Monday, October 29, 2007

Week 10: Feeling blue?

I just read the Coyne chapter "Thinking Interactionally about Depression: A Radical Reinstatement". Wow. That guy has a lot of nerve. I have a lot to say, but I'll narrow it down to a few of the things that bothered me the most about the chapter (and Coyne as a human).

1) At the very beginning of the article, Coyne complains about the fact that the literature still cites a paper he wrote in 1976 in which he conceptualizes an interpersonal theory of depression. Coyne states that "it has been disappointing that it is taking so long for subsequent work to move beyond my [1976] conceptualization" (p. 365). I agree that it is important for other researchers to continue producing new theories and backing them up with new empirical evidence, but I think it is a ridiculous thing to complain about. If Coyne is unhappy about this, HE should be fixing it by doing more and more research until his first ideas become obsolete because he has proved newer, better ones to be better supported by new data. I know that he HAS continued to do research, but he obviously hasn't done enough to override his original publication. So, Coyne (if you are still alive), stop complaining and get back to work.

2) I can't believe I just wrote "if you are still alive". I am extremely insensitive.

3) On page 367, Coyne mentions how "it is a lot" to ask participants to report on subtle mood shifts in a short period of time. It has been shown (by Tim Wilson, from our department!) that people generally suck at introspection. Therefore, I agree with Coyne that it is a bad idea to use self-report as the only measure in depression research. I feel that it is extremely important for researchers to find other ways to measure facets of depression, since self-report cannot always be trusted to be accurate. This leads me to my next point....

4) Coyne says one of the biggest problems with depression research is that many researchers use participants' statements about themselves as "evidence of enduring cognitive structures" (p. 368). As I mentioned in the last point, I agree with Coyne that self-report is not a great method to use. However, Coyne does not acknowledge the fact that there is a plethora of other methods available to look at cognitive structures. With current technology, we have the ability to look at memory biases, interpretation biases, attention biases, implicit associations, and much more. All of these things are validated ways to examine cognitive structures and processes. However, many of these measures are used more often by cognitive and social psychologists than clinical psychologists. I strongly believe that it is necessary for psychologists to be more integrative in their research approaches; they need to be more willing to look in other areas to find better methods. I know we talked about this a few weeks ago, but integration is what is necessary to truly advance the science of psychology.

5) Coyne seems like a jerk. I just thought I'd put that out there.

Ok, time for bed!! See you all on Wednesday!

1 comment:

jcoan said...

HA! I still think of the title of the Sechrest piece from a while ago, "Psychotherapy is the Practice of Psychology." If only. If only.