Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental Psychology and Distortions of Common Sense

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Respect for Thought

Part of the book series: Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences ((THHSS))

Abstract

This chapter outlines a critique of experimental psychology, based on Jan Smedslund’s work on the epistemic status of common-sense psychology. The critique is fleshed out with several examples from experimental research on cognitive control, cheating, self-reference bias, and sense of agency. Claims about discovery of surprising or general findings, at least in some cases, depend on neglecting or distorting common-sense psychology. Attention to psychological common sense, therefore, can sensitize us to certain types of error (e.g., pseudo-empirical research, over-generalization), similar to how attention to quantitative research can sensitize us to certain types of error (e.g., the so-called type I and type II errors). I consider possible objections from the standpoint of experimental researchers, as well as reasons for a prolonged neglect of common-sense psychology.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Akçay, Ç., & Hazeltine, E. (2008). Conflict adaptation depends on task structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(4), 958–973.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bergner, R. M. (2010). What is descriptive psychology? An introduction. In K. Davis, F. Lubuguin, & W. Schwartz (Eds.), Advances in descriptive psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 325–360). Ann Arbor, MI: Descriptive Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergner, R. M. (2016). What is behaviour? And why is it not reducible to biological states of affairs? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 36, 41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. (2013). Learn to write badly: How to succeed in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann, S. (2010). Psychology as a moral science: Perspectives on normativity. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruana, F., Avanzini, P., Gozzo, F., Francione, S., Cardinale, F., & Rizzolatti, G. (2015). Mirth and laughter elicited by electrical stimulation of the human anterior cingulate cortex. Cortex, 71, 323–331.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Casullo, A., & Thurow, J. C. (Eds.). (2013). The a priori in philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple, T. (2015). Admirable evasions: How psychology undermines morality. New York: Encounter Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1988). Précis of the intentional stance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(3), 495–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3, 357–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Demanet, J., Muhle-Karbe, P. S., Lynn, M. T., Blotenberg, I., & Brass, M. (2013). Power to the will: how exerting physical effort boosts the sense of agency. Cognition, 129, 574–578.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Engelsted, N. (2017). Catching up with Aristotle: a journey in quest of general psychology. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estes, Z., & Barsalou, L. W. (2018). A comprehensive meta-analysis of spatial interference from linguistic cues: Beyond Petrova et al. (2018). Psychological Science (Online first).

    Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for ‘top-down’ effects. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, e229, 1–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F. (2013). Lies in disguise—An experimental study on cheating. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 525–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P., Jost, J., & Warglien, M. (2018). From actions to effects: Three constraints on event mappings. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1391.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, A. (2013). Reflections on the status and direction of psychology: An external historical perspective. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 44(2), 244–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, A. P., Mahadevan, N., & Sedikides, C. (2017). The SPOT effect: People spontaneously prefer their own theories. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(6), 996–1010.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gozli, D. G. (2017). Behaviour versus performance: The veiled commitment of experimental psychology. Theory & Psychology, 27, 741–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gozli, D. G. (2019). Experimental psychology and human agency. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gozli, D. G., & Dolcini, N. (2018). Reaching into the unknown: Actions, goal hierarchies, and explorative agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 266.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9(4), 383–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibberd, F. (2014). The metaphysical basis of a process psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 34(3), 161–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibberd, F. J. (2016). Is conceptual analysis only an inquiry into rules for the use of concepts? Theory & Psychology, 26(6), 815–822.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig, B. E., & Thielmann, I. (2017). Does everyone have a price? On the role of payoff magnitude for ethical decision making. Cognition, 163, 15–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2015). Learning from history: The need for a synthetic approach to human cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1435.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Juhl, C., & Loomis, E. (2010). Analyticity. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1992). Common-sense psychology and scientific psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukla, A. (1989). Nonempirical issues in psychology. American Psychologist, 44(5), 785–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, D., & Srinivasan, N. (2014). Naturalizing sense of agency with a hierarchical event-control approach. PLoS One, 9(3), e92431.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lamiell, J. T. (2003). Beyond individual and group differences: Human individuality, scientific psychology, and William Stern’s critical personalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2010). 50 great myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread misconceptions about human behavior. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mammen, J. (2017). A new logical foundation for psychology. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mammen, J., & Gozli, D. (2018). Rebellion, theory, and dialogue: an interview with Jens Mammen. Human Arenas (Online first).

    Google Scholar 

  • Melser, D. (2004). The act of thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minohara, R., Wen, W., Hamasaki, S., Maeda, T., Kato, M., Yamakawa, H., Yamashita, A., & Asama, H. (2016). Strength of intentional effort enhances the sense of agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1165.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ossorio, P. (2006). The behavior of persons. Ann Arbor, MI: Descriptive Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacherie, E. (2008). The phenomenology of action: A conceptual framework. Cognition, 107(1), 179–217.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petrova, A., Navarrete, E., Suitner, C., Sulpizio, S., Reynolds, M., Job, R., & Peressotti, F. (2018). Spatial congruency effects exist, just not for words: Looking into Estes, Verges, and Barsalou (2008). Psychological Science, 29(7), 1195–1199.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2011). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. Pinter & Martin Ltd. (Originally published in 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Seli, P., Schacter, D. L., Risko, E. F., & Smilek, D. (2018). Increasing participant motivation reduces rates of intentional and unintentional mind wandering. Psychological Research (Online first).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellars, W. (1963). Science, perception, and reality. Austin, TX: Ridgeview Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaney, K. (2017). Validating psychological constructs: Historical, philosophical, and practical dimensions. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), 160384.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (1978). Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy: A set of common sense theorems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 19(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (1979). Between the analytic and the arbitrary: A case study of psychological research. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 20(1), 129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (1987). The epistemic status of inter-item correlations in Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire: The a priori versus the empirical in psychological data. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 28(1), 42–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (1988). Psycho-logic. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (1991). The pseudoempirical in psychology and the case for psychologic. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 325–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (1994). Non-empirical and empirical components in the hypotheses of five social psychological experiments. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 35(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (1997a). The ambiguity of covariation: A conceptual note. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38(1), 35–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (1997b). The structure of psychological common sense. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (2002). From hypothesis-testing psychology to procedure-testing psychologic. Review of General Psychology, 6(1), 51–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (2009). The mismatch between current research methods and the nature of psychological phenomena: What researchers must learn from practitioners. Theory & Psychology, 19(6), 778–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (2012a). The bricoleur model of psychological practice. Theory & Psychology, 22(5), 643–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (2012b). Psycho-logic: Some thoughts and after-thoughts. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55, 295–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (2013). From nonsense syllables to holding hands: Sixty years as a psychologist. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (2016). Why psychology cannot be an empirical science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(2), 185–195.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J., & Ross, L. (2014). Based knowledge in psychology: What, if anything, is its incremental value to the practitioner? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48(4), 365–383.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stam, H. (1990). What distinguishes lay persons’ psychological explanations from those of psychologists? In W. J. Baker, M. E. Hyland, R. van Hezewijk, & S. Terwee (Eds.), Recent trends in theoretical psychology (Vol. II, pp. 97–106). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam, H. (2000). Logic or psychologism: Smedslund’s psychologic and health. Journal of Health Psychology, 5(2), 161–164.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, P. F. (1992). Analysis and metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Striemer, C. L., Whitwell, R. L., & Goodale, M. A. (2017). Affective blindsight in the absence of input from face processing regions in occipital-temporal cortex. Neuropsychologia (Online first).

    Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. (2006). The critique of psychology: From Kant to postcolonial theory. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. (2018). Outline of theoretical psychology: Critical investigations. New York, NY: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tissaw, M. A., & Osbeck, L. M. (2007). On critical engagement with the mainstream: Introduction. Theory & Psychology, 17(2), 155–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Steenbergen, H., Langeslag, S. J., Band, G. P., & Hommel, B. (2014). Reduced cognitive control in passionate lovers. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 444–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J. (2012). A guided science: History of psychology in the mirror of its making. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J. (2017). From methodology to methods in human psychology. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallach, L., & Wallach, M. A. (2001). Experiments in social psychology: Science or self-deception? Theory & Psychology, 11(4), 451–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. B. (1916). The place of the conditioned-reflex in psychology. Psychological Review, 23, 89–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen, W., Yamashita, A., & Asama, H. (2015). The influence of goals on sense of control. Consciousness and Cognition, 37, 83–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Tobias G. Lindstad and Jaan Valsiner for their very helpful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Macau, Macao, China

    Davood Gozli

Authors
  1. Davood Gozli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davood Gozli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Asker, Norway

    Tobias G. Lindstad

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Erik Stänicke

  3. Department of Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

    Jaan Valsiner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gozli, D. (2020). Experimental Psychology and Distortions of Common Sense. In: Lindstad, T., Stänicke, E., Valsiner, J. (eds) Respect for Thought. Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43066-5_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation