Reviewed Books & Films

« June 2014 | Main | August 2014 »

July 2014

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Should I Recommend Criminal Profiling as a Career for My Undergraduate Psychology Majors?


For most of my career, students in my classes always asked me about becoming a clinical or counseling psychologist, what was needed to be admitted into those graduate programs, and so forth.  (Rarely did they ask about my field of social psychology!)  However, in the last few years, more students have told me that they want information on becoming a criminal profiler.  

As Troy W. Ertelt and Kristin E. Matson note in their review of Curt R. Bartol and Anne M. Bartol's Criminal and Behavioral Profiling: Theory, Research, and Practice, many people have an inaccurate perception of profilers. I sometimes think that my students who have watched films and television shows like Criminal Minds think that profilers have their own jet aircraft, look like Paget Brewster and Shemar Moore, and have an encyclopedic knowledge of psychology to help them quickly and accurately profile and catch criminals. In some ways, even news programs that interview profilers for crime stories perpetuate these inaccurate perceptions.

So, given the Bartol and Bartol book, and the Ertelt and Matson review, what should we tell students?  What is the best way to correct their misconceptions? Should we discourage them from becoming profilers?

Read the Review
ReviewFishing the Science Out of the Hype in Criminal and Behavioral Profiling
By Troy W. Ertelt and Kristin E. Matson
      PsycCRITIQUES, 2014 Vol 59(26)

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Is Higher Education Simply a Business?


Geoffrey Cox, president of Alliant International University, has written a thorough and thoughtful review of Suzanne Mettler’s provocative book Degrees of Inequality:  How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream, challenging many of her assumptions.

On the book jacket, Mettler argues,

America’s higher education system is failing its students. In the space of a generation, we have gone from being the best-educated society in the world to one surpassed by eleven other nations in college graduation rates. Higher education is evolving into a caste system with separate and unequal tiers that take in students from different socio-economic backgrounds and leave them more unequal than when they first enrolled. . . . As politicians capitulate to corporate interests, owners of for-profit colleges benefit, but for far too many students, higher education leaves them with little besides crippling student loan debt.

Mettler says these for-profit universities are primarily responsible for the enormous and growing chasm between educational haves and have-nots, and many other reviewers of her book agree.  For example, Gary Rivlin (2014), writing in The New York Times Sunday Book Review column, notes,

For-profit colleges are the true bad guys in this tale. Though their “ardent defender,” the Republican Party, contends that the schools provide “meaningful opportunities for low-income and minority students,” Mettler mounts a persuasive case that . . . [t]hese institutions are generally more skilled at getting rich off those living in the lower economic reaches than they are at preparing them for the job market. She has mined congressional reports, newspaper accounts and academic ­studies, piling up example after example of recruiters who’ll say practically anything to enroll a student, any student, in their programs, resulting in graduation rates not even close to those of traditional colleges. And how do those who manage to earn a degree fare? In the 2007-8 academic year, the average student working on a bachelor’s degree from a for-profit college found herself in deeper debt ($32,700) than her counterpart attending a private college ($17,700). And good luck settling loans with those low-paying jobs so many graduates find themselves working, despite the dreams that the school’s marketers put in their heads. Alumni of the for-profit colleges account for nearly half of all student-loan defaults, according to Mettler, even as they make up one in 10 students pursuing a postsecondary education. (para. 3)

President Cox finds these arguments somewhat glib, and he wonders whether the U. S. higher education system causes societal disparities or simply reflects them.  He makes the obvious case that enhancing educational access will require additional funding, and this money will have to come from somewhere.   

We must also recognize that higher education is a capital-intensive enterprise, and if we take seriously the challenge of increasing access, it will require substantial new investment. This could come from redistributing some of the public largesse bestowed on the elites or by finding more resources in strapped state budgets, but neither of these seems likely. The only other alternative is private capital. We need a system that holds for-profit education fully accountable but also treats it as a necessary, full partner in the effort to expand capacity and opportunity. Only then will it cease being primarily the route for those disenfranchised by other segments of the higher education system. (penultimate para.)

Are most of the thousand or so for-profit colleges that have been created in recent years simply exploiting disadvantaged, naïve, and unsophisticated students and taking advantage of generous and largely unregulated federal loan programs, or do many for-profit colleges offer a viable and meaningful shot at a good education and a rewarding career for over a million students who would not otherwise have these opportunities?


Rivlin, C. (2014, June 6). B.A.s and I.O.U.s. [Review of the book Degrees of inequality, by S. Mettler]. The New York Times. Retreived from 

Read the Review
ReviewShow Me the Money!
By Geoffrey M. Cox
      PsycCRITIQUES, 2014 Vol 59(28)

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Why Do So Many Psychologists Write So Badly?


Michael Corballis wrote a laudatory review of Language, Cognition, and Human Nature: Selected Articles by Steven Pinker, a Harvard psychology professor and one of the leading intellectuals of the 21st century.  Corballis notes, “Pinker is a rarity among academic psychologists not only as a stylish writer, but also as a profound thinker with an ability to grasp the major issues of human nature and human evolution” (final para.).

Corballis is especially enthusiastic about Pinker’s ability to write clean, clear, and direct prose that can be appreciated by academics as well as by educated readers without specialized training in psychology or linguistics.  However, Pinker’s writing is apparently sometimes too clear for those academic journals in which he publishes.  Pinker notes in the introduction to his book,

The process of getting an article accepted for publication in an academic journal is by far the most unpleasant experience in intellectual life, since it requires devoting time and brainpower to making one’s article worse in an abject effort to satisfy the whims of an anonymous referee. (p. x)

Later, discussing one of Pinker’s articles published in the prestigious and scholarly journal Psychological Review, Corballis writes, “If an anonymous referee made that one worse, it must have been a cracker to begin with” (para. 6).

Why is so much of what we read in psychology journals obscure and pedantic?  Why can’t we all write like Steven Pinker?

Read the Review
ReviewA Pinker View of Almost Everything
By Michael Corballis
      PsycCRITIQUES, 2014 Vol 59(20)

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Do We Need Six Psychology Dictionaries—Or Any?


Seven years ago in PsycCRITIQUES I reviewed the first APA Dictionary of Psychology (Korn, 2007). Since then there have been two shorter editions (concise and college) and three special topic editions, including most recently The APA Dictionary of Statistics and Research Methods. In his review of this volume, Michael Palij provides an interesting history of statistics dictionaries and  an analysis of the purpose of a dictionary, and he points out that all this information is available on the Internet. Even the Oxford English Dictionary is available online, for free.

Do we really need any of these APA volumes? I enjoyed searching through my copy of the Big One when I did my review, but concluded that there was “no significant difference” (Korn, 2007, last para.) between searching it or the Internet. And that was a biased judgment from an older person still in love with hard-copy books. I confess that I have not looked in that dictionary in the past seven years. The need for an APA statistics dictionary seems especially questionable. Palij points out that statistics is a tool used by many disciplines other than psychology and is its own discipline with its own dictionary. He also notes several important missing items and the editor’s “argument that ‘space limitations prevent us from providing certain information’” (last para.). There are no space limitations on the Internet.

Perhaps readers could help me understand the need to sacrifice so many trees in publishing these dictionaries. Why would you use a hard-copy book to find the definition of anything?


Korn, J. (2007). You can look it up. [Review of the book APA dictionary of psychology, by G. R. VandenBos (Ed.)]. PsycCRITIQUES, 52(1). doi 10.1037/a0006301
Read the Review
ReviewNumbers, Words, and Things: Reviewing a Statistics and Methods Dictionary
By Michael Palij
      PsycCRITIQUES, 2014 Vol 59(25)

Thursday, July 03, 2014

What Does Developmental Psychology Tell Us About the Identity of Cybercriminals?


In his review of Gráinne Kirwan and Andrew Power's book Cybercrime: The Psychology of Online Offenders,  Thomas Holt describes the authors’ typology of cybercrime that consists of Internet-enabled crimes that “can also occur in the real world (e.g., piracy)”; Internet-specific crimes that cannot exist off-line, such as malicious software distribution; and  crimes in virtual worlds, “where nonhuman characters and representations of people engage in offenses that would otherwise be dictated as crimes in the real world“ (para. 2).

What do developmental psychology and other areas of psychology that study identity development tell us about the nature of cybercriminals?  Is there something unique about this new type of offender compared with other offenders who steal, assault, and so forth?  Do current models and theories apply, or do we need to develop new ones for cybercriminals?  Much is discussed these days about preventing the development of criminals.  Should we also discuss how we can prevent individuals from turning to cybercrime? 

Read the Review
ReviewTheorizing the Motives of Cybercriminals
By Thomas J. Holt
      PsycCRITIQUES, 2014 Vol 59(22)

Editor of PsycCRITIQUES

Danny Wedding, PhD

Chair of Behavioral Sciences,
College of Medicine,
American University of Antigua

Associate Editors of PsycCRITIQUES

Related Links

Bookmark and Share

Send Feedback

rss Subscribe to the Blog

rss Subscribe via FeedBurner

Subscribe to Blog Updates via Email Here…