Advertisement

Statisticism in Psychology as a Socio-ethical Problem

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

Abstract

The heretofore unshakable belief among contemporary mainstream psychologists in statistical methods of inquiry defines what I christened several years ago ‘statisticism.’ After briefly reiterating the epistemic problem created by that –ism, i.e., the blindness it creates in its advocates to the logically unbridgeable gap between aggregate-level research findings and individual-level knowledge objectives, I note that because psychology is not only a basic science but also an applied discipline that underwrites interventions in the lives of individuals, there is a socio-ethical facet to the problem as well. This facet is then discussed within the context of two examples. One is drawn from the province of the evidence-based practice movement in psychology, and the other from the province of psychological testing in the service of preemployment screening. The latter portion of the chapter is focused on broader considerations of a socio-ethical nature. There, the discussion elaborates the way in which statisticism mandates a view of persons as things, and the potentially untoward consequences of this view for the individuals in whose lives statistically guided interventions are implemented.

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1968). The person in psychology: Selected essays by Gordon W. Allport. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  2. APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakan, D. (1955). The general and the aggregate: A methodological distinction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 5, 211–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, T. B., McFall, R. M., & Shoham, V. (2008). The current state and future of clinical psychology. Toward a scientifically principled approach. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 67–103. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01036x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banicki, K. (2018). Psychology, conceptual confusion, and disquieting situationism: Response to Lamiell. Theory and Psychology, 28, 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318759609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Danziger, K. (1987). Statistical method and the historical development of research practice in American psychology. In L. Krueger, G. Gigerenzer, & M. S. Morgan (Eds.), The probabilistic revolution, Vol. 2: Ideas in the sciences (pp. 35–47). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hake, A. (2001). Was sagen gruppenstatistische Kennwerte über den Einzelfall aus? Ein Text-und Übungsbuch [What do aggregate statistics reveal about the single case? A text and workbook]. Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.Google Scholar
  8. Hanson, F. A. (1993). Testing testing: Social consequences of the examined life. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hollon, S. D. (2017). Statement of candidate for APA president. Monitor on Psychology, 48, 66.Google Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kazdin, A. E. (2008). Evidence-based treatment and practice: New opportunities to bridge clinical research and practice, enhance the knowledge base, and improve patient care. American Psychologist, 63, 146–159. https://doi.org/1037/0003-066X.63.3.146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kerlinger, F. N. (1979). Behavioral research: A conceptual approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  14. Lamiell, J. T. (1998). “Nomothetic” and “idiographic”: Contrasting Windelband’s understanding with contemporary usage. Theory and Psychology, 8, 23–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Lamiell, J. T. (2013). Statisticism in personality psychologists’ use of trait constructs: What is it? How was it contracted? Is there a cure? New Ideas in Psychology, 31, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsyh.2011.02.009.CrossRefGoogle 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. M. Moghaddam (Eds.), Questioning causality: Scientific explorations of cause and consequence across social contexts (pp. 83–102). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar
  18. Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial-organizational psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Lilienfeld, S. O., Ritschel, L. A., Lynn, S. J., Cautin, R. L., & Latzman, R. D. (2013). Why many clinical psychologists are resistant to evidence-based practice: Root causes and constructive remedies. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 883–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meehl, P. E. (1973). Why I do not attend case conferences. In P. E. Meehl (Ed.), Psychodiagnosis: Selected papers (pp. 225–302). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  21. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Porter, T. M. (1986). The rise of statistical thinking: 1820–1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rychlak, J. W. (1988). The psychology of rigorous humanism (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Stern, W. (1917/2010). Psychology and personalism (J. T. Lamiell, Trans.). New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 110–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.02.005.
  25. Stern, W. (1929). Persönlichkeitsforschung und Testmethode [Personality research and the methods of testing]. Jahrbuch der Charakterologie, 6, 63–72.Google Scholar
  26. Stern, W. (1933). Der personale Faktor in Psychotechnik und praktischer Psychologie [The personal factor in psychotechnics and applied psychologie]. Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie, 44, 52–63.Google Scholar
  27. Tasco, G. A., Town, J. M., Abbas, A., & Clarke, J. (2018). Will publicly funded psychotherapy in Canada be evidence based? A review of what makes psychotherapy work and a proposal. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 59, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Valsiner, J. (1986). Between groups and individuals: Psychologists’ and laypersons’ interpretations of correlational findings. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The individual subject and scientific psychology (pp. 113–151). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Venn, J. (1888). The logic of chance. London and New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Wendt, D. C., & Slife, B. D. (2007). Is evidence-based practice diverse enough? Philosophy of science considerations. American Psychologist, 62, 613–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X62.6.613.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Windelband, W. (1894/1998). History and natural science (J. T. Lamiell, Trans.). Theory and Psychology, 8, 6–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations