The Psychology of Meaning
Charles Stephen Knause
Keiser University Graduate School
Ft. Lauderdale, FL USA
December 13, 2015
The goal of this article is a review of the literature that in someway either comments on or impinges in some other way on the slow but steady evolution of a psychology of meaning within a milieu that has to a large extent been pretty much dominated by behaviorism in all its various permutations beginning with the structuralism of E. B. Titchener and culminating in our own time with the great advances made by Social Learning Theory. The period covered is from the late 19th century and the origins of psychology as a science distinct from philosophy to the present era.
Keywords: psychology of meaning, structuralism, behaviorism
The Psychology of Meaning
The goal and purpose of this paper is to review ten pier reviewed articles that have been published in some of the many APA sponsored scholarly journals. Some of these articles have been published fairly recently as opposed to a few others that date back to the first few decades of the 20th century when this idea/concept of a psychology of meaning first began to have currency, at least within the hallowed halls of academia as well as amongst the select group of professionals outside of academia engaged in clinical practice or research not necessarily connected with any particular educational institution. Readers can also find in the references section additional source material used to underscore and/or support the conclusions or explanations used by this author in regard to the interpretation, relevance, and explanations used to buttress this authors conclusions in regard to this review of some of the literature available from pier reviewed scholarly sources on the topic of meaning and in particular the emergence of a psychology of meaning.
Such a psychology exists and has indeed existed for some time outside of the officially sanctioned types of numbers driven behaviorist schools (of APA sanctioned and supported psychology) that practitioners and researchers in this alternate field of psychology not sanctioned by the APA, would claim is not psychology at all but just various means of social control that more or less compel the kinds of behaviors that are socially acceptable because according to Fromm (1955) such a select group of behaviors conform to the iron will of what Fromm (1955) labels anonymous authority. There is nothing at all liberating in these behaviors that are rather enforced through a system of rigidly controlled rewards and punishment that form the basis for all the various forms of behaviorism that seek not the liberation of the individual but rather the suppression of whatever may be individual and unique in each and every person in order to create the kind of mass conformity that exists in all totalitarian states such as those that we in the Western world all live under today.
The most practical way to proceed with the literature review that is the subject matter of this paper is to present each of articles to be critiqued in the time order in which they were originally published (with a couple of exceptions). All of these articles are various expert’s commentary that in some manner deal with the issue of meaning in psychology. Not all of these expert commentary articles reflect the same kind of thinking in regard to this term meaning. They are not all from the same era or period and as already suggested do not mean the same thing when they use term meaning. With this being stated up front and clearly in this introduction, there is therefore no further need to state if the article is an empirical study that employs the standard format of so called “scientific” rituals along with the usual ritualized mathematicalization of something for which logical formalism of math may be quite useful but without the standard use of differential equations for purely decorative purposes. It might also be worth informing the reader up front in this introduction that the publication date for any particular article may be in some cases decades later from when the author penned it.
Higginson (1937) is an interesting and well informed critique of Edward B. Titchener and his structuralist approach that was the dominant paradigm within the newly established academic science of psychology that had only too recently been a subheading under philosophy. True to his hyper-reductionist mode of thinking that assumed that for purposes of what could be what we call today “public relations” psychology in order to be a first rate respectable science had to employ and ape the means and methods of the physical sciences and the physical science par excellence was, of course, psychics. The debauched rational that Titchener’s self-talk produced was structuralism would find the so called atoms of consciousness that would conveniently correspond with the real atoms of the world astounding nuclear physicists whose finest fruit was the atom bomb and the threat that such a monstrosity of evil represented for the continuance of the human race. What an abominable object of idolatrous worship these early structuralists had chosen for themselves. While some readers may find such comments as these irrelevant to the facts, I would beg to differ with them and merely say that understanding the faulty logic of Titchener and his structuralist doctrines says everything that is needed to more fully understand the reason expressed in the following-
“Consonant with his emphasis upon the importance of the analytical approachto a scientific psychology and upon the necessity of describing universal and fixed structures of the mind, Titchener could find no legitimate place for meaning within the field ofpsychology. He accordingly states that “science aims at truth; it deals with facts, with thenature of things given, not meanings.” As a result he was forced to hold that the “truth”and the “facts” of psychology must concern solely the irreducible and static processesof the human mind, namely, sensations, images, and feelings.”
Further along at the end of the same paragraph Higginson states what the faulty logic of Titchener and the structuralists naturally leads to in regard to any discussion about meaning- …After dealing in elaborate descriptive detail with such structural elements for aboutninety pages, he finally concludes that “sensations and simple images are all meaningless.”
Higginson (1937) is a brilliant riposte that deals a death blow through exposure to the mindless and ultimately meaningless pseudo-logical explanations resorted to by Titchener and his structuralist cabal. The article represents the healthy pushback by those who see meaning as something that is central to living and the very essence of what any equally healthy psychology should reflect.
The structuralism of Edward B. Titchener eventually gave way within the academic field of psychology to the functionalism of William James although James has always been associated with the philosophy of pragmatism. In spite of the fact that James’ principle role was as an academic psychologist, his various contributions to the school of philosophy known as pragmatism can not be minimized. James was a bold and inventive theorizer whose theorizing was often far off the mark, and his highly effusive literary manner of writing probably had something to do with his brother Henry being on of the greatest American novelists of all times. The fact of the matter is that the long drawn out tedious arguments that James uses in his lecture on free will vs. determinism that constitutes the article under review “The dilemma of determinism” lacks the great precision and genius of thought that characterizes The Varieties of Religious Experience. Nevertheless the debate on the question of free-will vs. determinism that forms the basis of the James lecture is important because it is indicative to the revolt within the academic field of psychology against the structuralism of E.B. Titchener and the beginning of a slow but consistent evolution of a psychology of meaning in the U.S. along cognitive/behavioral lines.
This author takes complete exception to the arguments put forward by James that are all to frequently couched in outdated terminology and phrases borrowed from scripture that are supportive of his banal misbegotten concept of free-will. Nevertheless the influence of William James as the head of the psychology department at the newly established Clark University in Worchester Massachusetts was responsible for the introduction of both the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung to an enthusiastic American audience at Clark University as a result of the now famous Terry Lectures. Both psychoanalysis and analytic psychology are premised upon the human need for meaning and for that reason were responsible for bringing this whole question to the fore regarding the need for a psychology of meaning to counterbalance the avowed meaninglessness of behaviorism that was above and beyond all else merely various forms of conditioning and de-conditioning that began with Ivan Pavlov and grew to complete fruition with the Social Learning Theory of Albert Bandura and others at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Indeed both academic and clinical psychology is not in an either/or type of a situation in regard to the advanced methods of Social Learning Theory to explain the nature of social conditioning as the determining factor in regard to who we are and who we become, and an evolving psychology of meaning that seems to have coalesced around Jung’s analytical psychology, to a lesser extent around the loose surviving remnants of Freud’s psychoanalysis, the latest insights and advances in cognitive/behavioral science, and most especially perhaps the existentialist therapies such as Viktor Frankl’s Logo Therapy that have made excellent use of the outstanding work of the philosophic works of those modern and post-modern philosophers known as the Existentialists.
The third and final article from this series that deals with the developments and tendencies within the new academic science of psychology are all dealing with events and happenings that occur with the first two decades of the 20th century. This would not be at all clear to a reader who was to consider only the date of publication as that date was in regard to two of the three at least three and possibly four decades after the events chronicled by the two authors in question in fact actually transpired. The final article that describes the intellectual currents percolating in the minds of the central figures from this early era whose genius even though it was not wholly correct in its assertions regarding the often competing systems of psychology that each of these central figures, E.B. Titchener, William James, Carl G. Jung, Sigmund Freud and a few others sought to establish for their own unique systems of psychology; the fact of the matter is that their important pioneering work within the field did yield supremely important results for the new infant science of psychology.
Sir Aubrey Lewis (1900-1975), who was at one time professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London details the early work of C.G. Jung in an article that was eventually publish in 1957 in the Journal of Analytical Psychology, the pier reviewed scholarly research journal founded by Jung and his associates as the principle scientific journal for Jung’s trademarked brand of psychology the principles of which were guarded and protected every bit as the trademark brand of the Freudian system that had the exclusive use of the term psychoanalysis that for many years appeared to be the premier brand in regard to psychological systems created as they were in an effort to promote meaning as the central and most important way to bring about the kind of psychic wholeness that both systems say is the only real means to recovery for those affected by the psychological sickness that they both termed neurosis. That however was in the early days when Jung was the dutiful disciple of the older Freud who played the role of the father figure to all those chosen and called disciples, students, nincompoops, and the mere coterie of near useless hangers-on whose own irrational unconscious thinking regarding Freud as some sort of psychiatric messiah figure in spite of the fact that Freud was never a psychiatrist, or psychologist but a physician trained as a neurologist.
In Aubrey (1957), he sees in Jung looking back to the early years of Jung’s career an equally messianic type of figure as Freud’s devotees saw in him. The piece is useful because it indicates precisely the three principle research goals that young Jung had for himself that had nothing to do per se with founding the Western worlds most dynamic personal psychology of meaning that grew from merely a personal psychology to a psychology based upon Jung’s concept of the Collective Unconscious that encompassed all of human history past, present, and future. The ultimate implications of Jung’s analytical psychology and his joint intellectual excursions with the nuclear physicist Wolfgang Pauli dealing with Jung’s theory of synchronicity have scientific implications that speak directly to the kind of scientific revolution that Thomas Kuhn had in mind when he wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Indeed whereas The Major Works of Sigmund Freud take up only one 884 page volume in the University of Chicago/Encyclopedia Britannica’s Great Books of the Western World; The Collected Works of C.G. Jung make up twenty volumes, with each volume in the Collected Works averaging between 500 to 600 pages in length. Jung’s Collected Works are published by the Princeton University Press in conjunction with the Bollingen Foundation set up by the Jung’s family to be their heir of his literary estate.
According to Sir Aubrey, p.120-
“When he came to Burgholzli as director in 1898, he was resolved to study the human relationships which enter so closely into the texture of mental illness, and to continue Forel’s work in advancing mental hygiene by combating social evils, especially alcoholism.”
One paragraph later on the same page we have another clear and precise explanation of Jung’s work at the Burgholzli clinic at the University of Zurich that worked only with those patients that we would today label highly resilient as opposed to patients whose outcome was considered “less hopeful.” Sir Aubrey states the following-
“The first product of Jung’s work at Burgholzli was his study of so-called occult phenomena; then came several papers on simulation and hysteria, another on chronic mania, and the well known series on word associations. The monograph on dementia praecox closes the list of publications I shall mention here.
Latest Theories from the Cognitive/Behaviorists
The final series of articles up for review are all been published since 2000 and therefore tend to represent the real state of psychology today besieged on all sides by the desperate need for a psychology of meaning that can be of value in dealing with the most important existential crisis Western Civilization has ever had to face before. DeGrandpre (2000) is an attempt to invent a science of meaning that will be governed by the logic and rules of behaviorism. The author’s major contention is that meaning is a social construct that becomes internalized and therefore has to be dealt with as such. DeGrandpre sees meaning as the end result of an interplay between the individual and that individual’s environment. He goes on to quote Jerome Bruner (1990) in regard to Bruner’s statements about the so-called “cognitive revolution” that Bruner speculates about in an article written twenty-five years ago in a world that today is teetering on the edge of a possible (some would say certain, inevitable, etc.) nuclear apocalypse that is just one part of what some present day Earth scientist have labeled The Human Extinction Protocol.
Being wholly agnostic in regard to such dire predictions and so called end-time speculations allows one to be more rational in regard to how we deal with this whole issue of meaning which means that the cold bloodedness of DeGrandpre’s p.723 approach to defining meaning as referring to two general constructs that are “interwoven”; should not be arrogantly brushed aside but analyzed to the core in a totally dispassionate manner. DeGrandpre seemingly resurrects E.B. Titchener’s Structuralism by way of his own use of the term structures of meaning to lend structure to his own particular formulation as to what exactly “meaning” means. The end result is interesting and useful and is as follows- 1) Phenomenology of stimulus contexts that motivate behavior 2) Motivational qualities of stimuli to guide individual behavior 3) Claims that meaning refers to the co-development of these two factors 4) During childhood the self becomes an interpretive being guided by meaning, rather than a rational being guided by information.
The combination of these above named factor and how they work together to produce meaning is neatly summarized by the author on p.723 (top right, 1st. par.) as follows-
“Taken together, the phenomenal and motivational qualities of meaning making, help explain our ability to act effectively in a changing and complex world, which we experience as inherently meaningful even though both these aspects of meaning are typically acquired.”
Reinforcement as a “dialectic of meaning” according to the behaviorist explanation being proffered is according to DeGrandpre- “The most durable and far-reaching of all behavioral principles.” The overly technicalized terminology that DeGrandpre is intent on resorting to makes his rationale overly opaic. It also seems to be conveniently deployed to cover-up for a behaviorist still bound to the Structuralism of a bygone era utterly out of his dept but nevertheless hoping that his hyper-technical expository minus the usual decorative equations will so impress readers with what Marx called its “vulgar materialism” that readers will be forced to adopt the attitude of the philosopher who stated in regard to Christianity- “I believe because it is ridiculous.”
Existentialism & Existential Therapy
Molden & Dweck (2006) seems more like the kind of highly polished and professional psych product that gets routinely turned out at the Stanford Research Institute, home to the originators of Social Learning Theory. The two authors quote Kelly (1953) in regard to his theory of personal constructs based upon the concept that everyone possesses a unique set of conceptual representations that they use to scan any given environment for meaningful information. They also quote Osgood (1962) in regard to defining semantic differentials as the basic foundation on which meaning is built. Now we seem to be getting somewhere in regard to Molden & Dweck’s use of the science of semiotics to unlock what almost seems like the neurophysiology of meaning but not quite! Much of the study deals with the social meaning that we take from relationships that are quite often bound up with individual concepts of self-regard. The study is an expose in regard to meaning within a developmental frame of reference that could conceivable be of great value to school psychologists and/or high school guidance counselors.
Roberts (2007) is the only research report that goes to the core of what meaning means for us today in the Western world by way of a completely honest and healthy presentation of the life’s work of three of the most important figures from the world of psychiatry, philosophy, and clinical psychology. These three revolutionary thinkers who broke the standard mold in regard to the concept of meaning and how it is thought of and/or applied are Thomas Szasz, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Viktor E. Frankl. The purpose of the article is stated on p. 277 to be-
“….this paper seeks to present an accessible introduction to one of the most salient features of modernity; namely, the erosion of those traditions that gave life a meaning or a purpose and that provided people with ready answers to the problem of how they ought to live.”
Roberts (2007) introduces his readers first to Thomas Szasz who made himself famous as the anti-psychiatry psychiatrist and author of the book The Myth of Mental Illness that redefined the nature of the personal crisis that countless millions of Westerners get caught up in and are thusly labeled as “mentally ill” by a mental health industry that puts profits before people but whose role is social control over the masses. The genius of Thomas Szasz is on display in regard to how he compares and analyses the disease concept and the totally different ways this concept has been interpreted. Roberts (2007) cites Szasz (1983), p. 15 in his paraphrase –
Thus in the case of physical illness, this norm is said to be “the structural and functional integrity of the human body” (Szazs 1983, p.15), whereas the attribution of mental illness is said to be based on a judged “deviance” from certain “psychosocial, ethical, or legal norms (Szazs 1983, p.17). What is important to note is about these two types of “norms”is the implication that, in the case of physical illness, the norm and the deviation from that norm is, as it were, a matter of “value free, objective facts,” whereas in the case of mental illness, the norm and the deviation from that norm is a matter of “value laden, objective judgments”.
The author goes on to explain how these transgression are indeed real but they represent attempts to deal with the problem of living in an era where the traditional Christian culture and its values are no longer relevant. Roberts (2007), p.279 introduces his/her readers to Friedrich Nietzsche and his poorly understood and greatly undervalued statement that “God is dead” in Thus Spake Zarathustra. Roberts states on p.279 that-
“For the purposes of this paper, however, it is enough to suggest that by proclaiming that God is dead, Nietzsche (1974) was proposing that Western civilization was undergoing one of its most profound historical and cultural events; namely the demise of the belief in the existence of God.”
Further down on p.279 in the next paragraph the author states that –
“Writing in 1887, Nietzsche (1974) suggested that recognition of the ‘death of God’,and certainly the full implications of this event, would elude many people; as he made clear:
“The event itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude’s capacity for comprehension-…Much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this event really means” (p.279). However, Nietzsche (1974) suggested that its repercussions would, given time, affect more and more people so that, at least initially, we would begin to experience a profound ‘instability’ and ‘disorientation,’ and we would do so because the belief in God, and the Judeo-Christian world view generally, had so greatly influenced the conception of ourselves and others, the values that we hold and the morality that we espouse, the meaning we believe our lives to have and the direction we believe our lives aught to take” (p.279).
As a result of the ruination of the values and concept that held the Western world together and gave meaning to people’s lives, a crisis much more profound has set in that has in its own turn given rise to the idea that life has no meaning and no value other than the monetary one that capitalists put on the value of labor as defined by the market, the one true object of idolatrous worship that has replaced the Christian logos in ways more subtle and complete than even the great philosopher himself may have never realized. This collapse of a cultural, psychological, and sociological edifice dating back 2000 years has left Westerners adrift in a sea of ennui and meaninglessness so profound as to affect every areas and aspect of life and may continue to do so well into the future.
As Roberts (2007) makes clear Viktor E. Frankl and his Logo Therapy are not claiming to be either the first coming of the Messiah or the second coming of Jesus Christ, however, it is based upon a serious and clear recognition of the grievous existential crisis facing people today who are living in what he calls an “existential vacuum.” The purpose of Logo Therapy then is to impress upon people that this search for meaning and/or purpose in ones life is not some mere “idle, academic curiosity but something that a person in search of such may have to dedicate his/her entire life’s energy to because of the urgency of this need in the time and place in which we live and which we can never really separate ourselves from no matter how much we try to entertain such a foolish and pointless speculation as seems to be too much the case with too many people seeking to fill the void in their psyche with all the wrong things especially for them. It is the wisdom of the survivor of the Nazi death camp who speaks thusly to us with the following words of advice-
“In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering with his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible” (Frankl 2004, p. 113-114).
An important follow on study conducted by Proulx (2013) deals with the contributions of not only Existentialists within the field of contemporary psychology but the important germane connection between Existential Therapy theorists and the intellectual base of Existential philosophy that such theorizing is based upon. A pre-requisite for a more complete understanding of the ideas, concepts, and theories proffered by Proulx would be some basic understanding of both the modernist and post-modernist Existentialist philosophers cited in the article. These philosophic contributors to the psychology of meaning would include the following: Friedrich Nietzsche, Sorin Kierkegaard, Albert Camus, Martin Heidegger, and the father of phenomenology Albrecht Husserl.
Perhaps the best way to arrange any coherent explanation of the rather complex and technical facts and data that Proulx lays out might be to begin with his citing of the developmental psychologist/theorist Jean Piaget who discovered that a child’s understanding of the world and the way that it works in regard to relationships with other people, objects, places, and events is based upon the construction of certain schemata. While these early childhood schemata may be quite naïve in the early years of childhood, they are constantly undergoing challenges to their validity that in turn requires an altering of the existing schemata so as to accommodate this new information that they are getting from their environment that is at odds with their existing schemata.
As one gets older and more wedded to one’s existing schemata it become more difficult to accept the facts as given to us by our environment and accordingly alter or abandon altogether existing schemata. This inconsistency that this sets up within the person’s psyche is known as cognitive dissonance. Generally speaking, we tend to alter our existing schema in order to accommodate this new anomaly. Curiously enough, if one applies the findings of Thomas Kuhn (1962, 1996) as cited by the author Proulx then psychology itself is today in an analogues situation as regards this emerging sub-field that has been labeled the psychology of meaning that is being driven by the monumental crisis that Western civilization now finds itself in as a result of the collapse of the 2000 year old Christian mythos. According to Jung (1933) the major unanswered question that hangs in the air and that needs to be determined is whether clergy or psychologists/therapists are going to be the principle agents for helping the spiritually and psychologically ailing person recover their own individual sense of balance based upon the construction of their own internal schemata which in a sense may mark a new beginning for the civilization of the West with the re-establishment of values in answer to the present crisis created by the collapse of values.
Slife & Christensen (2013) opening sentence is- “We believe the assumptions of psychology are overly narrow.” To this particular author such a precise summing up of the crisis of meaning within psychology itself as distinct from the larger social implications of it, has already been presented as something of a- “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains!” aspect to it, at least for psychology itself as an academic discipline and scientific endeavor. Such an approach to contextualized meaning as a conceptualized method for understanding meaning is perhaps a bit too subtle for the average psych 101 student to fully appreciate. Nevertheless the simplest and most straightforward way to define what Slife & Christensen are saying is to borrow another sentence that is the first opening sentence under the subheading of Context, p.230- “Context is crucially important for any meaning.” The actual term hermeneutic is a term used in Alchemy of the sort studied by C.G. Jung as a means and method to better understand the psyche and its Mercurial methods that Jung sought be able to understand and use as he claimed it was traditionally used to bring about spiritual growth and wholeness. The authors do cite Jung on p. 231 as follows-
“As Carl Jung (1964) once noted, this relationship among meanings implies possibilities and otherness. Meanings imply not only what they are but (also) what they are not (or could be). To mean to ‘turn right’ implies necessarily that one could have turned left, because the meaning of the right turn implies the possibility of a left turn (or not turning at all)”.
The last two articles in this literature review are Wilkinson (2004) and Laughlin & Throop (2001). Each of these two articles deal in a less direct and more elliptical fashion with the primary theme of this article. The psychology of meaning and its earliest point of origin within the academic field of psychology shortly after E.B. Titchener became head of the newly created psychology department at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York in 1893, and C.G. Jung became the director of the University of Zurich’s Burgholzli Mental Hospital and Clinic in 1898. Both of these individuals had a great impact upon their respective sister sciences; Titchener in the infant science of experimental psychology that for the first time used entirely physiological methods as a means to investigate that basic building blocks of consciousness that came to be known as Structuralism. Jung became and early admirer of Freud and for a short while part of the founder of psychoanalysis’s highly esteem “inner circle”.
It did not take Jung long to see that there was something deeply flawed in both Freud the man and psychoanalysis itself due to Freud’s over-reliance of his sexual theory as well as his over-reliance upon the so called “Oedipus Complex” to explain more things that were not in any way to be associated with such a highly unscientific and purely conjectural viewpoint on Freud’s part. Jung’s Analytical Psychology was the result of Jung’s complete and total break with Freud, however both men continued to rely upon individual case histories of their patients as evidence for their theories. While Titchener at Cornell made the statement to his followers and fellow experimental psychologists that there was no place for meaning in psychology, Jung made meaning the center-piece of his psychology. Wilkinson (2004) brings together the advanced physiological methods of neuroscience that confirms Jung’s theories regard the unconscious mind which means that this original divergence within the field of psychology has now come full circle at last so that perhaps by a combination of both these major trends become part of one unified holistic approach the old wounds can be healed and new opportunities realized for the first time.
DeGrandpre, R. J. (2000). A science of meaning: can behaviorism bring meaning to psychological science? American Psychologist, 55(7), 721-739.
Fromm, E. (1955). The Sane Society. NY: Rinehart & Co, Inc.
Higginson, G. D. (1937). The place of meaning in psychology. Psychological Review, November 1937.
James, W. (1956). The dilemma of determinism. The Will to Believe, p. 149. NY: Dover
Jung, C. G. (1933). Modern Man in Search of a Soul. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace & Co.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Laughlin, C.D., & Throop, C. J. Imagination and reality: on the relations between myth, consciousness, and the quantum sea. Zygon, 36(4), 709-736.
Lewis, A. (1957). Jung’s early work. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 2(2), p. 119-136.
Molden, D. S. & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: a lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61(3), 192-203.
Proulx, T. (2013). Beyond mortality and the self: meaning makes a comeback. The Psychology of Meaning, Chap. 4, p.71-87. American Psychological Association.
Roberts, M. (2007). Modernity, mental illness and the crisis of meaning. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 14, 277-281.
Slife, B. D., & Christensen. (2013). Hermeneutic realism: toward a truly meaningful psychology. Review of General Psychology, 17(2), 230-236.
Szasz, T. S., M.D. (1974). The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct. NY: First Harper Paperback Edition.
Wilkinsen, M. (2004). The mind-brain relationship: the emergent self. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 49, 83-101.