Why Psychology Cannot be an Empirical Science

  • Jan SmedslundEmail author
Regular Article


The current empirical paradigm for psychological research is criticized because it ignores the irreversibility of psychological processes, the infinite number of influential factors, the pseudo-empirical nature of many hypotheses, and the methodological implications of social interactivity. An additional point is that the differences and correlations usually found are much too small to be useful in psychological practice and in daily life. Together, these criticisms imply that an objective, accumulative, empirical and theoretical science of psychology is an impossible project.


Empirical science Generalized human mind Irreversibility Infinite number of factors The pseudo-empirical Social interactivity Practical relevance 


  1. Arnulf, J. K., Larsen, K. R., Martinsen, O. L., & Bong, C. H. (2015). Predicting survey responses: how and why semantics shape survey statistics on organizational behavior. PloS One, 9(9), 1–13.Google Scholar
  2. Hull, C. L., Hovland, C. I., Ross, R. T., Hall, M., Perkins, D. T., & Fitch, F. B. (1940). Mathematico-deductive theory of rote learning. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Hull, C. L. (1955). A behavior system. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Kukla, A. (2001). Methods of theoretical psychology. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Lamiell, J. T. (2015). Statistical thinking in psychological research. In J. Martin, J. Sugarman, & K. L. Slaney (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology (pp. 200–215). New York: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Mammen, J., & Mironenko, I. (2015). Activity theories and the ontology of psychology: learning from Danish and Russian experiences. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(4), 687–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Semin, G. R., & Krahé, B. (1987). Lay conceptions of personality: eliciting tiers of a scientific conception of personality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Semin, G. R., & Krahé, B. (1988). Explaining perceived cross-situational consistency: intuitive psychometrics or semantic mediation? European Journal of Personality, 2, 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Smedslund, G. (1997a). Some psychological theories are not empirical: a conceptual analysis of the ‘stages of change’ model. Theory & Psychology, 529–544.Google Scholar
  10. Smedslund, J. (1997b). The structure of psychological common sense. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. Smedslund, G. (2000). A pragmatic basis for judging models and theories in health psychology: the axiomatic method. Journal of Health Psychology, 5(2), 133–149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Smedslund, G. (2008). All bachelors are unmarried men (p < 0.05). Quality and Quantity, 42, 53–73.Google Scholar
  13. Smedslund, J. (1961). The utilization of probabilistic cues after 1100 and 4800 stimulus presentations. Acta Psychologica, 1961(18), 383–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smedslund, J. (1991). The pseudoempirical in psychology and the case for psychologic. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Smedslund, J. (1994a). Nonempirical and empirical components in the hypotheses of five social psychological experiments. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 35, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smedslund, J. (1994b). What kind of propositions are set forth in developmental research? Five case studies. Human Development, 37, 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smedslund, J. (2009). The mismatch between current research methods and the nature of psychological phenomena. Theory & Psychology, 19, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smedslund, J., & Ross, L. (2014). Research-based knowledge in psychology: what if anything, is its incremental value to the practitioner? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43(4), 363–383.Google Scholar
  19. Speelman, C. P., & McGann, M. (2013). How mean is the mean? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Teigen, K. H. (2002). One hundred years of laws in psychology. American Journal of Psychology., 115, 103–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Wallach, M. A., & Wallach, L. (1998). When experiments serve little purpose: misguided research in mainstream psychology. Theory & Psychology, 8, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations