American Psychologist 2016, Vol. 71, No. 9, 896 – 897
© 2016 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000031
COMMENT
Integrating Psychology and Neuroscience: Comment on Schwartz et al. (2016) Warren W. Tryon
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Fordham University This article calls attention to a large body of uncited literature that renders the levels of analysis argument upon which Schwartz, Lilienfeld, Meca, and Sauvigné (2016) based their reappraisal of the role of neuroscience within psychology obsolete. Examples of effective integration of psychology and neuroscience without benefit of any bridging laws are provided. Implications for training are mentioned. Keywords: psychology, neuroscience, neural networks, theoretical integration, levels of analysis
What if psychotherapy integration could finally occur through theoretical unification in the form of transtheoretic, transdiagnostic psychotherapy? What if empirically supported psychological principles based on neural network properties enabled psychologists to continue their work as usual? Then psychology and neuroscience would be substantially integrated and no bridging laws would be needed. Schwartz et al.’s (2016) appraisal would need to be reappraised. These are not distant future possibilities but published works that are part of the 2,660 citations returned by a PsycINFO search on January 24, 2016, using the search term “connectionist.” Rumelhart, McClelland, and PDP Research Group (1986) and McClelland, Rumelhart, and PDP Research Group (1986) provided proof of concept that learning and memory, and therefore all of psychology, can be done with brain-like neural network models. Thirty years of work by many investigators has largely supported and expanded their seminal contributions. Schwartz et al. (2016) did not cite any of this work. Here I provide just one reference for each of the remaining questions presented above because American Psychologist comments are limited to nine references. McClelland (2010) discussed psychology as emergent phenomena that are consistent with the friendlier form of “constitutive” reductionism (p. 56) that Schwartz et al. (2016) support. Monroe and Read (2008) provided a general connectionist model of attitude structure and change. Read et al. (2010) developed a connectionist neural network model of personality that integrates, for the first time, the ideographic and nomothetic approaches to personality. Orr, Thrush, and Plaut (2013) discussed decision making as the result of constraint satisfaction.
Schwartz, Lilienfeld, Meca, and Savigné (2016) appraised the increasingly prominent role of neuroscience within psychology. Their subtitle “A Call for Inclusiveness Over Exclusiveness” reflects conflict between psychology as a social science and neuroscience as a natural science. Their concern is that neuroscience may be encroaching too far into psychology. Much of their appraisal is predicated upon a levels of analysis concept, also known as explanatory levels and hierarchy of explanation. The levels are psychology and biology. The authors repeatedly call for “bridge laws” (Schwartz et al., 2016, p. 56) to connect these two separate levels. The strong implication is that psychology and neuroscience will retain their separate core concepts and vocabulary, and bridging laws will somehow relate them in a meaningful way. This appraisal presumes that a full integration of psychology and neuroscience is not possible. The levels of analysis formulation is just a restatement of the mind– body (brain) problem. But what if there was a way to simulate how psychological properties, such as learning and memory, emerge from brain-like models based on basic neuroscience concepts? What if we had a way to study how psychology emerges from biology? What if attitude formation and change and reasoned action could be understood in constraint satisfaction terms that govern neural networks? What if the ideographic and nomothetic approaches to understanding personality could be integrated via neural network models?
Warren W. Tryon, Department of Psychology, Fordham University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Warren W. Tryon, 4A Olde Willow Way, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-1452. E-mail:
[email protected] 896
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
COMMENT: INTEGRATING PSYCHOLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE
Clinical orientations are broader, and thus more easily integrated, than are the particular theories that underlie them. Tryon (2016) identified the following Big Five clinical orientations: (a) cognitive, (b) behavioral, (c) cognitive– behavioral, (d) psychodynamic, and (e) pharmacologic. He noted that the first four could not provide natural science mechanism information to explain how they worked. He presented enough of this missing mechanism information to support a transtheoretic, transdiagnostic approach to psychotherapy. Tryon (2014) recognized that psychologists need to be able to continue with their work, but in a way that enables explanations to be grounded in neuroscience. To do this, he presented empirically supported psychological principles that were derived from properties of neural networks.
Conclusions Psychology and neuroscience can be more fully integrated in at least the following ways: • APA clinical accreditation requirements require that students be trained regarding the cognitive, affective, social, cultural, and biological bases of behavior, but they do not require that this training be integrated in any coherent way. The literature referred to above enables this to be done now. • The neural network simulations contained in the above citations require special skills to conduct, just as brain imaging does. Most psychologists will not acquire the ability to conduct neural network simulations by themselves, just as most psychologists will not run brain scanners and do the required postprocessing by themselves. They will collaborate with other professionals who have these skills. Programs that currently provide doctoral training in psychometrics/quantitative psychology could provide the required conceptual and mathematical training to enable their graduates to consult with psychologists
897
who wish to run simulations just as they now consult with psychologists who wish to run complex statistical analyses. • Psychotherapy integration based on theoretical unification is available now (Tryon, in press). It supports a comprehensive clinical practice based on empirically supported principles that enables customized treatment as dimensions of diversity require.
References McClelland, J. L. (2010). Emergence in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 751–770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765 .2010.01116.x McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & PDP Research Group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Psychological and biological models (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Monroe, B. M., & Read, S. J. (2008). A general connectionist model of attitude structure and change: The ACS (Attitudes as Constraint Satisfaction) model. Psychological Review, 115, 733–759. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-295X.115.3.733 Orr, M. G., Thrush, R., & Plaut, D. C. (2013). The theory of reasoned action as parallel constraint satisfaction: Towards a dynamic computational model of health behavior. PLoS ONE, 8 (5), e62490. http://dx.doi .org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062490 Read, S. J., Monroe, B. M., Brownstein, A. L., Yang, Y., Chopra, G., & Miller, L. C. (2010). A neural network model of the structure and dynamics of human personality. Psychological Review, 117, 61–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018131 Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & PDP Research Group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 1: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Schwartz, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., Meca, A., & Sauvigné, K. C. (2016). The role of neuroscience within psychology: A call for inclusiveness over exclusiveness. American Psychologist, 71, 52–70. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/a0039678 Tryon, W. W. (2014). Cognitive neuroscience and psychotherapy: Network principles for a unified theory. New York, NY: Academic Press. Tryon, W. W. (in press). Transtheoretic transdiagnostic psychotherapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration.
Received January 28, 2016 Accepted May 27, 2016 䡲
