Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
Hull, C. L. (1955). A behavior system. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kukla, A. (2001). Methods of theoretical psychology. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
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.
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.
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.
Semin, G. R., & Krahé, B. (1988). Explaining perceived cross-situational consistency: intuitive psychometrics or semantic mediation? European Journal of Personality, 2, 239–252.
Smedslund, G. (1997a). Some psychological theories are not empirical: a conceptual analysis of the ‘stages of change’ model. Theory & Psychology, 529–544.
Smedslund, J. (1997b). The structure of psychological common sense. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
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.
Smedslund, G. (2008). All bachelors are unmarried men (p < 0.05). Quality and Quantity, 42, 53–73.
Smedslund, J. (1961). The utilization of probabilistic cues after 1100 and 4800 stimulus presentations. Acta Psychologica, 1961(18), 383–386.
Smedslund, J. (1991). The pseudoempirical in psychology and the case for psychologic. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 325–338.
Smedslund, J. (1994a). Nonempirical and empirical components in the hypotheses of five social psychological experiments. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 35, 1–15.
Smedslund, J. (1994b). What kind of propositions are set forth in developmental research? Five case studies. Human Development, 37, 259–276.
Smedslund, J. (2009). The mismatch between current research methods and the nature of psychological phenomena. Theory & Psychology, 19, 1–17.
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.
Speelman, C. P., & McGann, M. (2013). How mean is the mean? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–12.
Teigen, K. H. (2002). One hundred years of laws in psychology. American Journal of Psychology., 115, 103–118.
Wallach, M. A., & Wallach, L. (1998). When experiments serve little purpose: misguided research in mainstream psychology. Theory & Psychology, 8, 183–194.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smedslund, J. Why Psychology Cannot be an Empirical Science. Integr. psych. behav. 50, 185–195 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9339-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9339-x