title: Psychology and neuroscience: How close are we to an integrative perspective? Reply to Staats (2016) and Tryon (2016).
abstract: This article responds to commentaries written by Warren Tryon (2016) and Arthur Staats (2016) concerning Schwartz, Lilienfeld, Meca, and Sauvigné (2016). In this reply, we reiterate our key thesis-that psychology, and the problems it addresses, are likely best approached from multiple levels of analysis. Unlike Tryon, we are not convinced that neural networks and computational neuroscience provide a single template through which all of psychology can be integrated. We are in agreement with Staats that attempts to reduce psychological phenomena to neural events alone are likely to be misleading and unproductive. One important example where such reductionism has been alive and well is addiction, where prominent biomedical models have defined addiction as a "brain disease." Our reply article concludes by arguing that a multilevel approach to psychology is essential in guiding hiring practices, funding agency priorities, and training students. (PsycINFO Database Record
authors.affiliation: Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami.
authors.forename: Seth J
authors.identifier: 0000-0003-4238-9520
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Schwartz
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Emory University.
authors.forename: Scott O
authors.initials: SO
authors.lastname: Lilienfeld
authors.affiliation: Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami.
authors.forename: Alan
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Meca
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Georgia State University.
authors.forename: Katheryn C
authors.initials: KC
authors.lastname: Sauvigné
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D009488:Neurosciences