Advertisement

Introduction: Mainstream Psychology’s Worrisome Incorrigibility

  • James T. LamiellEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in the Theory and History of Psychology book series (PSTHP)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the manifest incorrigibility of mainstream scientific psychology in the face of trenchant critiques of the long-standing practice of interpreting statistical research findings defined only for aggregates of subjects as if those findings warranted claims to scientific knowledge of individuals within the aggregates. It is argued that the untoward consequences of this practice, which are both epistemic and socio-ethical in nature, have historically been concealed by the custom of speaking and writing about aggregate statistical research findings in ways that conflate the distinction between frequentist and subjectivist understandings of probability. Mainstream psychology’s refusal to come to terms with this essentially conceptual problem is discussed in the light of a warning issued by Wilhelm Wundt more than a century ago that a psychology unmindful of the crucial role of conceptual inquiry in all of science would in time imperil its own existence.

References

  1. Bakan, D. (1955). The general and the aggregate: A methodological distinction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 5, 211–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, M., & Hacker, P. M. S. (2003). Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Boring, E. G. (1950). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  5. Costa, R. E., & Shimp, C. P. (2011). Methods courses and texts in psychology: “Textbook science” and “tourist brochures”. American Psychologist, 31, 25–43.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowles, M. (1989). Statistics in psychology: An historical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dilthey, W. (1894). Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie [Ideas concerning a descriptive and an analytical psychology]. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1309–1407. Zweiter Halbband.Google Scholar
  10. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Über das Gedächtnis. Leipzig: Duncker & Humbolt.Google Scholar
  11. Harré, R. (1981). The positivist-empiricist approach and its alternative. In P. Reason & J. Rowan (Eds.), Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research (pp. 3–17). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Jüttemann, G. (Ed.). (2006). Wilhelm Wundts anderes Erbe: Ein Missverständnis lost sich auf. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  13. Kerlinger, F. N. (1979). Behavioral research: A conceptual approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  14. Lamiell, J. T. (2003). Beyond individual and group differences: Human individuality, scientific psychology, and William Stern’s critical personalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Lamiell, J. T. (2013). On psychology’s struggle for existence: Some reflections on Wundt’s 1913 essay a century on. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33, 205–215.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lamiell, J. T. (2015). Statistical thinking in psychological research: In quest of clarity through historical inquiry and conceptual analysis. In J. Martin, J. Sugarman, & K. L. Slaney (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology: Methods, approaches, and new directions for social sciences (pp. 200–215). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Lamiell, J. T. (2016). On the concept of ‘effects’ in contemporary psychological experimentation: A case study in the need for conceptual clarity and discursive precision. In R. Harré & F. Moghaddam (Eds.), Questioning causality: Scientific explorations of cause and consequence across social contexts (pp. 83–102). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar
  18. Machado, A., & Silva, F. J. (2007). Toward a richer view of the scientific method: The role of conceptual analysis. American Psychologist, 62, 671–681.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.7.671.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Monitor on Psychology, A Publication of the American Psychological Association. November, 2016.Google Scholar
  20. Münsterberg, H. (1913). Psychology and industrial efficiency. Boston and New York: Houghton-Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Porter, T. R. (1986). The rise of statistical thinking: 1820–1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Skinner, B. F. (1990). Can psychology be a science of mind? American Psychologist, 45, 1206–1210.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.11.1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stern, W. (1900). Über Psychologie der individuellen Differenzen (Ideen zu einer “differentiellen Psychologie”) [On the psychology of individual differences (Toward a “differential psychology”)]. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  24. Stern, W. (1911). Die Differentielle Psychologie in ihrer methodischen Grundlagen [Methodological foundations of differential psychology]. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  25. Stern, W. (1927). Selbstdarstellung [Self-portrayal]. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Philosophie der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen (Vol. 6, pp. 128–184). Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  26. Venn, J. (1888). The logic of chance. London and New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Watson, J. B. (1928). The ways of behaviorism. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
  28. Windelband, W. (1894/1998). History and natural science (J. T. Lamiell, Trans.). Theory and Psychology, 8, 6–22.Google Scholar
  29. Wundt, W. (1912). Elemente der Völkerpsychologie. Leipzig: Alfred Kröner Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Wundt, W. (2013). Psychology’s struggle for existence (J. T. Lamiell, Trans.). History of Psychology, 16, 195–209.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0032319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations