Abstract
In this chapter, it is demonstrated that mainstream paradigmatic psychology, that is grounded with Cartesian–Humean primitive theory of causality, has several problems that directly follow from this causality theory. The problems that characterize the mainstream psychology are: (1) neglect of exceptions; (2) denial of emergence of novel forms; (3) the aim of science is to give names; (4) fragmentation; and (5) anything goes that is correlated.
I am not going to discuss the state of modern qualitative psychology. This science, as it was discussed in Chap. 3, is by definition a form of art, where particulars are dealt in terms of universals. Such particulars described in detail by the modern qualitative psychology may support deeper experiencing of the world but do not ground reliable and valid explanation; the latter is the aim of science.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Almost” I left there because I cannot be certain that more developed causality theory has not re-emerged somewhere.
- 2.
More likely not discovered but created by the researchers.
References
Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2002). A five-factor theory perspective. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 303–322). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Ardila, A. (2003). Culture in our brains: Cross-cultural differences in the brain-behavior relationships. In A. Toomela (Ed.), Cultural guidance in the development of the human mind (pp. 63–86). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Ardila, R. (1992). Toward unity in psychology: The experimental synthesis of behaviour. International Journal of Psychology, 27(5), 299–310.
Arribas-Aguila, D., Abad, F. J., & Colom, R. (2019). Testing the developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence using latent modelling: Evidence from the TEA Ability Battery (BAT_7). Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.043.
Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R. C., Smith, E. E., Bem, D. J., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1993). Introduction to psychology (11th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Baye, A., & Monseur, C. (2016). Gender differences in variability and extreme scores in an international context. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-015-0015-x.
Beller, S., & Bender, A. (2017). Theory, the final frontier? A corpus-based analysis of the role of theory in psychological articles. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(951), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00951.
Bem, S., & Looren de Jong, H. (1997). Theoretical issues in psychology. London: Sage.
Benbow, C. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169–232.
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029–1031.
Bernstein, D. A., Roy, E. J., Srull, T. K., & Wickens, C. D. (1988). Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Berry, J. W. (2003). Origins of cross-cultural similarities and differences in human behavior: An ecocultural perspective. In A. Toomela (Ed.), Cultural guidance in the development of the human mind (pp. 97–109). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and application (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brainerd, C. J. (1978). The stage question in cognitive-developmental theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 173–213.
Brainerd, C. J. (1993). Cognitive development is abrupt (but not stage-like). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(9), 170–190.
Carlson, N. R., Buskist, W., Martin, G. N., Hogg, M., & Abrams, D. (1997). Psychology. The science of behaviour. European adaptation. Harlow: Allyn and Bacon.
Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., & Stich, S. (Eds.). (2005). The innate mind. Structure and contents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.
Daseking, M., Petermann, F., & Waldmann, H.-C. (2017). Sex differences in cognitive abilities: Analyses from the German WAIS-IV. Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.003.
Engelsted, N. (2017). Catching up with Aristotle. A journey in quest of general psychology. Cham: Springer.
Essex, C., & Smythe, W. E. (1999). Between numbers and notions. A critique of psychological measurement. Theory and Psychology, 9(6), 739–767.
Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1224–1237.
Feldman, R. S. (1993). Understanding psychology. International edition (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gibson, E. J. (1994). Has psychology a future? Psychological Science, 5(2), 69–76.
Gleitman, H., Fridlund, A. J., & Reisberg, D. (1999). Psychology (8th ed.). New York, NY: Norton.
Green, C. D. (2015). Why psychology isn’t unified, and probably never will be. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000051.
Grusec, J. E., Lockhart, R. S., & Walters, G. C. (1990). Foundations of psychology. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman.
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x.
Henriques, G. (2011). A new unified theory of psychology. New York, NY: Springer.
Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Book.
Koch, S. (1982). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a century qua “science”. American Psychologist, 36, 257–269.
Kukla, A. (1992). Unification as a goal for psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 1054–1055.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Linn, M. C., & Petersen, J. L. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1123–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021276.
Low, P., Panksepp, J., Reiss, D., Edelman, D., Van Swinderen, B., & Koch, C. (2012). The Cambridge declaration on consciousness. Retrieved from http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
Luria, A. R. (1974). Ob istoricheskom razvitii poznavatel’nykh processov. Eksperimental’no-psikhologicheskoje issledovanije. Moscow: Nauka.
Luria, A. R. (1979). Jazyk i soznanije. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.
Mahn, H. (2010). Vygotsky’s methodological approach: A blueprint for the future of psychology. In A. Toomela & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? (pp. 297–323). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality (pp. 51–87). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In A. Lawrence & O. P. J. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 139–153). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Michell, J. (2000). Normal science, pathological science and psychometrics. Theory and Psychology, 10(5), 639–667.
Michell, J. (2010). The quantity/quality interchange: A blind spot on the highway of science. In A. Toomela & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? (pp. 45–68). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Myers, D. G. (1995). Psychology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Premack, D. (1976). Intelligence in ape and man. Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roediger, H. L., Capaldi, E. D., Paris, S. G., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1996). Psychology. Fourth edition. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing Company.
Simon, H. A. (1992). What is an “explanation” of behavior? Psychological Science, 3(3), 150–161.
Simons, D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514755.
Smith, E. E., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Fredrickson, B. L., Loftus, G. R., Bem, D. J., & Maren, S. (2003). Atkinson and Hilgard’s introduction to psychology. Fourteenth edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Stam, H. J. (2004). Unifying psychology: Epistemological act or disciplinary maneuver? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(12), 1259–1262. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20069.
Stam, H. J. (2015). The neurosciences and the search for a unified psychology: The science and esthetics of a single framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1467), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01467.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psychology. American Psychologist, 56(12), 1069–1079.
Teitelbaum, P., & Pellis, S. M. (1992). Toward a synthetic physiological psychology. Psychological Science, 3(1), 4–20.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (1997). Primate cognition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Toomela, A. (2003). Culture as a semiosphere: On the role of culture in the culture-individual relationship. In I. E. Josephs (Ed.), Dialogicality in development (pp. 129–163). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Toomela, A. (2008). Variables in psychology: A critique of quantitative psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42(3), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-008-9059-6.
Toomela, A. (2015). Vygotsky’s theory on the Procrustes’ bed of linear thinking: Looking for structural-systemic Theseus to save the idea of ‘social formation of mind’. Culture and Psychology, 21(3), 318–339.
Toomela, A. (2016a). Kultuur, kõne ja Minu Ise. (Culture, speech, and My Self). Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.
Toomela, A. (2016b). What are higher psychological functions? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(1), 91–121.
Toomela, A. (2018). Vygotskian (but only partly Vygotsky’s) understanding of special education. Educacao: Revista Quadrimestral. Porto Alegre, 41(3), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.15448/1981-2582.2018.3.31795.
Tulviste, P. (1988). Kul’turno-istoricheskoje razvitije verbal’nogo myshlenija. Tallinn: Valgus.
Vauclair, J. (2003). Would humans without language be apes? In A. Toomela (Ed.), Cultural guidance in the development of the human mind (pp. 9–26). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Veresov, N. (2010). Forgotten methodology: Vygotsky’s case. In A. Toomela & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? (pp. 267–295). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Myshlenije i rech. Psikhologicheskije issledovanija. (Thinking and speech. Psychological investigations.). Moscow: Gosudarstvennoje Social’no-ekonomicheskoje Izdatel’stvo.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. (1994). Tool and symbol in child development. (Originally written in 1930). In R. V. D. Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 99–174). Oxford: Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. R. (1930). Etjudy po istorii povedenija. Obezjana. Primitiv. Rebjonok. Moscow-Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoje Izdatel’stvo.
Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). Cognitive development: Foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 337–375.
Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1998). Knowledge acquisition in foundational domains. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Fifth edition. Volume 2: Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 523–573). New York, NY: Wiley.
Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 548–557.
Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358, 749–750.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Toomela, A. (2019). Theory of Causality and Modern Mainstream Psychology. In: The Psychology of Scientific Inquiry. SpringerBriefs in Psychology(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31449-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31449-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31448-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31449-1
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)