Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a Framework for Unifying Research in Theoretical Psychology

  • Research
  • Published:
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current criticism of theoretical psychology concerns, in particular, the state of its foundations and the construction of theories, while the evolution of the discipline leads to its disunity. According to one of the points of view discussed, psychological knowledge must be unified in order to overcome theoretical fragmentation. Those who are concerned about the lack of a unified theory in psychology explore various aspects of disunity and the possibility of unifying theoretical psychology. In recent decades, a number of approaches to unification have been developed, and now theoretical studies of unification need to be harmonized. I believe that in order to develop a solid framework, it makes sense to reach a consensus on the general, conceptual and methodological ideas of unification. On this basis, it would be possible to develop a program for creating an approach to unification in theoretical psychology, and I propose an outline of three possible ones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, N. H. (2008). Unified social cognition. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H. (2016). Information integration theory: Unified psychology based on three mathematical laws. Universitas Psychologica, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy15-3.iitu

  • Ball, G., & Medintsev, V. (2016). Teoretiko-mnozhestvennyy metod opisaniya protsessov i yego primeneniye v psikhologii [The set-theoretic method for describing processes and its application in psychology]. Kiev: Pedagogicheskaya mysl’.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beall, J. C., & Restall, G. (2006). Logical pluralism. Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. (2010). Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M., & Fini, C. (2019). Theories and explanations in psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 958. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00958

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., Dalege, J., Kievit, R. A., & Haig, B. D. (2021). Theory construction methodology: a practical framework for building theories in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 756–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620969647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chemero, A., & Silberstein, M. (2008). After the philosophy of mind: replacing scholasticism with science. Philosophy of Science, 75(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1086/587820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiari, G. (2009). The issue of the unity and specificity of psychology from the viewpoint of a constructivist epistemology. Humana Mente, 11, 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P. M. (1984). Matter and consciousness: A contemporary introduction to the philosophy of mind. MIT Press and Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druzhinin, V. N. (1994). Struktura i logika psihologicheskogo issledovaniia [The structure and logic of psychological research]. Moskva: IPRAN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A. (1936). Physik und Realität. Journal Franklin Institut, 221(3), 313–347.

  • Eronen, M. I., & Romeijn, J.-W. (2020). Philosophy of science and the formalization of psychological theory. Theory & Psychology, 30(6), 786–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320969876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fetters, M., & Molina-Azorin, J. (2017). The journal of mixed methods research starts a new decade: the mixed methods research integration trilogy and its dimensions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817714066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, K. (2017). What constitutes strong psychological science? The (neglected) role of diagnosticity and a priori theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616654458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaj, N. (2018). Psychology between science and technology: A proposal for the development of a theory of practice. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 38(2), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gijsbers, V. (2007). Why unification is neither necessary nor sufficient for explanation. Philosophy of Science, 74(4), 481–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gijsbers, V. (2016). Explanatory pluralism and the (dis)unity of Science: the argument from incompatible counterfactual consequences. Front. Psychiatry, 7, 32. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00032

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goertzen, J. R. (2008). On the possibility of unification: the reality and nature of the crisis in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18, 829–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354308097260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C. (2015). Preserving distinctions within the multimethod and mixed methods merger. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 606–615). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, G. R. (2008). The problem of psychology and the integration of human knowledge: contrasting Wilson’s consilience with the tree of knowledge system. Theory & Psychology, 18, 731–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, G. (2011). A new unified theory of psychology. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0058-5

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, J. B. (2013). What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflections on the very idea of disciplinary integration. Synthese, 190, 1865–1879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0179-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horst, S. (2007). Beyond reduction: philosophy of mind and post-reductionist philosophy of science. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, K.-K. (2013). The construction of culture-inclusive theories by multiple philosophical paradigms. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 2(7), 46–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, K. K. (2023). An epistemological strategy for initiating scientific revolution against WEIRD psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 57, 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09681-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kalmar, D. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Theory knitting: An integrative approach to theory development. Philosophical Psychology, 1(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515088808572934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: the search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendler, H. H. (1970). The unity of psychology. Canadian Psychologist/psychologie Canadienne, 11(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusch, M. (2017). Epistemic relativism, scepticism, pluralism. Synthese, 194, 4687–4703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1041-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Langton, C. G. (1990). Computation at the edge of chaos: phase transitions and emergent computation. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42, 12–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, G. (2020). A grand challenge for personality and social psychology: competition, cooperation, or co-existence? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1570. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01570

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mazilov, V. A. (2016). Kommunikativnaya metodologiya i integratsiya psikhologicheskogo znaniya [Communicative methodology and integration of psychological knowledge]. Iaroslavskii` Pedagogicheskii` Vestneyk, (3), 181–191.

  • Mazilov, V. A. (2021). Integratciia psihologicheskogo znaniia kak metodologicheskaia problema psihologii [Integration of psychological knowledge as a methodological problem of psychology]. In V. A. Mazilov (Ed.), Integratciia v psihologii: teoriia, metodologiia, praktika: sbornik statei` IV Vserossii`skoi` nauchno-prakticheskoi` konferentcii [Integration in Psychology: Theory, Methodology, Practice] (pp. 28–38). RIO IAGPU.

  • McGann, M., & Speelman, C. P. (2020). Two kinds of theory: what psychology can learn from Einstein. Theory & Psychology, 30(5), 674–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320937804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mironenko, I. A., & Sorokin, P. S. (2020). Concerning paradigmatic status of psychological science: for a flexible and flowing psychology in the face of practical and theoretical challenges. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 604–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09530-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (2008). The toothbrush problem. APS Observer. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-toothbrush-problem. Accessed 31 Jan 2022.

  • Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Left Coast Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mos, L. P. (1987). Integrity or unity? In A. W. Staats & L. P. Mos (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 345–347). Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Panferov V. N. (2017). Metodologiia integral`nogo sinteza v psihologicheskom poznanii [Integral synthesis methodology in psychological knowledge]. In E.Iu. Korzhova (Ed.), Integrativny`i` podhod k poznaniiu psihologii cheloveka [An integrative approach to understanding human psychology] (pp. 11–30). SPb.: Izdatel`stvo RGPU im. A.I. Gercena.

  • Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I. (1980). From being to becoming. WH Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smedlund, M. B. (2021). On the foundations of psychology: the problem is grammatical, not theoretical. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 55, 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09569-6

  • Society for Unification Psychology formed (12-85) (1986). Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 6(1), 70–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091413

  • Staats, A. W. (1983). Psychology’s crisis of disunity: philosophy and method for a unified science. Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staats, A. W. (1987). Unified positivism: philosophy for the revolution to unity. In A. W. Staats & L. P. Mos (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 11–54). Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Staats, A. W. (1996). Behavior and personality: psychological behaviorism. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staats, A. W. (2005). A road to, and a philosophy of, unification. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Unity in psychology: possibility or pipedream? (pp. 159–177). APA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. (2002). Unifying psychology. Commentary to Daniel N. Robinson: inventing the subject: the renewal of “psychological” psychology. Journal of Anthropological Psychology, 11, 55–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinburne, R. (2001). Epistemic justification. New York: Oxford.

  • Trafimow, D. (2012). The role of mechanisms, integration, and unification in science and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 22(5), 697–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311433929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uher, J. (2021). Psychology’s status as a science: peculiarities and intrinsic challenges. Moving beyond its current deadlock towards conceptual integration. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 55, 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09545-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Uprichard, E., & Dawney, L. (2019). Data diffraction: challenging data integration in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816674650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J. (2020). From clay feet to new psychology: starting the move. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 515–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09564-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2021). Theory before the test: How to build high-verisimilitude explanatory theories in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 682–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970604

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G. H. (1993). The tree of knowledge and other essays. Koln: Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram, S. (1984). Computation theory of cellular automata. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 96(1), 15–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C. (1997). Fragmentation in focus: History, integration, and the project of evaluation. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 17, 150–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yela M. (1987). Toward a unified psychological science: the meaning of behavior. In H. V. Rappard, P. J. van Strien, L. P. Mos, W. J. Baker (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology (vol. 5, pp 241–274). Plenum.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Researcher at Laboratory of Methodology and Theory of Psychology, GS Kostiuk Institute of Psychology of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

    Vladislav Medintsev

Authors
  1. Vladislav Medintsev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vladislav Medintsev.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Conflict of Interest

The author declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Medintsev, V. Towards a Framework for Unifying Research in Theoretical Psychology. Integr. psych. behav. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09790-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09790-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation