Advertisement

Theory of Causality and Modern Mainstream Psychology

  • Aaro Toomela
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Psychology book series (BRIEFSPSYCHOL)

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.

Keywords

Mainstream psychology Fallacies 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Ardila, R. (1992). Toward unity in psychology: The experimental synthesis of behaviour. International Journal of Psychology, 27(5), 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bem, S., & Looren de Jong, H. (1997). Theoretical issues in psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029–1031.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernstein, D. A., Roy, E. J., Srull, T. K., & Wickens, C. D. (1988). Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Brainerd, C. J. (1978). The stage question in cognitive-developmental theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 173–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlson, N. R., Buskist, W., Martin, G. N., Hogg, M., & Abrams, D. (1997). Psychology. The science of behaviour. European adaptation. Harlow: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  17. Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., & Stich, S. (Eds.). (2005). The innate mind. Structure and contents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engelsted, N. (2017). Catching up with Aristotle. A journey in quest of general psychology. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Essex, C., & Smythe, W. E. (1999). Between numbers and notions. A critique of psychological measurement. Theory and Psychology, 9(6), 739–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feldman, R. S. (1993). Understanding psychology. International edition (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Gibson, E. J. (1994). Has psychology a future? Psychological Science, 5(2), 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gleitman, H., Fridlund, A. J., & Reisberg, D. (1999). Psychology (8th ed.). New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grusec, J. E., Lockhart, R. S., & Walters, G. C. (1990). Foundations of psychology. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Henriques, G. (2011). A new unified theory of psychology. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Book.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koch, S. (1982). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a century qua “science”. American Psychologist, 36, 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kukla, A. (1992). Unification as a goal for psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 1054–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Luria, A. R. (1974). Ob istoricheskom razvitii poznavatel’nykh processov. Eksperimental’no-psikhologicheskoje issledovanije. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
  38. Luria, A. R. (1979). Jazyk i soznanije. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Michell, J. (2000). Normal science, pathological science and psychometrics. Theory and Psychology, 10(5), 639–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. Myers, D. G. (1995). Psychology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  46. Premack, D. (1976). Intelligence in ape and man. Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Roediger, H. L., Capaldi, E. D., Paris, S. G., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1996). Psychology. Fourth edition. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  48. Simon, H. A. (1992). What is an “explanation” of behavior? Psychological Science, 3(3), 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simons, D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 76–80.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514755.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psychology. American Psychologist, 56(12), 1069–1079.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Teitelbaum, P., & Pellis, S. M. (1992). Toward a synthetic physiological psychology. Psychological Science, 3(1), 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (1997). Primate cognition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. 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.Google Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Toomela, A. (2016a). Kultuur, kõne ja Minu Ise. (Culture, speech, and My Self). Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.Google Scholar
  61. Toomela, A. (2016b). What are higher psychological functions? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(1), 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tulviste, P. (1988). Kul’turno-istoricheskoje razvitije verbal’nogo myshlenija. Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar
  64. 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.Google Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Myshlenije i rech. Psikhologicheskije issledovanija. (Thinking and speech. Psychological investigations.). Moscow: Gosudarstvennoje Social’no-ekonomicheskoje Izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
  67. 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.Google Scholar
  68. Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. R. (1930). Etjudy po istorii povedenija. Obezjana. Primitiv. Rebjonok. Moscow-Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoje Izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
  69. Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). Cognitive development: Foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 337–375.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.Google Scholar
  71. Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 548–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358, 749–750.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aaro Toomela
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Natural Sciences and HealthTallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations