Shifting Focus

  • Davood Gozli


Experimental psychology tends to lose contact with the broader context of human concerns. This loss of contact is not accidental. It is an outcome of a rhetoric that preserves the status of the discipline as a natural science concerned with laws and universal regularities. What can connect the work of experimenters to a broader context is in the space of activity shared by the researchers and the research participants. This space of activity corresponds to aspects of the research method that are generally downplayed and relegated to the background. Bringing those activities into view results in (1) appreciating the place of research findings within the domain of everyday experience and (2) seeing the ambiguities of the findings and their openness to alternative interpretations.


Experimental psychology Rhetorical devices Ambiguity Reflective science Philosophy of science Metapsychology 


  1. Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billig, M. (2013). Learn to write badly: How to succeed in the social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackman, L., Cromby, J., Hook, D., Papadopoulos, D., & Walkerdine, V. (2008). Creating subjectivities. Subjectivity, 22(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardoso-Leite, P., Mamassian, P., Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Waszak, F. (2010). A new look at sensory attenuation: Action-effect anticipation affects sensitivity, not response bias. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1740–1745.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen-Cole, J. (2014). The open mind: Cold War politics and the sciences of human nature. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Colzato, L. S., Hommel, B., & Shapiro, K. (2010). Religion and the attentional blink: Depth of faith predicts depth of the blink. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 147.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Colzato, L. S., van Beest, I., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Scorolli, C., Dorchin, S., Meiran, N., … Hommel, B. (2010). God: Do I have your attention? Cognition, 117, 87–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, D. (2001). The second person. In Subjective, intersubjective, objective: Collected essays by Donald Davidson (Vol. 3). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Houwer, J. (2011). Why the cognitive approach in psychology would profit from a functional approach and vice versa. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2), 202–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. New York, NY: Little Brown & Co.Google Scholar
  12. Eagleman, D. M. (2008). Human time perception and its illusions. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 131–136.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emrich, S. M., & Ferber, S. (2012). Competition increases binding errors in visual working memory. Journal of Vision, 12(4), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. A., & Prinz, J. J. (2011). A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences moral judgment. Psychological Science, 22, 295–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falk, R., & Greenbaum, C. W. (1995). Significance tests die hard: The amazing persistence of a probabilistic misconception. Theory & Psychology, 5, 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitzgerald, D., & Callard, F. (2015). Social science and neuroscience beyond interdisciplinarity: Experimental entanglements. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. (2007). The phenomenological mind: An introduction to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gozli, D. G. (2017). Behaviour versus performance: The veiled commitment of experimental psychology. Theory & Psychology, 27, 741–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gozli, D. G., Aslam, H., & Pratt, J. (2016). Visuospatial cueing by self-caused features: Orienting of attention and action-outcome associative learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gozli, D. G., & Deng, W. (2018). Building blocks of psychology: On remaking the unkept promises of early schools. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hasson, U., Chen, J., & Honey, C. J. (2015). Hierarchical process memory: Memory as an integral component of information processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 304–313.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hibberd, F. (2014). The metaphysical basis of a process psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 34(3), 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hibberd, F. J., & Gozli, D. G. (2017). Psychology’s fragmentation and neglect of foundational assumptions: An interview with Fiona J. Hibberd. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13, 366–374.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Scorolli, C., Borghi, A. M., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2011). Religion and action control: Faith-specific modulation of the Simon effect but not stop-signal performance. Cognition, 120, 177–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kominsky, J. F., Strickland, B., Wertz, A. E., Elsner, C., Wynn, K., & Keil, F. C. (2017). Categories and constraints in causal perception. Psychological Science, 28, 1649–1662.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kukla, A. (2001). Methods of theoretical psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marken, R. S., & Carey, T. A. (2015). Controlling people: The paradoxical nature of being human. Samford Valley, Australia: Australian Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implication of cognitive psychology. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  35. Newell, A. (1992). Précis of unified theories of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 425–492.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nie, Q. Y., Müller, H. J., & Conci, M. (2017). Hierarchical organization in visual working memory: From global ensemble to individual object structure. Cognition, 159, 85–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paglieri, F., Borghi, A. M., Colzato, L. S., Hommel, B., & Scorolli, C. (2013). Heaven can wait: How religion modulates temporal discounting. Psychological Research, 77, 738–747.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child (M. Cook, Trans.). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Pomerantz, J. R., & Portillo, M. C. (2011). Grouping and emergent features in vision: Toward a theory of basic Gestalts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1331–1349.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  42. Seli, P., Risko, E. F., & Smilek, D. (2016). On the necessity of distinguishing between unintentional and intentional mind wandering. Psychological Science, 27(5), 685–691.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sellars, W. (1963). Science, perception, and reality. Austin, TX: Ridgeview Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), 160384.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smedslund, J. (1997). The structure of psychological common sense. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Summerfield, C., & Egner, T. (2009). Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 403–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Teo, T. (2018). Outline of theoretical psychology: Critical investigations. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomson, J. J. (2008). Normativity. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  49. Willett, A. B., Marken, R. S., Parker, M. G., & Mansell, W. (2017). Control blindness: Why people can make incorrect inferences about the intentions of others. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 841–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhao, J., Al-Aidroos, N., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2013). Attention is spontaneously biased toward regularities. Psychological Science, 24(5), 667–677.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313, 1451–1452.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davood Gozli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MacauTaipaMacao

Personalised recommendations