Introduction

While accompanied by considerable satisfaction, writing this chapter has also caused some noteworthy reservation, embarrassment, and trepidation in me. Specifically, the basis for this book is Diener, Oishi, and Park's “incomplete list of 200 eminent modern psychologists.” In my opinion, though, certain enormously distinguished scientists fall much lower down the list than their true eminence merits. For example, there's R. Duncan Luce, who revolutionized research on psychological measurement theory, individual choice behavior, and much else of Mathematical Psychology. In 2003, he received the National Medal of Science, the United States’ highest scientific honor. His seminal contributions have inspired multiple individuals in the nominal top twenty-five “eminent modern psychologists.” Yet Luce ranks only 170th on Diener et al.'s list. Several other extremely eminent psychological scientists aren't even on the list. I feel embarrassed to get ranked above them, and I'm also embarrassed that our scholarly field would have profound contributors such as Luce ranked much lower than they deserve.

So what went awry here? “Eminent” ordinarily means “highly successful, famous, and respected (also distinguished, authoritative, and excellent) in a particular sphere or profession.” Apparently, however, Diener et al.'s operational definition of “eminent” emphasized fame far more than respect. Especially dubious in this imbalanced regard was their heavy (33 percent) weighting of page counts from introductory psychology texts in the composite “eminence” scores.

I fear that Diener et al.'s resultant ranking of putative “eminent” modern psychologists may further encourage research aimed at achieving rapid fame rather than rigorous, long-lasting, fundamental scientific findings. Indeed, there's already such an undesirable trend underway. Pressures to gain quick recognition in highly visible journals that publish “short-form” articles with “sexy” titles and minimal, perfunctorily reported studies have escalated. Questionable, fragile, difficult-to-replicate findings have also increased dramatically. These worrisome developments are exactly what our field does not need. I'd therefore urge young psychological scientists to eschew rapid superficial fame, mass production of “sexy” but shallow research, and efforts toward maximizing nominal “eminence” scores.

Important Scientific Contributions

Accompanying these preceding considerations, I have what may seem like an idiosyncratic take on my own “important” scientific contributions. For me, true importance is multi-dimensional.