Search

This study employed a quasi-experimental design to test the effects of three pedagogies on learning outcomes in a simulated psychology of gender lecture. Results showed that meaning and relational pedagogies, as well as a combination of meaning, relational, and explanatory pedagogies, significantly improved participant learning beyond self-study and produced a significant improvement in retention as well. Interestingly, participants in the relational condition excelled on these learning outcomes even though the instructor covered very little reading material in that condition. Despite the benefits of these pedagogies, participants showed a clear preference for the lower performing explanatory instructional approach, which suggests that students may not readily recognize pedagogies that best contribute to effective learning and retention in classes like the psychology of gender.

Each of the four responses to the articles that began this special issue have challenged and deepened many of the ideas we think are critical to the relationship between psychology [...]

Although both psychology and religion are concerned with many similar issues (e.g., health and well-being, meaning and purpose) and treat them in some analogous ways (e.g., counseling) they have long [...]

Our study of the philosophy of social science has led us to realize that many psychologists, including ourselves, have participated in a kind of popular myth, sometimes known as the myth of neutrality. The primary feature of this myth is the supposition that the research findings and conceptual practices of secular psychology are essentially neutral to or compatible with various worldviews, including theism. We first attempt to dispel this myth. Instead of being bias-free or bias-minimized, the research and practice of psychologists presupposes certain assumptions or biases about the world. We explicate some of the more important assumptions of conventional methodology and practice and compare these assumptions to the theistic assumption of a currently and practically relevant God. We find that theistic conceptualizations are considerably different from secular conceptualizations, not only in their hypotheses about psychological events but also in their practical applications to psychological problems. These differences, we believe, suggest the need for a theistic approach to psychology as a complement to our currently secular approach to psychology. We describe how this is possible by pointing to several applied branches of this theistic approach, including other articles of this special Journal issue, which relate to programs of research and approaches to practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two empirical research studies are described that illustrate the potential value of joining conventional social science and theistic religion in a theistic program of psychological research. The first study shows how a theistic program of psychological research tweaks the existing psychological research on the formation of God attachment to include a new assessment, experiences of God. The results of Study 1 indicate that experiences of God are an important predictor of theists' attachment to God, even when controlling for parental attachment. The second study exemplifies how theistic ideas can lead to a new program of psychological research, in this case research on implicit attitudes toward faith and science, and can generate new scientific instruments such as the modified Implicit Association Test used in this study. The results of Study 2 suggest that education and training in psychology may lead theistic psychology students to implicitly endorse a secular stereotype that they consciously reject. Implications of the findings of both studies are discussed and the heuristic value of a theistic program of psychological research is explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the psychological account of Professor Alan C. Tjeltveit on the love of God and neighbor based on research. The authors agree with Tjeltveit on the necessity of perspective plurality in studying love. They observe the omission of discussion with regards to the differences of world insights informing the methods of scripture, cross and science in the article of Tjeltveit. They also indicate the differences between theism and naturalism.