ci-
tations to the top cognitive journals doubled during the
decade, from a mean of 603 citations to a mean of 1,321.
In contrast, the average annual citations to top journals
in the other two subdisciplines remained fairly constant,
from 1,634 to 1,630 for behavioral journals and from 593
to 555 for the psychoanalytic journals. Statistical tests of
linear trends in these three subdisciplines indicated that
the only significant trend was an increasing number of
annual citations to cognitive journals, F(l, 3) = 40.23, p
< .01. We also performed statistical tests of curvilinear
and cubic trends. The only result that approached sig-
nificance was the cubic trend over time for psychoanalytic
citations, F(l, 3) = 6.41, p < .10. This emerged from a
dip in citations from 1980 to 1982, followed by an increase
to a peak citation number in 1984 and then a decline in
citations thereafter.
Impact factor varied significantly only by subdiscip-
line, F(2, 9) = 8.42, p < .01. The main effect for year and
the Subdiscipline X Year interaction did not reach sig-
nificance, F(9, 81) = .74, p > .20, and F(IS, 81) = .52,
p > .20, respectively. The only polynomial trend analysis
to approach significance was a curvilinear trend for the
psychoanalytic impact factor, F(l, 3) = 7.89, p < .10.
This emerged from a slight increase in impact factor for
psychoanalysis from 1979 to 1984, followed by a slight
decrease through 1988 (see top right panel of Figure 1).
The immediacy index also varied only by subdis-
cipline and then only marginally, F(2, 9) = 4.17, p < . 10.
The effects due to year and due to the Subdiscipline X
Year interaction did not reach significance, F{9, 81) =
660
1.13, and F(18, 81) = 1.15, respectively, ps > .20. The
only significant polynomial trend was the cubic trend for
the psychoanalytic immediacy index, F(\, 3) = 10.42, p
< .05. This trend seemed to reflect an increase from 1979
to 1984, followed by a decrease until 1987 and then an
upturn in 1988 (see lower left panel of Figure 1).
The number of source documents also varied only
by subdiscipline and only marginally. F(2, 9) = 3.09, p
< .10. The other effects did not approach significance:
F(9, 81) = 1.29 for year, p > .20; 7^(18, 81) = 1.07 for
Subdiscipline X Year, p > .20. The only polynomial anal-
ysis that approached significance was a cubic trend for
cognitive psychology, F(l, 3) = 7.06, p < .10. This trend
reflects an increase from 1979 to 1981, a decrease from
then until 1984, and finally an increase through 1988
(see lower right panel of Figure 1). Thus, the significant
findings for the main citation indices do not merely reflect
changes in the number of source documents in these top
journals. Subdiscipline differences in source documents
can partially account for subdiscipline differences in ci-
tation number. They cannot account for such differences
in the average impact factor or immediacy index, however,
because those measures are averages per article.
Percentile Rankings
It is informative to view the trends in the raw data in
terms of percentile rankings among all social science
journals indexed by the Social Sciences Citation Index.
We established yearly percentile ranks for source docu-
ments, immediacy indexes, citation number, and impact
factor in each year by using the following formula: (N —
JR/N) (100), where N equals the number of all social
science journals ranked in a given year and JR equals
journal rank. For example, in 1988 the SSJCR ranked
journals in descending order from 1 to 1,370 according
to impact factor. Cognitive Psychology ranked 16th, Cog-
nition 23rd, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn-
ing, Memory, and Cognition 28th, and Memory & Cog-
nition 98th. Using the formula (and rounding up) obtains
rankings of 99, 98, 98, and 93 respectively for the four
journals. Averaging these shows that the mean percentile
rank for impact factor in cognitive psychology in 1988
was 97. The four panels of Figure 2 show the yearly trends
of each subdiscipline in terms of percentile rankings.
Discussion
The results of this study reflect positively on cognitive
psychology. Visual analysis of Figure 1 indicates that the
citation numbers for cognitive psychology are higher than
those of psychoanalysis on every citation index. They are
also higher than behavioral psychology on two indices,
immediacy and impact. The latter is noteworthy because
the impact factor is a ratio of recent citations to source
documents and is arguably the most important citation
index (Garfield, 1972, 1979-1988). In addition to the
visual analysis, the statistical analyses show that cognitive
psychology had the only significantly positive trend on
any index (i.e., citation number). This trend indicates
high and increasing citation rates for the top cognitive
June 1993 • American Psychologist
 Table 1
Journal Selection Rankings
1988 SSJCR subdiscipline rankings

Impact Citation Journal editor

factor" numberb rankingsc
Journal

Cognitive
Cognitive Psychology 1 (3.38) 1 (1,707) 1 (21)
Cognition 2 (2.82) 4 (832) 3 (16)
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition 3 (2.67) 3(1,153) 2(17)
Memory & Cognition 4(1.54) 2 (1,590) 4(10)

Behavioral
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Behavior Research and Therapy 1 (1.73) 2(1,596) 3 119)

Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2 (1.48) 1 (2,125) 3(19)
Behavior Therapy 3(1.44) 4(1,313) 4(17)
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 4(1.39) 3(1,486) 1 (26)

Psychoanalytic
Psychoanalytic Quarterly 1 (.72) 3 (446) 3(16)
Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association 2 (.58) 2 (666) 2(20)
Contemporary Psychoanalysis 3 (.56) 5(160) 3(16)
International Journal of Psychoanalysis 4 1.31) 1 (947) 1 (24)

Note. SSJCR = Sociol Science Journal Citation Record.

° Numbers in parentheses are actual 1988 impact factors.
b
Numbers in parentheses are actual number of Social Science Citation Index citations in 1 988.
1
Numbers in parentheses are actual score in editor rankings.

journals. The impact factor data indicates source docu-
ments in top cognitive journals are frequently cited. And
the immediacy data indicate that articles in core cognitive
journals have a nearly even chance of being cited in their
year of publication. Collectively, these findings reflect (and
support) the enthusiasm for cognitive psychology that
underlies one side of the debate over scientific revolution
in psychology. But do they reflect the displacement that
defines scientific revolution?
Kuhnian displacements are not subtle events. They
are described as cataclysmic clashes in which losers lan-
guish and victors flourish (Gholson & Barker, 1985;
Kuhn, 1962, 1970). An indicator of loss is a decrease in
rate of citations to, and relative ranking of, a paradigm's
core journals. The converse is true for victors (cf. Kuhn,
1962, 1970). Although our results show an increase in
citations to core journals in cognitive psychology, the re-
sults do not show corresponding decreases in citations to
core journals in behavioral psychology. In fact, there are
no visual or statistically significant trends on any citation
index to core behavioral journals. These results are not
indicative of displacement.
But what of psychoanalysis? The marginally signifi-
cant polynomial trends suggest that citations to core psy-
choanalytic journals have been decreasing since 1984, as
indicated by total citations and impact factor. These de-
creasing trends reduced the ranking of core psychoanalytic
journals for impact factor (against all social science journals
indexed in the SSJCR) from above the 70th percentile to
about the 60th percentile (see top right panel of Figure 2).
The rank for citation number stayed near the 80th per-
centile throughout the decade, however (see top left panel
of Figure 2).
That psychoanalytic journals appear to perform
better on citation number than on impact factor may
reflect on the recency of citable items. Core psychoana-
lytic journals are generally older than core cognitive and
behavioral journals. Authors of psychoanalytic articles
also frequently cite older literature (see journal half-life
indices in 1988 issue of SSJCR). In addition, classic
source items in psychoanalysis appear to be cited more
than classic source items in behavioral and cognitive psy-
chology. For example, in 1988, Sigmund Freud was cited
almost five times as often as B. F. Skinner and four times
as often as Herbert Simon.
Another important issue to consider when evaluating
psychoanalysis is that its authors are cited more in the
arts and humanities than are authors in behavioral or
cognitive psychology. In fact, Freud is still cited more
than all other sources in history except Lenin, Shake-
speare, Aristotle, the Bible, and Plato (Garfield, 1986).
The influence of psychoanalysis on modern culture also
appears stronger than that of other areas of psychology
(cf. Lamal, 1989). In summary, the displacement thesis

June 1993 • American Psychologist 661

 Figure 1
Annual Mean of Each Citation Parameter for the Top Four Journals in Each Subdiscipline Between 1979 and 1988
Citation Number Impact Factor

2000

8> 1500
2
2
1000
"Jo
c
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

500
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

79 80 81 82 83 84 es S6 87 88 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Immediacy Index Source Documents

0.6 80

70
0.5
60
2
(D
s 50
<D
3 0.3
3 40

30

I 0.2
I 20

10

79 80 81 82 83 B4 85 B6 87 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

1
Behavioral * Cognitive • Analytic

Note. Citation number is top left, impact factor top right, immediacy index bottom left, and source documents bottom right. Circles depict behavioral means, triangles
cognitive means, and squares psychoanalytic means.

on psychoanalysis is weak at best. Recently, there
has been some evidence indicating a slight decline
in citations to its core journals, but other citation
data indicate that the standing of psychoanalysis re-
mains high in the social sciences and the human-
ities.
Behavioral psychology is the subdiscipline that is
usually described as displaced, however (cf. Baars, 1986;
Dember, 1974; Gardner, 1985; Mackenzie, 1977; Segal
& Lachman, 1972; Sperry, 1988). Not supported by ci-
tation data, the repeated declaration of a revolution may
be more a reflection of the enthusiasm many cognitive
psychologists have for their subdiscipline than of actual
events (see also Appley, 1990). Early adherents of psy-
choanalysis and behavioral psychology probably exhibited
enthusiasm for their own subdisciplines in similar ways
(cf. Koch, 1959-1963).
Citation analysis introduces a degree of objectivity
into discussions generated by such displays of enthusiasm.
Although citation indices are not the only measures of
health in a subdiscipline, they are vital signs. If a subdis-
cipline were dying, its condition would presumably be
reflected by corresponding changes in its vital signs. Such
changes were not seen here.

662 June 1993 • American Psychologist

 Figure 2
Mean Percentile Rankings by Citation Parameter for Each Subdiscipline Between 1979 and 1988
Citation Number Impact Factor

100 100

90 90

as
cc BO 80
<D
70 70

8. 60
I 60
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

SO SO
79 80 81 82 83 84 86 87 88 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Immediacy Index Source Documents

100 r 100

80 90

60 DC so

<5 70

s.
SO
79 80 B1 82 83 84 85 86 87 79 BO 81 82 83 84 BS 86 87 88

* Behavioral * Cognitive • Analytic

Note. Citation number is top left, impact factor top right, immediacy index bottom left, and source documents bottom right. Circles depict behavioral means, triangles
cognitive means, and squares psychoanalytic means.

Some citation-based research questions related to
the health of each subdiscipline remain, however. For ex-
ample, who did the citing and what was cited? How often
are articles from each subdiscipline cited in general psy-
chology textbooks or general psychology journals. How
often are articles from one subdiscipline cited in the jour-
nals of another? There are other examples.
It may be just as important to ask whether the
Kuhnian perspective on scientific revolution is appropri-
ate for psychology (cf. Gholson & Barker, 1985; Horowitz,
1987; Manicas & Secord, 1983). Kuhn argued against the
possibility of theory-neutral data bases, the absence of
which obscures the possibility of objective truth criteria
and results in truth determination through consensus.
Establishing truth by consensus, however, is seen by some
as an appeal to "mob psychology" (Gholson & Barker,
1985; Lakatos, 1970). In addition, a conclusion that many
draw from Kuhn is that any one science can accommo-
date only one paradigm (Gholson & Barker, 1985). Thus,
the contentious context established by Kuhn's philosophy
may be the reason so many prominent scientists have
interpreted the increased popularity of cognitive psy-

June 1993 • American Psychologist 663

 chology as necessarily signaling the demise of behavioral
psychology and psychoanalysis (e.g., Baars, 1986; Dember,
1974; Gardner, 1985: Mackenzie, 1977; Segal & Lach-
man. 1972; Sperry, 1988). Perhaps a more ecumenical
philosophy of science would generate fewer fatalistic in-
terpretations of change (cf. Gholson & Barker, 1985;
Manicas & Secord, 1983).
At the very least, such a philosophy should allow for
the productive coexistence of alternative approaches to
psychology. Two possibilities include the philosophies of
Lakatos and Laudan. Both replaced the Kuhnian notion
of paradigm with their own concepts. Lakatos proposed
"research program" and Laudan proposed "research tra-
dition" (cf. Gholson & Barker, 1985; Lakatos, 1970, 1978;
Laudan, 1977, 1981). Similar to Kuhn, both Lakatos and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Laudan emphasized competition between divergent ap-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
proaches to science. They differed from common inter-
pretations of Kuhn by allowing for productive coexistence
of, and exchange between, rival approaches (Gholson &
Barker, 1985; Horowitz, 1987).
As Gholson and Barker (1985) pointed out, the his-
tory of physics is instructive. For example, the ontology
and mathematics of relativity are incompatible with those
of quantum physics, yet Dirac's 1928 theory of the elec-
tron used both relativity and quantum theories. Cogni-
tive-behavior modification (e.g., Meichenbaum, 1977)
and reapprochement between behavior therapy and psy-
choanalysis (e.g., Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991; Messer, 1986)
may be similar examples in psychology. The history of
physics also shows that some paradigms go through pe-
riods of reduced productivity only to be revived by new
discoveries and new solutions to old problems. Gholson
and Barker (1985) reported that scientific productivity
on relativity was reduced during the 1940s and 1950s but
was revived in the 1960s after the discovery of pulsars
and quasars. The relative absence of citation trends in
behavioral psychology and psychoanalysis may be an in-
dication of reduced productivity in these subdisciplines.
However, each is still strong, has exciting new areas of
study (e.g., stimulus equivalence in behavioral psychology
and unconscious information processing in psychoanal-
ysis), and has an always present possibility of revival.
In conclusion, we paraphrase Mark Twain by saying
that reports on the death of behavioral psychology and
psychoanalysis appear greatly exaggerated. Assertions to
the contrary are counterproductive: They incite antago-
nistic separatism where fruitful cooperation might oth-
erwise flourish.
REFERENCES
Appley, M. H. (1990). Time for reintegration. Science Agenda APA, 3.
12-13.
Baars, B. J. (1986). The cognitive revolution in psychology. New York:
Guilford Press.
664
Buffardi, L. C , & Nichols, J. A. (1981). Citation impact, acceptance,
and APA influence. American Psychologist, 36, 1453-1457.
Dember, W. N. (1974). Motivation and the cognitive revolution. American
Psychologist. 29, 161-168.
Gardner, H. (1985). The mind's new science: A history of the cognitive
revolution. New York: Basic Books.
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation.
Science. 178, 471-479.
Garfield, E. (1986). The 250 most cited authors in the Arts and Hu-
manities Citation Index. 1976-1983. Current Contents, 14, 3-11.
Garfield, E. (1979-1988). The SSCI Journal Citation Reports. Phila-
delphia: Institute for Scientific Information.
Garfield, E., Malin, M. V., & Small, H. (1978). Citation data as science
indicators. In Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R. K. Merten, A. Thackray,
and H. Zuckerman (Eds.), The advent of science indicators (pp. 179—
207). New York: Wiley.
Gholson, B., & Barker. P. (1985). Kuhn, Lakatos. and Laudan: Appli-
cations in the history of physics and psychology. American Psychologist,
40, 755-769.
Heyduk, R. G., & Fenigstein, A. (1984). Influential works and authors
in psychology: A survey of eminent psychologists. American Psy-
chologist. 39, 556-559.
Horowitz. F. D. (1987). Exploring developmental theories: Toward a
structural/behavioral model to account for behavioral development.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Koch. S. (1959-1963). Psychology: A study of a science (6 vols.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Kohlenberg, R. S.. & Tsai, M. (1991). Functional analytic psychotherapy.
New York: Plenum Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Kuhn. T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos. 1.(1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research
programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the
growth oj'knowledge(pp. 91-196). Cambridge. England: Cambridge
University Press.
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programs.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lamal, P. A. (1989). The impact of behaviorism on our culture: Some
evidence and conjectures. The Psychological Record, 39. 529-535.
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Laudan, L. (1981). Science and hypothesis. Boston: D. Reidel.
Mackenzie. B. D. (1977). Behaviourism and the limits of scientific
method. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Manicas, P. T. & Secord, P. F. (1983). Implications for psychology of
the new philosophy of science. American Psychologist, 38. 399-413.
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification. New York:
Plenum Press.
Messer, S. B. (1986). Behavior and psychoanalytic perspectives at ther-
apeutic choice points. American Psychologist, 41, 1261-1272.
Reese, H. W., & Overton, W. F. (1972). On paradigm shifts. American
Psychologist, 27, 1197-1199.
Segal, E. M., & Lachman, R. (1972). Complex behavior or higher mental
process: Is there a paradigm shift. American Psychologist, 27, 46-55.
Sperry. R. W. (1988). Psychology's mentalist paradigm and the religion/
science tension. American Psychologist, 43, 607-613.
White. M. J., & White, K. G. (1977). Citation analysis of psychology
journals. American Psychologist, 32, 301-305.
Wyatt, W. J.. Hawkins. R. P., & Davis, P. (1986). Behaviorism: Are
reports of its death exaggerated? The Behavior Analyst. 9, 101-105.
Zuriff, G. E. (1979). The demise of behaviorism—exaggerated rumor!:
A review of Mackenzie's Behaviourism and the limits of scientific
method. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32. 129-
136.
June 1993 • American Psychologist