What do you think?
Rate this book
Introduction to Psychology
* from USA. Will take 25-35 days
724 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1975
154 people are currently reading
1575 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
May 15, 2018
A great text book for students of Psychiatry and Psychology, very well written and content organised to fit the needs of exam going students. Space available for annotation, text suitably organised in headings and summary with keywords given at the end of each chapter for revision. Worked as a lifesaver for me in my MD exam.
July 22, 2025
As a textbook, it's quite vague and difficult to reproduce. Also, true to its title, it's so superficial that it has to be supplemented with additional reading. It is definitely no more than an introduction, the advantage of that being its consequent universal appeal. Having to study and commit parts of this to my fickle memory often made this tiresome, but if I were to ignore that aspect, I quite enjoyed the conversational tone of the text which lent an easy flow to the reading experience. I especially liked that the authors interspersed various historical and cultural titbits. Indeed, this book has given me fresh perspective on much of the media that I've consumed.
First and foremost: Philip Roth's scandalous yet hilarious book, Portnoy's Complaint . I'm almost embarrassed now by my 2016 review of that book. While I'd apprehended its stream-of-consciousness prose style, the confessional framing device and the Oedipal undercurrent, I missed the other pervasive Freudian themes that now add a whole new layer of depth to the book and make me appreciate its cleverness even more. Roth employed the concepts of free association, repression, unresolved conflicts, the ego and superego's struggle over the id, memory distortions, slips of the tongue, etc. to great effect in the narrative. I'm reexamining Alexander Portnoy's neurotic battle with his Jewish identity through a Jungian lens. There's also shades of the psychodynamic theories of Adler and Horney in the character's basic anxiety/hostility and interpersonal maladaptations.
Second, as most people who have spoken to me at length know, I have a complicated love-hate relationship with Hemingway. I have tremendous admiration for his iceberg theory (that I now view as an elaborate written form of repression) but his misogyny remains unforgivable. Many of his psychiatric issues are evident, whether it's in his roman-à-clef, The Sun Also Rises, or in his short stories like In Another Country. While his adulthood troubles with depression and eventual suicide are well-known, I was not aware that he suffered post-electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) memory loss. I suppose that makes me soften towards Hem and it will most likely colour my perceptions when I read A Movable Feast, his only success after 1960. Rather than view it as someone reflecting on his youth at the tail-end of his life, I now wonder if Papa was trying to hang on to his precious recollections as they slipped out of grasp.
Third, although we all know that "mental institutions" can make people feel disenfranchised, each time that I read about it, I am hit anew with just how much damage they can do. So I'm thinking now of Sylvia Plath who also received ECT, foreshadowed in those chilling opening lines to her book, The Bell Jar , that have stayed with me through all these many years since I read it: "It was a queer, sultry summer, the summer they executed the Rosenbergs..." A clearer understanding of the practices in these institutions makes me review elements of the protagonist Esther's story, her frustrations, in a different light. It reminds me that we need to keep reevaluating whether our treatments adhere to the "do no harm" doctrine, seeing as Plath eventually killed herself, too. There's even a tinge of the humanistic and existential therapies mentioned here in Esther's most famous refrain: "I took a deep breath and listened to the old brag of my heart. I am, I am, I am." These institutions could be callous and reading about their history also brought back famous lines by Ginsberg: "I'm with you in Rockland/ where fifty more shocks will never return your soul to its body again from its pilgrimage to a cross in the void". (Howl) I ought to return to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest some day.
Fourth and last, I was quite taken aback by the authors' take on an iconic character, Scarlett O'Hara from Gone with the Wind. It's worth noting at this point that all four authors of this book are men, seeing as they cast this character as an example of "Histrionic Personality Disorder", an inherently misogynistic term and diagnosis as it is. It's remarkable how these men failed to see the development of that character over the course of a movie that I've watched thrice; I feel obliged to vindicate her. Sure, she starts off as petty, immature and attention-seeking, but no one can deny her tenacity, fearlessness and grit by the end of the movie. Hers was a surprisingly feminist representation for its day and age. But going by the authors' words, a well-rounded woman, who is not your conventional, demure type, was too alien to the screen back then. That brings me to a major drawback of the book: it's packed with questionable statements and it uncritically repeats baseless discriminatory interpretations, particularly of the gender binary, that have no place in 2022. This calls for a rewrite, with more scepticism towards antiquated notions.
As is obvious, this book gave me much food for thought, even going so far as to alter my opinions on other media. I also like that it raises relevant questions about the pathologisation of psychological issues and the scientific model. It's always good to be challenged with pointed, intelligent rationale. This is the function of good books; they should affect you this deeply. So I'm glad that my course curriculum led me to this, and I would easily recommend it even to those with only a casual interest in psychology and the human mind. It's a treasure trove of the interesting ideas that people have contributed to our understanding of the self and others.
First and foremost: Philip Roth's scandalous yet hilarious book, Portnoy's Complaint . I'm almost embarrassed now by my 2016 review of that book. While I'd apprehended its stream-of-consciousness prose style, the confessional framing device and the Oedipal undercurrent, I missed the other pervasive Freudian themes that now add a whole new layer of depth to the book and make me appreciate its cleverness even more. Roth employed the concepts of free association, repression, unresolved conflicts, the ego and superego's struggle over the id, memory distortions, slips of the tongue, etc. to great effect in the narrative. I'm reexamining Alexander Portnoy's neurotic battle with his Jewish identity through a Jungian lens. There's also shades of the psychodynamic theories of Adler and Horney in the character's basic anxiety/hostility and interpersonal maladaptations.
Second, as most people who have spoken to me at length know, I have a complicated love-hate relationship with Hemingway. I have tremendous admiration for his iceberg theory (that I now view as an elaborate written form of repression) but his misogyny remains unforgivable. Many of his psychiatric issues are evident, whether it's in his roman-à-clef, The Sun Also Rises, or in his short stories like In Another Country. While his adulthood troubles with depression and eventual suicide are well-known, I was not aware that he suffered post-electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) memory loss. I suppose that makes me soften towards Hem and it will most likely colour my perceptions when I read A Movable Feast, his only success after 1960. Rather than view it as someone reflecting on his youth at the tail-end of his life, I now wonder if Papa was trying to hang on to his precious recollections as they slipped out of grasp.
Third, although we all know that "mental institutions" can make people feel disenfranchised, each time that I read about it, I am hit anew with just how much damage they can do. So I'm thinking now of Sylvia Plath who also received ECT, foreshadowed in those chilling opening lines to her book, The Bell Jar , that have stayed with me through all these many years since I read it: "It was a queer, sultry summer, the summer they executed the Rosenbergs..." A clearer understanding of the practices in these institutions makes me review elements of the protagonist Esther's story, her frustrations, in a different light. It reminds me that we need to keep reevaluating whether our treatments adhere to the "do no harm" doctrine, seeing as Plath eventually killed herself, too. There's even a tinge of the humanistic and existential therapies mentioned here in Esther's most famous refrain: "I took a deep breath and listened to the old brag of my heart. I am, I am, I am." These institutions could be callous and reading about their history also brought back famous lines by Ginsberg: "I'm with you in Rockland/ where fifty more shocks will never return your soul to its body again from its pilgrimage to a cross in the void". (Howl) I ought to return to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest some day.
Fourth and last, I was quite taken aback by the authors' take on an iconic character, Scarlett O'Hara from Gone with the Wind. It's worth noting at this point that all four authors of this book are men, seeing as they cast this character as an example of "Histrionic Personality Disorder", an inherently misogynistic term and diagnosis as it is. It's remarkable how these men failed to see the development of that character over the course of a movie that I've watched thrice; I feel obliged to vindicate her. Sure, she starts off as petty, immature and attention-seeking, but no one can deny her tenacity, fearlessness and grit by the end of the movie. Hers was a surprisingly feminist representation for its day and age. But going by the authors' words, a well-rounded woman, who is not your conventional, demure type, was too alien to the screen back then. That brings me to a major drawback of the book: it's packed with questionable statements and it uncritically repeats baseless discriminatory interpretations, particularly of the gender binary, that have no place in 2022. This calls for a rewrite, with more scepticism towards antiquated notions.
As is obvious, this book gave me much food for thought, even going so far as to alter my opinions on other media. I also like that it raises relevant questions about the pathologisation of psychological issues and the scientific model. It's always good to be challenged with pointed, intelligent rationale. This is the function of good books; they should affect you this deeply. So I'm glad that my course curriculum led me to this, and I would easily recommend it even to those with only a casual interest in psychology and the human mind. It's a treasure trove of the interesting ideas that people have contributed to our understanding of the self and others.
August 4, 2007
My first psychology book. Buku dewa-nya kita nih... A good one!
August 20, 2019
Abv mgd,uyg./loj.m nfxhntf.u nu;oin kg.oui/po;jk
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 12, 2020
Excellent 👍👍 work
Want to read
November 17, 2021hi
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 29, 2023
I am reading this some pages and I want to read continuously.
November 28, 2013
كتاب مفيد جدا ورائع وغير ممل ولا يوجد تكرار في الأفكار وتطبيق عملي لكل فكرة يطرحها
الكتاب يناقش كيفية الدراسة بالطرق المثلى وبكفاءة وأسباب الفشل ويطرح حلول وخطط وبرامج للدراسة سواء للمدرسة او للجامعة
انصح الجميع بقرأته
الكتاب يناقش كيفية الدراسة بالطرق المثلى وبكفاءة وأسباب الفشل ويطرح حلول وخطط وبرامج للدراسة سواء للمدرسة او للجامعة
انصح الجميع بقرأته
February 2, 2016
College text.
May 29, 2021
I like how they give examples and history surrounding any topic to help the readers get more than surface-level understanding, especially how they gave instances of therapy dialogue was nice.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews