Clinical Science APA Society for the Science of Clinical Psychology III Section III of the Division of Clinical Psychology of Division12 the American Psychological Association Ψ Developing clinical psychology as an experimental-behavioral science Newsletter Winter 2017: Volume 20, Issue 1 SSCP Executive Board Table of Contents President: Presidential Column Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. S. Lilienfeld...........................................................................................................2 Emory University Diversity Corner Past-President: Y. Yoon and A. Milller............................................................................................4 Steven D. Hollon, Ph.D. Vanderbilt University Awards & Recognition...........................................................................................6 President-Elect: Dean McKay, Ph.D. Division 12 Update.............................................................................................10 Fordham University Clinical Science Early Career Path Secretary/Treasurer: A. Weinberg........................................................................................................11 Kate McLaughlin, Ph.D. University of Washington Clinical Science Early Career Path Division 12 Representative: J. Morgan............................................................................................................13 David Smith, Ph.D. University of Notre Dame Student Perspective T. Cunningham...................................................................................................15 Student Representatives: Jessica Hamilton, M.A. Temple University An Applicant’s Guide to Post Docs J. Stange.............................................................................................................17 Kelly Knowles, B.A. Vanderbilt University Clinician Perspective J. Francis............................................................................................................19 At Large Members: Leonard Simms, Ph.D. University at Buffalo Updates from Student Representatives J. Hamilton & K. Knowles...................................................................................21 Thomas Olino, Ph.D. Temple University Clinical Science Editor: Articles published in Clinical Science represent the views of the authors and not necessarily those Autumn Kujawa, Ph.D. of the Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology, the Society of Clinical Psychology, or the Penn State College of Medicine American Psychological Association. Submissions representing differing views, comments, and letters to the editor are welcome. Clinical Science Vol. 20 (1): Winter 2017 2 Presidential Column Clinical Science and Humility Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D., Emory University I am honored to once again serve as president of the Society erroneous application of two heuristics (mental shortcuts or for a Science of Clinical Psychology (SSCP). I served as rules of thumb), namely representativeness (the tendency SSCP president from 2002 to 2003, and I am extremely flat- to judge probability by similarity to a prototype) and avail- tered, not to mention surprised (I must have underestimated ability (the tendency to judge probability by the ease with this organization’s level of masochism), that SSCP members which a scenario comes to mind). Specifically, in the case of would see fit to allow me to serve again. I will do my best to illusory correlation, we may erroneously perceive large eyes fill the huge shoes left by previous SSCP presidents, includ- in figure drawings as strongly linked to paranoia because (a) ing Mitch Prinstein, Bethany Teachman, and most recently, large eyes remind us of suspiciousness (see Meehl’s 1964 Steve Hollon. I am grateful to all of them for their wisdom, discussion of “paranoid headlights” as a sign of schizotypy) guidance, energy, and inspiration. and (b) we tend to selectively recall instances in which large eyes in human figure drawings confirm our hypotheses and In contemplating what I wanted to write about in my open- to selectively neglect or forget instances in which they do not ing presidential column, I found myself inexorably drawn to (see more on confirmation bias in the following paragraph). In the writings of the Israeli (and later American) psychologists relying on these two heuristics, we are typically allowing our Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, who have influenced System I thinking to predominate in our clinical judgments. my thinking enormously over the years. While deeply ab- As clinical scientists have repeatedly demonstrated, intuition sorbed in some lengthy drives over the most recent holiday can be enormously useful in generating hypotheses – the break, I listened to an audio version of Michael Lewis’ (2016) context of discovery - but it can often lead us astray in rigorous wonderful new book, The Undoing Project: A Friendship that hypothesis testing – the context of justification (Meehl, 1997). Changed Our Minds, which imparts the remarkable and mov- When reading Lewis (2016) and re-reading Kahneman ing story of the Kahneman-Tversky friendship and intellec- (2011), it occurred to me that we in SSCP do not sufficiently tual collaboration, as well as of their pioneering discoveries discuss a core concept that I view as essential to our mis- regarding the sources of human rationality and irrationality sion as clinical scientists: humility. Indiana University clinical (these discoveries earned Kahneman the Nobel Prize in psychologist Richard McFall (1991), a past president of SSCP Economic Sciences in 2002, an award that Tversky would (1990 to 1991) and one of its most influential members, has surely have shared with him had the former not tragically frequently emphasized the point that science, including clini- passed away from cancer in 1996). cal science, is a systematic prescription for humility. Whether we like it or not, science incessantly reminds us that we might Reading Lewis’ enormously enjoyable book further inspired be wrong. David Shakow (1965), in many ways the founder me to re-read (well, to be more precise, re-listen to) Kahne- of contemporary clinical psychology, wrote that “psychol- man’s (2011) magisterial book, Thinking: Fast and Slow, ogy is immodest.” By that, he was referring largely to our which I regard as one of the best psychology books I have all-too-frequent propensity to advance assertions that are ever read. If I had my druthers, I would make this book not adequately supported by data. Science, although by no mandatory reading for all clinical psychology students, not to means a panacea, is a systematic and finely honed set of mention clinical psychology faculty members. Kahneman’s safeguards against biases of many kinds, especially confir- profound book is a powerful reminder that we tend to think mation bias, the ubiquitous tendency to seek out, selectively in two major modes. System 1 thinking (referred to by some interpret, and selectively recall evidence that supports our authors as Type I thinking) is fast, intuitive, and automatic, hypotheses and to deny, dismiss, or distort evidence that whereas System 2 thinking (referred to by some authors as does not (Nickerson, 1998; see also Lilienfeld, Ammirati, & Type 2 thinking) is slow, analytical, and deliberative. Many David, 2012). Science reminds us that we are all fallible, and errors in clinical settings, including mistakes in clinical judg- that we need formalized ways of preventing ourselves from ment and prediction, in the selection and interpretation of being fooled, as well as from fooling others. assessment techniques, and in the evaluation of psycho- therapy outcome, probably stem from an overreliance on In at least two ways, these two superb books underscore the System I thinking that has not been adequately checked or importance of humility in science. First, the seminal discover- overridden by System 2 thinking (Lilienfeld, Ritschel, Lynn, ies of Kahneman and Tversky (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman, Cautin, & Latzman, 2014). For example, a propensity to 1974) remind us that we are all susceptible to biases in our perceive illusory correlations (Chapman & Chapman, 1967) thinking. Good clinical scientists are not immune to biases, between certain psychological test signs (e.g., large eyes because no-one is; instead, good clinical scientists are in human figure drawings) and certain psychopathological cognizant of their propensities toward bias and take special characteristics (e.g., paranoia) almost surely stems from the precautions to guard against them. Second, it is evident Clinical Science Vol. 20 (1): Winter 2017 3 from Lewis’ book that Kahneman himself is in many ways the Science, 9, 355-387. epitome of humility. Self-doubting, self-critical, and modest, McFall, R. (1991). A manifesto for the science of clinical he is the first to question whether his ideas are correct and to psychology. The Clinical Psychologist, 44, 75-88 welcome alternative views from his critics (he has also under- Meehl, P. E. (1964). Reports from the Research Laborato- taken successful adversarial collaborations with some of his ries. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. critics, an endeavor that some prominent clinical psychologists Meehl, P. E. (1997). Credentialed persons, credentialed have decried as impossible). That is not to say, of course, that knowledge. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, Kahneman does not defend his views forcefully when he is 42, 91-98. convinced that he is correct (e.g., see Kahneman & Tversky, Nickerson, R. S. (1998).