Reviews for Psychological Science

The average rating for Psychological Science based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-11-12 00:00:00 Kathleen G Pipes This is a very accessible introduction to psychology and all of its seperate fields (cognitive, social, personality and developmental psychology). Each chapter is centered on one major theme and each theme is supported and illustrated by the results of scientific research. One of the main strengths of this book is the explicit connection between biology and psychology: there's ample information about biological processes, including human development, sensation and perception, information processing and evolutionary adaptations. This really helps to put all the psychological theories and assumptions in a biological perspective (which, in my opinion, is the only reasonable way to aproach psychology). I read this for self study, and I found this a very helpful book. I think it would also serve well as a first step in further learning about the different fields in psychology.

Review # 2 was written on 2019-12-18 00:00:00 Daniel Dunajsky I read several chapters from this and kind of wish I'd be assigned it again in the future. Lots of good, accessible information in a decently readable format with only a few--from what I saw or have the expertise to catch--errant or imprecise passages, specifically on the nature of personality disorders, wherein there was a mention that those with PDs do not experience rapid mood swings or struggle with mood dysregulation (those with BPD know otherwise), and when talking about gender identity, implying that gendered differences in behavior in children who are several years off from formal operations are innate, based in biology, rather than the product of socialization. In short, girls tend to choose the meeker and milder activities while the boys tend to choose the rough-and-tumble variety because that's what's socially encouraged, *not* because girls are naturally milder and boys wilder. It lacked a discussion on this, and since there were other areas of the book in which sociological contextualizations took place by which to frame psychological manifestations, I don't think the excuse that it's soc versus psych would hold much water.