Transformational Psychology View - John H. Cole and Todd W. Hall

This view could be summed up in this statement, "Central to our transformational psychology is that these core realities and tenets of the faith not only inform psychology of its origin and goals, which observation and reflection alone cannot grasp; they also shape the entire process, product and person doing psychology" (Johnson, p. 205). This view addresses how the character of the person doing psychology affects the outcome. This view also emphasizes the need to do psychology from a Christian perspective. The heart of the view is the authority of scripture and the role it plays in understanding human beings.

Works Cited

Johnson, E. L. (2010). Psychology and Christianity Five Views. Downers Grove, IL, USA: InterVarsity Press.

THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Christian Psychology View - Robert C. Roberts and P. J. Watson

The integration view operates within professional counseling type settings, but this view is more involved on the local church level, counseling centers, and school level. The Christian Psychology view is focused on the development of distinctly Christian psychological theories. This is accomplished by placing a high view on scriptures, "Much of the foundational work in Christian psychology will therefore require a careful reading of scripture" (Johnson, p.155). This view, from a cursory glance, will appear not much different from postmodern psychology. The difference will be seen in the worldview from which it is approached. Once again, like the previous views this view places much weight in scientific research. This view will differ with regard to how society influences behavior. It focuses more on healing the soul and counseling in general. The central beliefs are that God is at the core of life, and people are part of an unfolding revelation of God's glory through creation. This view believes that we are created in the image of God. It also tells us that via the Fall recorded in Genesis, we are sinners separated from God. It concludes that we can only be redeemed through the redemptive work of Christ. this view has a distinctive eschatological view. This view also contains a multi-level model of human nature. We are soul and body. Within the soul resides the spiritual, ethical, and psychosocial part of our nature while the body is the biological part of our nature.

Integration Model - Stanton Jones

The main idea of this model is the total integration of theology and psychology, or what can be referred to as interdisciplinary integration. The goal is to form a proper interpretation of psychology through a Christian worldview. The secondary goal is to live out the Christian life personally and in the workplace. "We believe that Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord of all of life" (Johnson, p. 102). The integration view posits that God is glorified through the use of His truth. One problem with buying into a total integration view is that it tends to legitimize all viewpoints of psychology as equally true. Like other models, this model places a high importance on scientific research. It, unlike some views, looks to faith to interpret psychological ideas. This is a very engaging view. It appears to seek out engagement with the society.

Levels-of-Explanation Model - David Meyers and Malcolm Jeeves

In this view humans are understood well in terms of levels of complexity that should not be intertwined. Life should be viewed through the different lenses of physics, philosophy, sociology, psychology, biology chemistry, and theology. These levels can be complimentary, and each area has its own content that can be woven together into a coherent analysis. That means faith should not affect the other areas, but it is like an add-on to the other areas, or what I like to call "compartmentalization." This type of model has some strengths. Science and research are very important components. It allows people to contribute to their respective area not withstanding differing worldviews. Since the Bible is compartmentalized, having the wrong interpretation is less likely. However, it does have some issues. It is supposed to help prevent worldviews from exerting influence, but it does not rule out the purely secular view. This makes it tough for Christians to draw upon Christian values in real-world settings. Meyers comments point to a syncretism on certain topics such as homosexuality, " New data have, however, dragged me, along with other Christian thinkers...to revise my understanding of sexual orientation" (Johnson, p. 72).

:-)

New findings on object permanence: A developmental difference between two types of occlusion

I chose this journal article due to the fact it dealt with occlusion in more than one way. Piaget based his argument for the development timeline of object permanence based on only one type of occlusion. The experimental process when set up properly by having the needed controls in place, performance variables accounted for, and multiple types of testing is always preferable to an uncontrolled single test on a single subject.

Moore and Meltzoff (University of Washington), in 1999, published their research pertaining to object permanence. In this research they utilized multiple subjects grouped within their respective age groups, and divided by race (although not as diverse as I feel necessary) 69 White, 1 Black, 1 Hispanic, and 1 Asian.

They begin by calling object permanence (called OP for the remainder of this writing) an enigma. They are saying after 40 years of study, OP is still a mystery that has not been resolved. That comes across as humorous because until infants can speak from the moment they pass through the birth canal, we will never be 100% sure of what is going through their minds.

The Piaget experience leaves a few things to be desired. The performance variable that leaves me scratching my head is Piaget's lack of accounting for motor skill development. I find it odd that it is not a bigger issue for him. permanence could have been there all along, but as contended in the article, "it might not be present due to other performance variables" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999). The two researchers follow this discussion with recent studies concerning look-time. More recently these studies have that looking may not be a good measure after all. They suggest, "that the incidents of aversion due to permanence violations" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999), we recorded with enough regularity to skew the look-time results. The two then move on to question "search success," and if there is any real correlation between permanence and finding objects by searching for them. The studies they referenced seemed to focus on failures to find objects, and then attribute the failure to developmental changes. Moore and Meltzoff sought to control this area by differentiation based on ages and stages of development. They focused on successful searches where the item was completely uncovered and not just pointed to or remembered through the last point of perceptual change. If the object was not uncovered, permanence was not indicated. It was determined that with these infants OP is, "an attainment that grows from a developmentally prior understanding of object identity" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999). Followed by the declaration that, "permanence is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, but a work in progress" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999).

Their experiments were counterbalanced for sex, task order, and side of hiding (unlike Piaget). An interesting finding was recorded having to do with, "a coordination between manual uncovering and visual expectations of re-appearance" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999). They also concluded that not all occlusions are treated the same, and that hiding objects behind a screen and then behind a hand produced different results. This finding helps to eliminate things like motor skills and toy preference. They ultimately come to the conclusion that object identity is, "a developmental precursor to object permanence, and underlies the obtained task dissociation. This is a departure from Piaget's idea of innate object permanence.

In summary, object identity is a precursor to OP. What is acquired through experience is structured by the, "identity-preserving transformation themselves" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999). OP development is an ordered series of steps. It is suggested that permanence is, "initially dependent on the nature of occlusion...with development it becomes a property of objects" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999).

My last word on the whole issue at this moment will be; Infants and adults are not necessarily similar in relation to cognitive abilities, but they both seem to possess a life-long quest to reach an understanding of their world and the objects around them.

Is object permanence a life-long work-in-progress? (think about it)

Works Cited:

Moore, M. K., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1999). New findings on object permanence: A developmental difference between two types of occlusion. British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 563-584.