Search

This article presents a contextualization and revaluation of competing narratives concerning the history of psychology in Nazi Germany. Since the 1980s, this debate revolves around the supposed "professionalization" of the discipline from Hitler's rise to power until the end of World War II. The question whether or not academic psychology has profited from collaborating with the Nazi regime during the war is not just of historical interest, but also carries strong political and moral implications. Recently, the established narrative concerning the professionalization of German psychology under National Socialism was called into question by Wolfgang Schönpflug. According to his argumentation, psychology did not benefit from the war, but had to suffer considerable losses on terms of personnel and quality in teaching and research. After reconstructing the historical context and the political implications of the debate, we propose to take a different perspective on the question of "professionalization." Three case examples of psychologists from Austria whose career advanced significantly during the war are provided to shed light on the multitude of opportunities that emerged for those who offered their psychological expertise during the war. In conclusion, it is argued that professionalization should be understood as a theoretical framework that stimulates further historical research on a local level, not as a dogmatic judgment about the state of the discipline as a whole. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychology has been a highly quantitative field since its conception as a science. However, a qualitative approach to psychological research has gained increasing importance in the last decades, and an enduring debate between quantitative and qualitative approaches has arisen. The recently developed Mixed Methods Research (MMR) addresses this debate by aiming to integrate quantitative and qualitative approaches. This article outlines and discusses quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research approaches with specific reference to their (1) philosophical foundations (i.e. basic sets of beliefs that ground inquiry), (2) methodological assumptions (i.e. principles and formal conditions which guide scientific investigation), and (3) research methods (i.e. concrete procedures for data collection, analysis and interpretation). We conclude that MMR may reasonably overcome the limitation of purely quantitative and purely qualitative approaches at each of these levels, providing a fruitful context for a more comprehensive psychological research.

Chronic pain is a subjective experience and has not only physical, but also psychological and social dimensions. In the present study, we sought to determine whether an effective pain reduction would improve mood, behavioral, and cognitive outcome measures in chronic pain patients. Four-hundred-seventy-seven patients entering pain therapy at our university pain center were prospectively studied during the first year of treatment. Patients received pharmacotherapy, acupuncture, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, physiotherapy, and invasive pain treatment. Intensity and quality of pain were assessed with the Visual Analog Scale and Multidimensional Pain Scale. Psychological and social aspects were evaluated using the Pain Behavior Questionnaire and the Profile of Mood States questionnaire. Significant reductions in pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale, 7.35 at pretreatment and 1.03 after 12 mo; P = 0.01; Multidimensional Pain Scale, F = 6.185; P < 0.001) were accompanied by improvements in behavioral and cognitive dimensions (Pain Behavior Questionnaire, F = 9.483; P = 0.002). However, mood and psychological well-being did not improve (Profile of Mood States, F = 0.416; P = 0.551). The authors conclude that reducing pain intensity improves behavioral and cognitive dimensions but not psychological well-being and cognitive assessment.