Papers on the Unified Theory of PsychologyThe Unified Theory of Psychology refers to four interlocking ideas (the Tree of Knowledge System, the Justification Hypothesis, Behavioral Investment Theory, and the Influence Matrix) that together provide a framework that defines the field of psychology and assimilates and integrates the field's key insights into a coherent whole. The theory was delineated in a book, A New Unified Theory of Psychology. Here are the majorprofessional publications on the approach.
The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology
This is the first professional publication that outlines the unified theory. It introduces the Tree of Knowledge System map of the universeto provide a unique vantage point to examine how psychological science exists in relationship to the other sciences. The paper demonstrates the constructive, integrative power of this view by showing how it can assimilate and integrate the central insights of B. F. Skinner and Sigmund Freud, and create a clear vertical alignment of the physical, biological, psychological, and social sciences. Specifically, the paper introduces Behavioral Investment Theory to merge Skinner’s fundamental insight with cognitive neuroscience to frame how mind emerges out of life. Then the paper introduces the Justification Hypothesis which offers a new way to frame Freud’s fundamental insight to in a way that is consistent with the evolutionary changes in mind that gave rise to human culture. By linking life to mind from the bottom and mind to culture from the top, psychology is effectively boxed in between biology and the social sciences.
Introduction to the Special Issues on the Unified Theory
A unified theory of psychology has recently been proposed (Henriques,2003), and the next two issues of the Journal of Clinical Psychology are devoted to its elaboration and evaluation. The current issue consists of a target article, “Psychology Defined,” which adds to the existing formulation and specifies how the theory can be used to effectively define the science of psychology. Distinguished experts in psychology contribute 13 commentaries offering a wide variety of perspectives on the proposed model. These are followed by two full-length articles in which one author articulates the need for the unified theory and the other offers a different but compatible approach at integrating psychotherapy and personality. In the next special issue, authors either elaborate on or critique elements of the unified theory. How the new theory lays the foundation for the development of a useful mass movement that could transform the discipline of psychology in a manner that unleashes its constructive potential is the subject of the concluding article. When viewed as a whole, the two issues show that the unified theory provides fertile ground for scientific and philosophical inquiry on multiple levels of analysis, and that it may play a central role in helping the discipline of psychology fulfill its constructive potential.
Psychology Defined
This paper is the target article for a series of commentaries and articles on the unified theory that cover two special issues of the Journal of Clinical Psychology. It uses the Tree of Knowledge System diagnose psychology’s "epistemological woes" and provide a solution to the difficulties. The paper demonstrates that psychology has traditionally spanned two separate but intimately related problems: (a) the problem of animal behavior and (b) the problem of human behavior. Accordingly, the solution offered divides the field into two broad, logically consistent domains. The first domain is psychological formalism, which is defined as the science of mind, corresponds to animal behavior, and consists of the basic psychological sciences. The second domain is human psychology, which is defined as the science of human behavior at the individual level and is proposed as a hybrid that exists between psychological formalism and the social sciences.
A New Vision for the Field: Introduction to the Second Special Issue on the Unified Theory
This is the second of two issues of the Journal of Clinical Psychology focused on the validity and usefulness of a new theoretical vision for the field (Henriques, 2003). The first two contributions from Rand and Ilardi and Geary both enrich the argument that psychology needs to be effectively connected with biology and physics and that the unified theory (via Behavioral Investment Theory) is highly successful in this way. The authors of the subsequent three articles—Shaffer, Quackenbush, and Shealy— show that the Tree of Knowledge System (through the Justification Hypothesis) is deeply commensurate with the dominant paradigms in the social sciences. Thus, the group of authors of these five articles demonstrates the viability of the unified theory both from bottom-up and top-down viewpoints. In the sixth article, the author addresses some important problems that potentially arise with the development of a clearly defined discipline. In the concluding article I address the concerns about the proposal raised by the contributors to the two special issues and articulate how the unified theory lays the foundation for the development of a useful mass movement in psychology.
Toward a Useful Mass Movement
This is the concluding article in the JCP special issues on the unified theory. It claims that psychology has failed to reach its full potential as either a science or a profession. The inability of psychologists to generate a shared, general understanding of their subject matter and fundamental differences between scientific and nonscientific views of human behavior in society at large interact to render psychology’s contributions to the world’s most pressing problems much less potent than might otherwise be the case. The Tree of Knowledge (ToK) System affords new opportunities both to define the discipline of psychology and to examine the epistemological interrelations between the institution of science and other societal institutions, such as law, governance, health care, the arts, and religion. In this article I articulate how the foundation can be laid for the development of a useful mass movement that could transform the discipline of psychology in a manner that unleashes its constructive potential, while at the same time it attempts to address many of the concerns about the proposal raised by thecontributors to these two special issues.
The Problem of Psychology and the Integrationof Human Knowledge: Contrasting Wilson’sConsilience with the Tree of Knowledge System
This article is a lead article in a special section in the journal Theory and Psychology that is devoted to analyzing the unified theory. The central thesis of this paper is that the problem of psychology lies at the very heart of the difficulties associated with integrating human knowledge. The startling consequence of this insight is that it means the solution to psychology’s epistemological woes opens up a new pathway for achieving unified knowledge. A brief overview of the fragmentation of knowledge will be offered and special attention will be paid to Wilson’s (1998) proposal. The problem of psychology, Wilson’s failure to address it, and the reasons why it is integral to any proposal for unifying knowledge will then be specified. The article concludes with an articulation of how the Tree of Knowledge (ToK) System solves the problem of psychology, resolves many of the fundamental issues associated with integrating human knowledge, and is commensurate with the foremost concerns of natural scientists, social scientists and humanists, allowing for objectivity, coherence, and pluralism.
Evolving from Methodological to Conceptual Unification
This article offers a brief overview of the Unified Theory. It argues that the absence of a philosophical system that can effectively address the profound problems that exist at the heart of psychology has resulted in the discipline becoming increasingly defined and unified simply by its commitment to the scientific method. This article articulates why unification via method is a weak intellectual solution and explains how the Unified Theory (Henriques, 2011) provides the neededframework so that the field can evolve from its current unity via method to a more mature conceptual unity that clearly defines psychology, grounds it in a scientific worldview, and assimilates and integrates its key insights into a coherent whole.
The Development of the Unified Theoryand the Future of Psychotherapy
Questions about the nature of psychotherapy and conflicts between competing paradigms awakened in me a deep intellectual curiosity that ultimately culminated in the development of the “unified theory” (see Henriques, 2003; 2004). I was fortunate in that early in my graduate education I gained a rich exposure to the psychotherapy integration movement. This led me to many important realizations, including: a) many of the “single” schools were defined against one another both conceptually and politically; b) no single school had the depth and breadth in both the humanistic and scientific domains to offer a comprehensive solution; and c) much overlap between the schools becomes apparent as one becomes proficient in their language and concepts. However, despite these problems, there were significant difficulties in achieving a coherent integrative view. First, the competing schools clearly had different (although often implicit) moral emphases. Messer and Winokur’s (1980) critique of Wachtel’s (1977) work offered perhaps the most eloquent articulation of this point. Second, if one considers, as I do, psychotherapy to be the application of psychological principles in the service of promoting human well-being, then it follows that the disorganization of psychological science seriously hampers, if not completely prevents, the development of a coherent, general approach to psychotherapy (see Henriques & Sternberg, 2004).
Achievinga UnifiedClinical Science Requires a Meta-Theoretical Solution: Comment on Melchert (2016)
Timothy Melchert’s vision for a unified clinical science that transcends the specific theoreticalorientations and is grounded in the science of human psychology is a laudable goal.
However, his solution to achieve this goal via reliance on evolutionary theory, neuroscience,and empirically verifiable research findings is not sufficient. The way forward is to recognizethat the field of psychology is fragmented and lacks a clear meta-theoretical perspective. Conceptual work is needed to develop such a perspective, which can then allow for clearlydefining the field and effectively integrating and assimilating the key concepts from thevarious theoretical orientations into a coherent whole.