title: Further sources of our field's embattled public reputation.
abstract: Responds the comments made by Newman et al. (see record 2012-33966-013), Tyron (see record 2012-33966-014), and Teo (see record 2012-33966-015) on the current author's original article (see record 2011-12007-001). In the original article on public skepticism toward psychology, the author delineated eight reasons why many laypersons are dubious of our field's scientific status. The author argued that although some of these sources (e.g., hindsight bias, the illusion of understanding) reflect public misunderstandings regarding the application of science to psychological questions, others (e.g., our field's reluctant embrace of evidence-based clinical practices) reflect professional psychology's failure to uphold rigorous scientific standards. The author was gratified to read these three stimulating commentaries, if only because they suggest that my article accomplished its principal aim: to engender thoughtful debate concerning the sources of, and remedies for, psychology's problematic scientific status in the public eye. The authors all noted significant points of consensus with the current author's analysis but also identified areas in which they found my coverage to be incomplete or inaccurate. The author welcomes these constructive criticisms and address each in turn.
authors.affiliation: Emory University.
authors.forename: Scott O
authors.initials: SO
authors.lastname: Lilienfeld
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D011584:Psychology; D011639:Public Opinion; D012586:Science