Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr] pp734-cotr-459444 February 13, 2003 18:3 Style file version Jun 14th, 2002
With this issue, Cognitive Therapy and Research has just passed its 25th birthday. In
the 25 years since its inception, the journal has been on the leading edge of cognitively-
oriented clinical research. To commemorate this anniversary, a brief history of the
journal, and of cognitive research, is presented. Some possible directions for the future
of the journal are discussed, and individuals who have served the journal over the last
25 years are acknowledged.
KEY WORDS: Cognitive Therapy and Research, History.
Among the first words printed in Cognitive Therapy and Research were, “The
primary objective of Cognitive Therapy and Research is to foster a constructive, crit-
ical dialogue among various disciplines and orientations that have similar concerns,
but that previously have had little occasion to interact. We hope to provide a medium
for researchers who are studying basic cognitive processes and for clinicians who are
confronted with the dilemma of how best to conceptualize their clients’ thoughts,
feelings, and behavior in the context of a treatment regimen” (Mahoney, 1977, p. 1).
With this issue, Cognitive Therapy and Research has just passed its 25th birthday, and
though the topical content of the journal has grown in the last two and a half decades,
and the journal has seen four different editors, the objective of Cognitive Therapy
and Research remains the same.
The sheer joys of being an editor of a journal are few and far between, and usually
come at the very beginning of an editor’s term. Once the excitement of being named
to an editorship subsides comes the realization that the job takes a considerable
amount of effort. If the new editor is lucky, as was I, the groundwork would have
been laid by previous editors. An editorial guidebook, a workable and efficient set
of procedures, hard-working associate editors with superb editorial judgment, and a
stellar editorial board, all ease the way for the new editor. Yet, while the intellectual
interest and the commitment to publish a first-rate journal remains, the novelty that
1 Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275; e-mail: ringram@mail.
smu.edu.
1
0147-5916/03/0200-0001/0 °
C 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: GRA
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr] pp734-cotr-459444 February 13, 2003 18:3 Style file version Jun 14th, 2002
2 Ingram
underlies the pleasure soon wears off and what remains is the work. Every now and
then, however, an opportunity arises that rekindles the joy. Such is the occasion of the
publication of this special issue, commemorating the 25th anniversary of Cognitive
Therapy and Research.
Most journals occasionally publish special issues, and Cognitive Therapy and
Research has done so on a number of occasions. The procedure typically involves
a researcher contacting the editor with an idea for a special issue, and if approved,
compiling a list of contributors to invite and specific topics of their articles. The focus
of the issue, however, is always topical and is related to the mission statement of
the journal. Submitted manuscripts then undergo a review and, if accepted, appear
in the special issue.2 The focus and procedures for this 25th anniversary issue were
different in two ways. First, rather than identify a group of potential contributors
organized around a particular topic, I invited members of the journal’s Advisory
Board to contribute articles. These individuals represent the founders of cognitive–
clinical psychology as we know it, the theorists and researchers who shaped the field
in its earliest days, and continue to do so now. Thus, they are not only the pioneers
of the field of cognitive therapy and research, they are also the settlers who continue
to define the field’s scientific landscape.
Second, rather than invite them to write on a particular topic, Advisory Board
members were invited to write on any topic they wanted. I suggested that, if they chose
to they could reminisce about the early days of the field (or the journal itself), present
empirical data, discuss theories, present new ideas, or offer suggestions for how the
journal has influenced the field. In short, anything that was related to cognitive
therapy and research was considered appropriate. These two factors accounted for
virtually all of the variance in rekindling a sense of editorial delight, inviting a number
of brilliant theorists and researchers—all luminaries in the field—to write on anything
they wanted.
Would we in anyway go wrong with these ideas? For example, would these
pioneers of the field, all still busy and still overworked, be willing to contribute to
this special issue? Such fears were unfounded. Almost every single member of the
journal’s Advisory Board was able to contribute an article. The contributions range
from reflections on the social–scientific environment that led to the development of
the journal to perspectives on how the articles in Cognitive Therapy and Research
have not only contributed to but inspired advances in psychological science. Other
articles reflect more broadly on the meaning and conduct of science, and the academic
and social environments that encourage or stifle knowledge. Some of the articles
present new theoretical ideas, review theory and data, or discuss the evolution of key
cognitive constructs and methods. All of the contributions by the Advisory Board
members are excellent.
field may be unaware of how radical cognitive ideas were some 25 years ago. Marvin
Goldfried, Michael Mahoney, and Donald Meichenbaum document this state of the
cognitive–behavioral union nicely in their articles, and I will leave it to them to tell
the more complete stories. But it suffices to say here that it was not that long ago
that the goal of pursuing cognition was considered akin to professional suicide. For
sure, some of the theoretical groundwork for examining cognition had been laid early
on by theorists such as Bandura (1969) and Mischel (1973). The early work tended
to suggest the importance of cognitive variables, but placed them in the context of
“covert behaviors.” As such, these covert behaviors could be seen as behavioral vari-
ables that were governed by the laws of learning that determined all behaviors (they
were merely “covert” behaviors). Indeed, early cognitive therapies embraced the
idea that cognitions could be considered to function, and could be conditioned or
reinforced, just like outwardly observable behaviors. For example, covert counter-
conditioning ideas suggested that pairing thoughts of problematic behaviors (e.g.,
overeating) with aversive stimuli (“now imagine that you are about to take a bite of
pie, and you vomit”) would lead to a decrease in these behaviors. Such ideas now
seem primitive to say the least, but placing them in context, these were revolutionary
25 years ago.
Disentangling cognitive concepts from behavioral learning laws was a natural
next step in the evolution of the approach, but it nevertheless represented a major
paradigm shift. As is commonly the case with such shifts, it was accompanied by an
acrimonious outcry (or, verbal behaviors) by some. More troubling, however, was
that even as researchers were beginning to see the wisdom of studying cognition in its
own right, and as a way to effectively treat and understand complex clinical problems,
manuscripts featuring (or indeed even mentioning) cognition were not likely to be
accepted. Nor were conference presentation submissions likely to receive a warm
welcome if they discussed cognitions. Early on in the “cognitive revolution,” studying
cognition for the untenured university-based clinical researcher looked like a sure
path to another profession.
It became clear that as the paradigm began to shift, “pure” behaviorists would
not go quietly into the night. Despite protests, however, the days of decreeing that
only the laws of learning and observable behavior were the appropriate and accept-
able subjects of science were numbered; cognitive concepts and the empirical data
were beginning to be compelling. Yet, even as interest in cognitive–behavioral ap-
proaches to treatment grew, there were few outlets for publication of this work and
ways to stimulate debate and inquiry. It was in this atmosphere that Cognitive Ther-
apy and Research was conceived at an AABT meeting in Atlanta, and was born in
1977. They said it was a fad that wouldn’t last, but by any estimate Cognitive Therapy
and Research has passed late adolescence and is now firmly entrenched in young
adulthood.
During Cognitive Therapy and Research’s 25 years, four individuals have had
the privilege of editing the journal: Michael Mahoney (1977–1981), Steve Hollon
(1982–1985), Phil Kendall (1986–1996), and Rick Ingram3 (1997–present). Also, dur-
ing this time a number of extraordinary researchers have served as associate editors
for the journal. Every individual who has served as the journal’s Associate Editor
3 The latter is honored to be in the company of the former.
P1: GRA
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr] pp734-cotr-459444 February 13, 2003 18:3 Style file version Jun 14th, 2002
4 Ingram
over the last 25 years is listed in Appendix A. The journal, and the field, are indebted
to them.
The backbone of the scientific process is peer review; neither journals nor quality
science survives without a rigorous peer review process. This starts with the senior
editorial group, composed of the Editor and the Associate Editor Group, and includes
the Editorial Board—those who have made a commitment to the journal by serving
and who graciously give up their time to review manuscripts. Individuals who have
served on Cognitive Therapy and Research’s Editorial Board are listed in Appendix B.
These individuals have performed the bulk of the editorial work in the journals’
history. But they are not the only professionals who have contributed their scarce time
and energy. All individuals who have reviewed manuscripts for Cognitive Therapy
and Research are listed in Appendix C. The insights and ideas that have accrued from
25 years of work published in Cognitive Therapy and Research would not have been
possible without them.
THE FUTURE
Anyone who can claim to accurately tell the future of cognitive–clinical ap-
proaches to psychology should perhaps be directing his or her attention to foretelling
winning lottery ticket numbers; no one can say for sure where the area will go from
here. Certainly, however, there are trends that provide clues. Twenty years ago, when
basic clinical researchers looked for ways to understand and study cognition, they
found a number of theories, paradigms, and methodologies in the basic psychological
sciences (e.g., cognitive psychology). Once again, basic science ideas and methodolo-
gies may lead the way. For example, advances in cognitive and affective neuroscience
may help provide important data and insights as to cognitive processes in maladap-
tive functioning, and may help elucidate the cognitive factors that are affected by
treatment. Time will tell.
One thing is certain about the future of the journal. Cognitive Therapy and Re-
search will remain committed to publishing ideas and data that help advance our
understanding of the cognitive processes that are linked to disorders and their treat-
ment. As always the focus will be on ideas that are conceptually interesting and
well articulated, and on data generated through sound methodological techniques
that address meaningful and interesting questions in the cognitive domain. The last
25 years have seen this journal start from humble beginnings and an uncertain fu-
ture to becoming among the most respected of journals in clinical psychology, and
arguably the top journal focusing on cognition and its clinical antecedents, corre-
lates, and consequences. Here’s looking forward to the next quarter of a century of
progress and promise.
6 Ingram
8 Ingram
10 Ingram
12 Ingram
14 Ingram
P. Prins M. J. Ross
Ron Prinz David Roth
A. Przeworski Barbara Rothbaum
Christine Purdon Paul Rozin
Richard Pyle Diane Ruble
Tom Pyszczynski David Rudd
Adele Rabin Stephanie Rude
Dana Rabois Karen Rudolph
Jack Rachman Tom Rudy
E. Rafaeli-Mor Patricia Rupert
C. Raghavan J. P. Rushton
Ronald Rapee James Russell
William Ray Robert Russell
Neil Rector Alex Rutherford
William Redd William Sacco
Lynn Rehm Dennis Saccuzzo
Mark Reinecke Michael Sachs
Steven Reiss Harold Sackheim
Patricia Resnick James Safran
William Rholes Jeremy Safran
Martina Rich Steven Safren
J. C. Richards Paul Salkovskis
B. C. Riemann Peter Salovey
John Riskind William Sanderson
Lawrence Riso Darcy Santor
Henry Robb Barbara Sarason
John Roberts Irwin Sarason
Arthur Robin Jason Saterfield
Clive Robins Cary Savage
Mark Robins Michael Sayette
John Roberts Michael Scheier
Kevin Robertson Michael Scheirer
T. L. Rodebaugh Christine Scher
Liz Roehmer Karen Schmaling
Richard Rogers Norma Schmidt
Paul Rohde David Schotte
D. J. Rohsenow Joseph Schwartz
Paul Rokke Judith Schwartz
Daniel Romer Robert Schwartz
E. Romer Forrest Scogin
Kevin Ronan Walter Scott
Glenys Rondi J. R. Scotti
Leonard Rorer H. Sears
James Rosen Constantine Sedikides
Al Rosenthal Zindel Segal
Ted Rosenthal Suzanne Segerstrom
P1: GRA
Cognitive Therapy and Research [cotr] pp734-cotr-459444 February 13, 2003 18:3 Style file version Jun 14th, 2002
16 Ingram
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Mahoney, M. (1977). Editorial. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 1–3.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological
Review, 80, 252–283.