Search

This debate issue centers on the question of whether psychology should follow the methods and principles of the natural sciences. Answers to this question are often implicitly assumed but rarely explicitly debated among psychologists. This issue contains eight invited contributions by scholars whom we anticipated would have strong and divergent positions on the question. The articles present a broad range of perspectives, ranging from phenomenological psychology to cognitive neuroscience. They broadly line up with a "yes" or "no" answer to the question, four authors favoring a "yes" and four authors a "no" response, although nearly all authors advance more nuanced positions that challenge a simple classification. In this introduction, we first discuss the historical roots of the question and our motivation behind this specific formulation of it. Then we briefly summarize the contributions and place them in a broader context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Daily, millions of North American women turn to popular media, like women's health magazines, for health-related advice and information. "Magazines continue to be a popular medium" and, given their power and reach, remain an important site for critical analysis. In this article, we examine the ways in which three popular women's health magazines provide "health" advice to their readers. We first provide an overview of research in feminist media studies exploring postfeminist sensibility, healthism, and now a postfeminist healthism. We then conduct a critical discourse analysis of articles from all 30 issues of Health, Women's Health, and Shape magazines published in 2018. Our investigation of how the magazines portray what it means to have "good health," suggests that health continues to be conflated with appearance. Moreover, health is presented as confusing, such that maintaining health requires expert help, and as purchasable, and thus linked to economic practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Children and adolescents with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) face significant and unique challenges related to their condition. The aim of this study was to better understand some of these challenges, and to explore how Canadian youth respond to them. We interviewed 25 pediatric patients with IBD, ranging in age from 10–17, to find out about their illness experiences. Using a thematic analysis, we discerned three themes: challenges related to diagnosis, making sense of change, and navigating sociability. Taken together, they paint a picture of young people facing great uncertainty prior to diagnosis, pronounced changes to selfhood as they make lifestyle adjustments, and facing difficulties with the implications of reduced sociability because of their disease. We conclude by providing recommendations for the development of resources aimed at helping newly diagnosed pediatric patients navigate these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We carried out the first public deliberation to elicit lay input regarding guidelines for the design and evaluation of decision aids, focusing on the example of colorectal ("colon") cancer screening. Methods: A random, demographically stratified sample of 28 laypeople convened for 4 days, during which they were informed about key issues regarding colon cancer, screening tests, risk communication, and decision aids. Participants then deliberated in small and large group sessions about the following: 1) What information should be included in all decision aids for colon screening? 2) What risk information should be in a decision aid and how should risk information be presented? 3) What makes a screening decision a good one (reasonable or legitimate)? 4) What makes a decision aid and the advice it provides trustworthy? With the help of a trained facilitator, the deliberants formulated recommendations, and a vote was held on each to identify support and alternative views. Results: Twenty-one recommendations ("deliberative conclusions") were strongly supported. Some conclusions matched current recommendations, such as that decision aids should be available for use with and without providers present (conclusions 1–4) and should support informed choice (conclusion 9). Some conclusions differed from current recommendations, at least in emphasis—for example, that decision aids should disclose cost of screening (conclusion 11) and should be kept simple and understandable (conclusion 14). Deliberants recommended that decision aids should disclose the baseline risk of getting colon cancer (conclusions 15, 17). Limitations: Single location and medical decision. Conclusions: Guidelines for design of decision aids should consider putting a greater focus on disclosing cost and keeping decision aids simple, and they possibly should recommend disclosing less extensive amounts of quantitative information than currently recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaginal cleansing products such as douches, sprays, wipes, powders, washes, and deodorants are part of a growing $2 billion industry in North America. Part of the appeal of these products is supposedly attaining vaginal cleanliness, which is marketed in association with product use. Although these products are promoted as healthy, medical research indicates potential health risks for some of these products (e.g. yeast infections, bacterial vaginosis, and disruption of the vaginal microbiota). Despite these risks, many women use these products. In this paper, we draw on interviews with women who use vaginal cleansing products to examine the ways in which particular portrayals of the vagina are connected with broader societal messages about female genitalia and with motivations to use vaginal cleansing practices. These portrayals include the healthy vagina, the clean vagina, and the dirty vagina. We show that although participants in our study valued both a clean vagina and a healthy vagina, when tension occurred between these two portrayals, participants prioritized vaginal cleanliness over vaginal health. We argue that this prioritization of the idealized clean vagina is connected to societal pressures of needing to attain unrealistic standards of vaginal cleanliness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 30th year of publication of Theory & Psychology has coincided with local and global disruption and upheaval. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected everyone, and in so doing has reemphasized (and in some instances reinforced and exacerbated) systemic inequities. The year has also been characterized by a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement and antiracism protests, as well as counter protests from the far right. There has been a dramatic upsurge in public disagreement about knowledge claims in what some have been calling a post-truth world. Given this, it is worth reexamining the role of theoretical psychology in the discipline and beyond. The occasion of the 30-year anniversary of Theory & Psychology is used to reaffirm the vibrancy and relevance of theoretical work in psychology. The question is raised to what degree we have an obligation to make our theoretical work intelligible beyond the specific scholarly communities engaged in work similar to our own. Ten articles featured in this anniversary issue are introduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The practice of communicating research findings to participants has been identified as important in the research ethics literature, but little research has examined empirically how this occurs and what research participants' views are in this regard. We interviewed 21 adults with cystic fibrosis who had previously participated in research and 2 research coordinators at a cystic fibrosis clinic. We aimed to better understand research participants' views on receiving research results, types of findings they are interested in, how they would like to receive this information, and the impact this might have on future participation. Participants reported that they do not generally recall receiving study findings, though many reported that they would like to receive them. While some participants were not interested in receiving results, all participants felt that these results should be provided when desired by participants and believed that receiving study findings would support future participation. Participants felt that an accessible format, such as a lay summary, would be most helpful. This study supports calls to make study findings available to participants, though the format in which they are provided requires consideration. Participants rarely recalled receiving findings despite the clinic in which this study was conducted returning them regularly. Therefore, questions pertaining to the provision of study findings must focus less on whether to share the findings and more on how to share them with participants most effectively. The logistics of providing study findings may be challenging in some cases, but participant support for the practice highlights its importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women’s genitalia are constructed as a bodily site requiring ongoing surveillance, maintenance and modification to conform to social norms. Women engage in a range of genital health, hygiene and beauty practices, including the use of commercial and homemade vaginal douches, washes, wipes, sprays and pubic hair removal, to modify their bodies. Using a social constructionist framework, we draw on interviews with 49 Canadian women to examine the construction of idealized (Western) genitalia as hairless, odourless and free of discharge, and “natural” female genitalia as problematic through the mobilization of normative femininity and (hetero)sexuality discourses. Theorizing women’s genital health, hygiene and beauty practices as a form of body work, we examine how women’s genital body work is constructed as a necessary and thus normative practice of femininity undertaken in the pursuit of idealized genitalia. A minority perspective that drew on alternative discourses to construct female genitalia as acceptable irrespective of genital body work is examined. Throughout our analysis, we examine the ways in which women negotiate issues of agency and choice in relation to their genital body work. Implications for women’s health in the context of the vaginal microbiome are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generally, public opinion is measured via polls or survey instruments, with a majority of responses in a particular direction taken to indicate the presence of a given ‘public opinion’. However, discursive psychological and related scholarship has shown that the ontological status of both individual opinion and public opinion is highly suspect. In the first part of this article I draw on this body of work to demonstrate that there is currently no meaningful theoretical foundation for the construct of public opinion as it is typically measured in surveys, polls, or focus groups. I then argue that there is a particular sense in which the construct of public opinion does make sense. In deliberative democratic forums participants engage in dialogue with the aim of coming to collective positions on particular issues. Here I draw on examples of deliberative democratic forums conducted on the social and ethical implications of science and technology. Conversation between participants in deliberative democratic forums is ideally characterized by individuals becoming informed about the issues being discussed, respectful interactions between participants, individuals being open to changing their positions, and a convergence towards collective positions in the interest of formulating civic solutions. The end-product of deliberation on a given issue might thus be termed a deliberative public opinion. ‘Deliberative public opinion’ is neither a cognitive nor an aggregate construct, but rather a socio-historical product. Criteria for its legitimacy rely on the inclusiveness of diversity of perspectives and the degree to which collective positions are defensible to a larger society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in human microbiome research have generated considerable interest in elucidating the role of bacteria in health and the application of microbial ecosystem therapies and probiotics. Fecal transplants involve the introduction of gut microbes from a healthy donor’s stool to the patient and have been documented as effective for treating Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs) and some other gastrointestinal disorders. However, the treatment has encountered regulatory hurdles preventing widespread uptake. We examined dominant representations of fecal transplants in Canadian media and found that fecal transplants are often represented as being inherently disgusting or distasteful (the “ick factor”). This “ick factor” is used to construct different messages about the treatment’s social acceptability and legitimacy. We conclude that an over-emphasis on the “ick factor” constrains public discourse from a more nuanced discussion of the social challenges, scientific concerns, and regulatory issues surrounding the treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public participation is increasingly an aspect of policy development in many areas, and the governance of biomedical research is no exception. There are good reasons for this: biomedical research relies on public funding; it relies on biological samples and information from large numbers of patients and healthy individuals; and the outcomes of biomedical research are dramatically and irrevocably changing our society. There is thus arguably a democratic imperative for including public values in strategic decisions about the governance of biomedical research. However, it is not immediately clear how this might best be achieved. While different approaches have been proposed and trialled, we focus here on the use of public deliberation as a mechanism to develop input for policy on biomedical research. We begin by explaining the rationale for conducting public deliberation in biomedical research. We focus, in particular, on the ELS (ethical, legal, social) aspects of human tissue biobanking. The last few years have seen the development of methods for conducting public deliberation on these issues in several jurisdictions, for the purpose of incorporating lay public voices in biobanking policy. We explain the theoretical foundation underlying the notion of deliberation, and outline the main lessons and capacities that have been developed in the area of conducting public deliberation on biobanks. We next provide an analysis of the theoretical and practical challenges that we feel still need to be addressed for the use of public deliberation to guide ethical norms and governance of biomedical research. We examine the issues of: (i) linking the outcomes of deliberation to tangible action; (ii) the mandate under which a deliberation is conducted; (iii) the relative weight that should be accorded to a public deliberative forum vs other relevant voices; (iv) evaluating the quality of deliberation; and (5) the problem of scalability of minipublics. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this issue, Theory & Psychology is trialing a new format for engaging readers and contributors to the journal. In particular, we designated a target article for which we solicited open peer commentaries. Open peer commentaries should reflect engagement from diverse perspectives with the key themes and arguments of the target paper. Future calls for open peer commentaries will focus on different topics. Authors interested in writing commentaries should ensure that they are familiar with the research literature on the topic before submitting proposals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]