ReviewPerspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science2010
Mistreating Psychology in the Decades of the Brain.
Review in Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
62 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do changes in trauma-related beliefs predict PTSD symptom improvement in prolonged exposure and sertraline?Journal of consulting and clinical psychology · 2017Trial
- Changing facial affect recognition in schizophrenia: effects of training on brain dynamics.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2014Trial
- Misinterpreting Electrophysiology in Human Cognitive Neuroscience.Psychophysiology · 2026Review
- Stress-related neuroplasticity and developmental vulnerability in functional neurological disorder: from adverse experience to maladaptive overlearning.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2026Review
- Bridging the translational gap in systems neuroscience: from circuit mechanisms to clinical therapeutics.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Psychiatry and the unknown future: the period of hope.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Individual-Specific Animated Profiles of Mental Health.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2025Article
- The psychometric upgrade psychophysiology needs.Psychophysiology · 2024Review
- The future of reward and relief drinking profiles: Considerations for social motives, stability of profiles, and tailored interventions.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2024Article
- Ethical considerations for integrating multimodal computer perception and neurotechnology.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Difficult lives explain depression better than broken brains.Molecular psychiatry · 2024Article
- Brentano's psychology and Kazimierz Twardowski School: implications for the empirical study of psychological phenomena today.Psychological research · 2023Article
- Theories of psychopathology: Potential to promote clinical science, empowerment, and justice.Journal of psychopathology and clinical science · 2023Article
- Ten simple rules to study distractor suppression.Progress in neurobiology · 2022Review
- Back to Basics: The Importance of Measurement Properties in Biological Psychiatry.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2021Review
- The levels problem in psychopathology.Psychological medicine · 2021Review
- Comment on: Eronen MI (2019). The levels problem in psychopathology.Psychological medicine · 2021Article
- The Tension Between Cognitive and Regulatory Flexibility and Their Associations With Current and Lifetime PTSD Symptoms.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Uncertainty Promotes Neuroreductionism: A Behavioral Online Study on Folk Psychological Causal Inference from Neuroimaging Data.Psychopathology · 2021Article
- A process-based approach to psychological diagnosis and treatment:The conceptual and treatment utility of an extended evolutionary meta model.Clinical psychology review · 2020Review
2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
We systematically mistreat psychological phenomena, both logically and clinically. This article explores three contentions: that the dominant discourse in modern cognitive, affective, and clinical neuroscience assumes that we know how psychology/biology causation works when we do not; that there are serious intellectual, clinical, and policy costs to pretending we do know; and that crucial scientific and clinical progress will be stymied as long as we frame psychology, biology, and their relationship in currently dominant ways. The arguments are developed with emphasis on misguided attempts to localize psychological function via neuroimaging, misunderstandings about the role of genetics in psychopathology, and untoward constraints on health-care policy and clinical service delivery. A particular challenge, articulated but not resolved in this article, is determining what constitutes adequate explanation in the relationship between psychology and biology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.