essay on is psychology a science

Is Psychology a Science?

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Psychology is a science because it employs systematic methods of observation, experimentation, and data analysis to understand and predict behavior and mental processes, grounded in empirical evidence and subjected to peer review.

Science uses an empirical approach. Empiricism (founded by John Locke) states that the only source of knowledge is our senses – e.g., sight, hearing, etc.

In psychology, empiricism refers to the belief that knowledge is derived from observable, measurable experiences and evidence, rather than from intuition or speculation.

This was in contrast to the existing view that knowledge could be gained solely through the powers of reason and logical argument (known as rationalism).  Thus, empiricism is the view that all knowledge is based on or may come from experience.

Through gaining knowledge through experience, the empirical approach quickly became scientific and greatly influenced the development of physics and chemistry in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The idea that knowledge should be gained through experience, i.e., empirically, turned into a method of inquiry that used careful observation and experiments to gather facts and evidence.

The nature of scientific inquiry may be thought of at two levels:

1. That to do with theory and the foundation of hypotheses. 2. And actual empirical methods of inquiry (i.e. experiments, observations)

The prime empirical method of inquiry in science is the experiment.

The key features of the experiment are control over variables ( independent, dependent , and extraneous ), careful, objective measurement, and establishing cause and effect relationships.

Features of Science

Empirical evidence.

• Refers to data being collected through direct observation or experiment.
• Empirical evidence does not rely on argument or belief.
• Instead, experiments and observations are carried out carefully and reported in detail so that other investigators can repeat and attempt to verify the work.

Objectivity

• Researchers should remain value-free when studying; they should try to remain unbiased in their investigations. I.e., Researchers are not influenced by personal feelings and experiences.
• Objectivity means that all sources of bias are minimized and that personal or subjective ideas are eliminated. The pursuit of science implies that the facts will speak for themselves, even if they differ from what the investigator hoped.
• All extraneous variables need to be controlled to establish the cause (IV) and effect (DV).

Hypothesis testing

• E.g., a statement made at the beginning of an investigation that serves as a prediction and is derived from a theory. There are different types of hypotheses (null and alternative), which need to be stated in a form that can be tested (i.e., operationalized and unambiguous).

Replication

• This refers to whether a particular method and finding can be repeated with different/same people and/or on different occasions to see if the results are similar.
• If a dramatic discovery is reported, but other scientists cannot replicate it, it will not be accepted.
• If we get the same results repeatedly under the same conditions, we can be sure of their accuracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
• This gives us confidence that the results are reliable and can be used to build up a body of knowledge or a theory: which is vital in establishing a scientific theory.

Predictability

• We should aim to be able to predict future behavior from the findings of our research.

The Scientific Process

Before the twentieth century, science largely used induction principles – making discoveries about the world through accurate observations, and formulating theories based on the regularities observed.

Newton’s Laws are an example of this. He observed the behavior of physical objects (e.g., apples) and produced laws that made sense of what he observed.

The scientific process is now based on the hypothetico-deductive model proposed by Karl Popper (1935).  Popper suggested that theories/laws about the world should come first, and these should be used to generate expectations/hypotheses, which observations and experiments can falsify.

As Popper pointed out, falsification is the only way to be certain: ‘No amount of observations of white swans can allow the conclusion that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.

Darwin’s theory of evolution is an example of this. He formulated a theory and tested its propositions by observing animals in nature.  He specifically sought to collect data to prove his theory / disprove it.

Thomas Kuhn argued that science does not evolve gradually towards truth, science has a paradigm that remains constant before going through a paradigm shift when current theories can’t explain some phenomenon, and someone proposes a new theory. Science tends to go through these shifts; therefore, psychology is not a science as it has no agreed paradigm.

There are many conflicting approaches, and the subject matter of Psychology is so diverse; therefore, researchers in different fields have little in common.

Psychology is really a very new science, with most advances happening over the past 150 years or so.  However, it can be traced back to ancient Greece, 400 – 500 years BC.  The emphasis was a philosophical one, with great thinkers such as Socrates influencing Plato, who in turn influenced Aristotle.

Plato argued that there was a clear distinction between body and soul, believed very strongly in the influence of individual differences on behavior, and played a key role in developing the notion of “mental health,” believing that the mind needed stimulation from the arts to keep it alive.

Aristotle firmly believed that the body strongly affected the mind – you might say he was an early biopsychologist.

Psychology as a science took a “back seat” until Descartes (1596 – 1650) wrote in the 17th century. He believed strongly in the concept of consciousness, maintaining that it was that that separated us from animals.

He did, however, believe that our bodies could influence our consciousness and that the beginnings of these interactions were in the pineal gland – we know now that this is probably NOT the case!

From this influential work came other important philosophies about psychology, including the work by Spinoza (1632 – 1677) and Leibnitz (1646 – 1716). But there still was no single, scientific, unified psychology as a separate discipline (you could certainly argue that there still isn’t”t!).

When asked, “Who is the parent of psychology?” many people answer, “Freud.” Whether this is the case or not is open to debate, but if we were to ask who the parent of experimental psychology is, few would likely respond similarly.  So, where did modern experimental psychology come from, and why?

Psychology took so long to emerge as a scientific discipline because it needed time to consolidate.  Understanding behavior, thoughts, and feelings are not easy, which may explain why it was largely ignored between ancient Greek times and the 16th century.

But tired of years of speculation, theory, and argument, and bearing in mind Aristotle’s plea for scientific investigation to support the theory, psychology as a scientific discipline began to emerge in the late 1800s.

Wilheim Wundt developed the first psychology lab in 1879.  Introspection was used, but systematically (i.e., methodologically). It was really a place from which to start thinking about how to employ scientific methods to investigate behavior.

The classic movement in psychology to adopt these strategies was the behaviorists, who were renowned for relying on controlled laboratory experiments and rejecting any unseen or subconscious forces as causes of behavior. 

And later, cognitive psychologists adopted this rigorous (i.e., careful), scientific, lab-based approach.

Psychological Approaches

Psychoanalysis has great explanatory power and understanding of behavior. Still, it has been accused of only explaining behavior after the event, not predicting what will happen in advance, and being unfalsifiable.

Some have argued that psychoanalysis has approached the status more of a religion than a science. Still, it is not alone in being accused of being unfalsifiable (evolutionary theory has, too – why is anything the way it is? Because it has evolved that way!), and like theories that are difficult to refute – the possibility exists that it is actually right.

Kline (1984) argues that psychoanalytic theory can be broken down into testable hypotheses and tested scientifically. For example, Scodel (1957) postulated that orally dependent men would prefer larger breasts (a positive correlation) but, in fact, found the opposite (a negative correlation).

Although Freudian theory could be used to explain this finding (through reaction formation – the subject showing exactly the opposite of their unconscious impulses!), Kline has nevertheless pointed out that no significant correlation would have refuted the theory.

Behaviorism has parsimonious (i.e., economic / cost-cutting) theories of learning, using a few simple principles (reinforcement, behavior shaping, generalization, etc.) to explain a wide variety of behavior from language acquisition to moral development.

It advanced bold, precise, and refutable hypotheses (such as Thorndike’s law of effect ) and possessed a hard core of central assumptions such as determinism from the environment (it was only when this assumption faced overwhelming criticism by the cognitive and ethological theorists that the behaviorist paradigm/model was overthrown).

Behaviorists firmly believed in the scientific principles of determinism and orderliness. They thus came up with fairly consistent predictions about when an animal was likely to respond (although they admitted that perfect prediction for any individual was impossible).

The behaviorists used their predictions to control the behavior of both animals (pigeons trained to detect life jackets) and humans (behavioral therapies), and indeed Skinner , in his book Walden Two (1948), described a society controlled according to behaviorist principles.

Cognitive psychology – adopts a scientific approach to unobservable mental processes by advancing precise models and conducting experiments on behavior to confirm or refute them.

Full understanding, prediction, and control in psychology are probably unobtainable due to the huge complexity of environmental, mental, and biological influences upon even the simplest behavior (i.e., all extraneous variables cannot be controlled).

You will see, therefore, that there is no easy answer to the question, “is psychology a science?”. But many approaches of psychology do meet the accepted requirements of the scientific method, whilst others appear to be more doubtful in this respect.

Alternatives

However, some psychologists argue that psychology should not be a science. There are alternatives to empiricism, such as rational research, argument, and belief.

The humanistic approach (another alternative) values private, subjective conscious experience and argues for the rejection of science.

The humanistic approach argues that objective reality is less important than a person’s subjective perception and subjective understanding of the world. Because of this, Carl Rogers and Maslow placed little value on scientific psychology, especially using the scientific laboratory to investigate human and other animal behavior.

A person’s subjective experience of the world is an important and influential factor in their behavior. Only by seeing the world from the individual’s point of view can we really understand why they act the way they do. This is what the humanistic approach aims to do.

Humanism is a psychological perspective that emphasizes the study of the whole person. Humanistic psychologists look at human behavior not only through the eyes of the observer but through the eyes of the person doing the behavior. Humanistic psychologists believe that an individual’s behavior is connected to his inner feelings and self-image.

The humanistic approach in psychology deliberately steps away from a scientific viewpoint, rejecting determinism in favor of free will, aiming to arrive at a unique and in-depth understanding. The humanistic approach does not have an orderly set of theories (although it does have some core assumptions).

It is not interested in predicting and controlling people’s behavior – the individuals themselves are the only ones who can and should do that.

Miller (1969), in “Psychology as a Means of Promoting Human Welfare,” criticizes the controlling view of psychology, suggesting that understanding should be the main goal of the subject as a science since he asks who will do the controlling and whose interests will be served by it?

Humanistic psychologists rejected a rigorous scientific approach to psychology because they saw it as dehumanizing and unable to capture the richness of conscious experience.

In many ways, the rejection of scientific psychology in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s was a backlash to the dominance of the behaviorist approach in North American psychology.

Common Sense Views of Behavior

In certain ways, everyone is a psychologist. This does not mean that everyone has been formally trained to study and be trained in psychology. 

People have common sense views of the world, of other people, and of themselves. These common-sense views may come from personal experience, from our upbringing as a child, and through culture, etc.

People have common-sense views about the causes of their own and other people’s behavior, personality characteristics they and others possess, what other people should do, how to bring up your children, and many more aspects of psychology.

Informal psychologists acquire common-sense knowledge in a rather subjective (i.e., unreliable) and anecdotal way.  Common-sense views about people are rarely based on systematic (i.e., logical) evidence and are sometimes based on a single experience or observation.

Racial or religious prejudices may reflect what seems like common sense within a group of people. However, prejudicial beliefs rarely stand up to what is actually the case.

Common sense, then, is something that everybody uses in their day-to-day lives, guides decisions and influences how we interact with one another.

However, because it is not based on systematic evidence or derived from scientific inquiry, it may be misleading and lead to one group of people treating others unfairly and in a discriminatory way.

Limitations of Scientific Psychology

Despite having a scientific methodology worked out (we think), some further problems and arguments doubt psychology is ever a science.

Limitations may refer to the subject matter (e.g., overt behavior versus subjective, private experience), objectivity, generality, testability, ecological validity, ethical issues, and philosophical debates, etc.

Science assumes that there are laws of human behavior that apply to each person. Therefore, science takes both a deterministic and reductionist approach.

Science studies overt behavior because overt behavior is objectively observable and can be measured, allowing different psychologists to record behavior and agree on what has been observed. This means that evidence can be collected to test a theory about people.

Scientific laws are generalizable, but psychological explanations are often restricted to specific times and places. Because psychology studies (mostly) people, it studies (indirectly) the effects of social and cultural changes on behavior.

Psychology does not go on in a social vacuum. Behavior changes over time and in different situations. These factors, and individual differences, make research findings reliable for a limited time only.

Are traditional scientific methods appropriate for studying human behavior? When psychologists operationalize their IV, it is highly likely that this is reductionist, mechanistic, subjective, or just wrong.

Operationalizing variables refers to how you will define and measure a specific variable as it is used in your study. For example, a biopsychologist may operationalize stress as an increased heart rate. Still, it may be that in doing this, we are removed from the human experience of what we are studying. The same goes for causality.

Experiments are keen to establish that X causes Y, but taking this deterministic view means that we ignore extraneous variables and the fact that at a different time, in a different place, we probably would not be influenced by X. There are so many variables that influence human behavior that it is impossible to control them effectively. The issue of ecological validity ties in really nicely here.

Objectivity is impossible. It is a huge problem in psychology, as it involves humans studying humans, and it is very difficult to study people’s behavior in an unbiased fashion.

Moreover, in terms of a general philosophy of science, we find it hard to be objective because a theoretical standpoint influences us (Freud is a good example). The observer and the observed are members of the same species are this creates problems of reflectivity.

A behaviorist would never examine a phobia and think in terms of unconscious conflict as a cause, just like Freud would never explain it as a behavior acquired through operant conditioning.

This particular viewpoint that a scientist has is called a paradigm (Kuhn, 1970). Kuhn argues that most scientific disciplines have one predominant paradigm that the vast majority of scientists subscribe to.

Anything with several paradigms (e.g., models – theories) is a pre-science until it becomes more unified. With a myriad of paradigms within psychology, it is not the case that we have any universal laws of human behavior. Kuhn would most definitely argue that psychology is not a science.

Verification (i.e., proof) may be impossible. We can never truly prove a hypothesis; we may find results to support it until the end of time, but we will never be 100% confident that it is true.

It could be disproved at any moment. The main driving force behind this particular grumble is Karl Popper, the famous philosopher of science and advocator of falsificationism.

Take the famous Popperian example hypothesis: “All swans are white.” How do we know for sure that we will not see a black, green, or hot pink swan in the future? So even if there has never been a sighting of a non-white swan, we still haven’t really proven our hypothesis.

Popper argues that the best hypotheses are those which we can falsify – disprove. If we know something is not true, then we know something for sure.

Testability: much of the subject matter in psychology is unobservable (e.g., memory) and, therefore, cannot be accurately measured. The fact that there are so many variables that influence human behavior that it is impossible to control the variables effectively.

So, are we any closer to understanding a) what science is and b) if psychology is a science? Unlikely. There is no definitive philosophy of science and no flawless scientific methodology.

When people use the term “Scientific,” we all have a general schema of what they mean, but when we break it down in the way that we just have done, the picture is less certain. What is science? It depends on your philosophy. Is psychology a science? It depends on your definition. So – why bother, and how do we conclude all this?

Slife and Williams (1995) have tried to answer these two questions:

1) We must at least strive for scientific methods because we need a rigorous discipline. If we abandon our search for unified methods, we’ll lose a sense of what psychology is (if we knew it in the first place).

2) We need to keep trying to develop scientific methods that are suitable for studying human behavior – it may be that the methods adopted by the natural sciences are not appropriate for us.

Further Information

• Psychology as a Science (PDF)

Is Psychology a True Science? Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

There is reasonable doubt as to the classification of psychology as a science in the minds of the lay person. This is mostly as a result of the overly simplified and logical manner in which psychology and indeed psychologists are represented by popular media.

As such, psychology is seen to be more of a subjective human-oriented art as opposed to an objective and exact science. This paper shall set out to make a case for psychology as a science. The arguments made by people who do not accept the status of psychology as a science shall also be presented and their due merits evaluated.

Science is defined as knowledge which emanates from factual evidence. This being the case, there are certain features which are fundamental to all sciences and they make up the scientific methods. They include the collecting of quantitative data under controlled conditions, objectivity as opposed to subjectivity and an establishment of general laws and theories after experimentation. An interesting consideration is that this laws apply universally and as such, there is the element of repeatability.

Proponents of psychology as a science contend that psychology uses the stated scientific methods to study both human and non-human behaviors in various settings. Studies such as the genetic theory of IQ involve carefully controlled scientific experiments which are not only objective but are also high reliable and verifiable.

As with other scientific experiment findings, psychology results are produced and made open to the public domain for the interest of furthering science. The findings are also presented over for peer review to ensure their critical analysis. This is in line with the requirements set forth for scientific findings.

There exist theories in the psychology field which have been proven time and time again. This is a concept that is common to science whereby prediction of future events can be made by derivations obtained from experimentation.

An example is the behaviourist theory of operant conditioning which proposes that behavior is learned through reinforcement. Since this theory is objective and quantifiable one can from this theory make predictions about learning. The concept of generalization which is core to science is therefore exhibited in psychology as well.

On the other hand the seeming lack of objectivity in most psychological endevour is advanced as the most common argument advanced by opponents of psychology as a science. This claim is affirmed by the labeling theory of schizophrenia which proposes that schizophrenia is not caused so much by biological factors but rather, diagnosis of the disease is a result of subjective factors. This is because the social construct and reality will play a big role in the diagnosis process therefore presenting psychology as a hugely subjective art.

Science requires that there by measurable concepts meaning that the phenomena should not only be perceivable through our senses but also quantifiable as data. Psychology fails in this count since unobservable behaviour such as feelings play a pivotal role in psychology. This is contrary to the methods of science which dictate that all data must be quantifiable.

This paper set out to reinforce the notion that psychology is a science. In light of the arguments presented in this paper, it can be stated that to some extent, those who propose that psychology is not a science are right in that psychology can never be an exact science given the dynamic nature of the human subject which psychology sets out to examine.

However, most of the other attributes of psychology reinforce the claim that psychology is indeed a fully-fledged science deserving the same merits as physics or any of the other “accepted” sciences. This being the case, we can authoritatively state that psychology is indeed a true science.

• Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: Definition, Types and Causes
• Reducing Stress in Al-Khobar
• Neuroscience: Schizophrenia and Neurotransmitters
• Utilitarianism for Animals: Testing and Experimentation
• Schizophrenia as an Extreme Form of Schizotypy
• Clinical Psychology, Its Methods and Approaches
• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Developed in Repeated War Zones Deployment
• Towards Understanding Stress-Related Issues Affecting First Year Students on Their Transition Into University Culture
• Comparison of Normal and Abnormal Psychology
• Women in Psychology: Assessing the Contributions of Margaret Floy Washburn
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, February 7). Is Psychology a True Science? https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-psychology-a-true-science/

"Is Psychology a True Science?" IvyPanda , 7 Feb. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/is-psychology-a-true-science/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Is Psychology a True Science'. 7 February.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Is Psychology a True Science?" February 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-psychology-a-true-science/.

1. IvyPanda . "Is Psychology a True Science?" February 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-psychology-a-true-science/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Is Psychology a True Science?" February 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-psychology-a-true-science/.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Psychology’s Status as a Science: Peculiarities and Intrinsic Challenges. Moving Beyond its Current Deadlock Towards Conceptual Integration

School of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, London, SE10 9LS UK

Psychology holds an exceptional position among the sciences. Yet even after 140 years as an independent discipline, psychology is still struggling with its most basic foundations. Its key phenomena, mind and behaviour, are poorly defined (and their definition instead often delegated to neuroscience or philosophy) while specific terms and constructs proliferate. A unified theoretical framework has not been developed and its categorisation as a ‘soft science’ ascribes to psychology a lower level of scientificity. The article traces these problems to the peculiarities of psychology’s study phenomena, their interrelations with and centrality to everyday knowledge and language (which may explain the proliferation and unclarity of terms and concepts), as well as to their complex relations with other study phenomena. It shows that adequate explorations of such diverse kinds of phenomena and their interrelations with the most elusive of all—immediate experience—inherently require a plurality of epistemologies, paradigms, theories, methodologies and methods that complement those developed for the natural sciences. Their systematic integration within just one discipline, made necessary by these phenomena’s joint emergence in the single individual as the basic unit of analysis, makes psychology in fact the hardest science of all. But Galtonian nomothetic methodology has turned much of today’s psychology into a science of populations rather than individuals, showing that blind adherence to natural-science principles has not advanced but impeded the development of psychology as a science. Finally, the article introduces paradigmatic frameworks that can provide solid foundations for conceptual integration and new developments.

Psychology’s Status as a Discipline

Psychology holds an exceptional position among the sciences—not least because it explores the very means by which any science is made, for it is humans who perceive, conceive, define, investigate, analyse and interpret the phenomena of the world. Scientists have managed to explore distant galaxies, quantum particles and the evolution of life over 4 billion years—phenomena inaccessible to the naked eye or long deceased. Yet, psychology is still struggling with its most basic foundations. The phenomena of our personal experience, directly accessible to everyone in each waking moment of life, remain challenging objects of research. Moreover, psychical phenomena are essential for all sciences (e.g., thinking). But why are we struggling to scientifically explore the means needed to first make any science? Given the successes in other fields, is this not a contradiction in itself?

This article outlines three key problems of psychology (poor definitions of study phenomena, lack of unified theoretical frameworks, and an allegedly lower level of scientificity) that are frequently discussed and at the centre of Zagaria, Andò and Zennaro’s ( 2020 ) review. These problems are then traced to peculiarities of psychology’s study phenomena and the conceptual and methodological challenges they entail. Finally, the article introduces paradigmatic frameworks that can provide solid foundations for conceptual integration and new developments.

Lack of Proper Terms and Definitions of Study Phenomena

Introductory text books are supposed to present the corner stones of a science’s established knowledge base. In psychology, however, textbooks present definitions of its key phenomena—mind (psyche) and behaviour—that are discordant, ambiguous, overlapping, circular and context-dependent, thus inconclusive (Zagaria et al. 2020 ). Tellingly, many popular text books define ‘mind’ exclusively as ‘brain activity’, thus turning psychology’s central object of research into one of neuroscience. What then is psychology as opposed to neuroscience? Some even regard the definition of mind as unimportant and leave it to philosophers, thus categorising it as a philosophical phenomenon and shifting it again out of psychology’s own realm. At the same time, mainstream psychologists often proudly distance themselves from philosophers (Alexandrova & Haybron, 2016 ), explicitly referring to the vital distinction between science and philosophy. Behaviour, as well, is commonly reduced to ill-defined ‘activities’, ‘actions’ and ‘doings’ and, confusingly, often even equated with mind (psyche), such as in concepts of ‘inner and outer behaviours’ (Uher 2016b ). All this leaves one wonder what psychology is actually about.

As if to compensate the unsatisfactory definitional and conceptual status of its key phenomena in general, psychology is plagued with a chaotic proliferation of terms and constructs for specific phenomena of mind and behaviour (Zagaria et al. 2020 ). This entails that different terms can denote the same concept (jangle-fallacies; Kelley 1927 ) and the same terms different concepts (jingle-fallacies; Thorndike 1903 ). Even more basically, many psychologists struggle to explain what their most frequent study phenomena—constructs—actually are (Slaney and Garcia 2015 ). These deficiencies and inconsistencies involve a deeply fragmented theoretical landscape.

Lack of Conceptual Integration Into Overarching Frameworks

Like no other science, psychology embraces an enormous diversity of established epistemologies, paradigms, theories, methodologies and methods. Is that a result of the discipline’s unparalleled complexity and the therefore necessary scientific pluralism (Fahrenberg 2013 ) or rather an outcome of mistaking this pluralism for the unrestrained proliferation of perspectives (Zagaria et al. 2020 )?

The lack of a unified theory in psychology is widely lamented. Many ‘integrative theories’ were proposed as overarching frameworks, yet without considering contradictory presuppositions underlying different theories. Such integrative systems merely provide important overviews of the essential plurality of research perspectives and methodologies needed in the field (Fahrenberg 2013 ; Uher 2015b ). Zagaria and colleagues ( 2020 ) suggested evolutionary psychology could provide the much-needed paradigmatic framework. This field, however, is among psychology’s youngest sub-disciplines and its most speculative ones because (unlike biological phenomena) psychical, behavioural and social phenomena leave no fossilised traces in themselves. Their possible ancestral forms can only be reconstructed indirectly from archaeological findings and investigations of today’s humans, making evolutionary explorations prone to speculations and biases (e.g., gender bias in interpretations of archaeological findings; Ginge 1996 ). Cross-species comparative psychology offers important correctives through empirical studies of today’s species with different cognitive, behavioural, social and ecological systems and different degrees of phylogenetic relatedness to humans. This enables comparisons and hypothesis testing not possible when studying only humans but still faces limitations given human ancestors’ unavailability for direct study (Uher 2020a ).

But most importantly, evolutionary psychology does not provide consistent terms and concepts either; its key constructs ‘psychological adaptations’ and ‘evolved psychological mechanisms’ are as vague, ambiguous and ill-defined as ‘mind’ and ‘behaviour’. Moreover, the strong research heuristic formulated in Tinbergen’s four questions on the causation, function, development and evolution of behaviour is not an achievement of evolutionary psychology but originates from theoretical biology, thus again from outside of psychology.

Psychology—a ‘Soft Science’ in Pre-scientific Stage?

The pronounced inconsistencies in psychology’s terminological, conceptual and theoretical landscape have been likened to the pre-scientific stage of emerging sciences (Zagaria et al. 2020 ). Psychology was therefore declared a ‘soft science’ that can never achieve the status of the ‘hard sciences’ (e.g., physics, chemistry). This categorisation implies the belief that some sciences have only minor capacities to accumulate secured knowledge and lower abilities to reach theoretical and methodological consensus (Fanelli and Glänzel 2013 ; Simonton 2015 ). In particular, soft sciences would have only limited abilities to apply ‘the scientific method’, the general set of principles involving systematic observation, experimentation and measurement as well as deduction and testing of hypotheses that guide scientific practice (Gauch 2015 ). The idea of the presumed lack of methodological rigor and exactitude of ‘soft sciences’ goes back to Kant ( 1798 / 2000 ) and is fuelled by recurrent crises of replication, generalisation, validity, and other criteria considered essential for all sciences.

But classifying sciences into ‘hard’ and ‘soft’, implying some would be more scientific than others, is ill-conceived and misses the point why there are different sciences at all. Crucially, the possibilities for implementing particular research practices are not a matter of scientific discipline or their ascribed level of scientificity but solely depend on the particular study phenomena and their properties (Uher 2019 ). For study phenomena that are highly context-dependent and continuously changing in themselves, such as those of mind, behaviour and society, old knowledge cannot have continuing relevance as this is the case for (e.g., non-living) phenomena and properties that are comparably invariant in themselves. Instead, accurate and valid investigations require that concepts, theories and methods must be continuously adapted as well (Uher 2020b ).

The classification of sciences by the degree to which they can implement ‘the scientific method’ as developed for the natural sciences is a reflection of the method-centrism that has taken hold of psychology over the last century, when the craft of statistical analysis became psychologists’ dominant activity (Lamiell 2019 ; Valsiner 2012 ). The development of ever more sophisticated tools for statistical analysis as well as of rating scales enabling the efficient generation of allegedly quantitative data for millions of individuals misled psychologists to adapt their study phenomena and research questions to their methods, rather than vice versa (Omi 2012 ; Toomela and Valsiner 2010 ; Uher 2013 ). But methods are just a means to an end. Sciences must be phenomenon-centred and problem-centred, and they must develop epistemologies, theories, methodologies and methods that are suited to explore these phenomena and the research problems in their field.

Psychology’s Study Phenomena and Intrinsic Challenges

Psychology’s exceptional position among the sciences and its key problems can be traced to its study phenomena’s peculiarities and the conceptual and methodological challenges they entail.

Experience: Elementary to All Empirical Sciences

Experience is elementary to all empirical sciences, which are experience-based by definition (from Greek empeiria meaning experience). The founder of psychology, Wilhelm Wundt, already highlighted that every concrete experience has always two aspects, the objective content given and individuals’ subjective apprehension of it—thus, the objects of experience in themselves and the subjects experiencing them. This entails two fundamental ways in which experience is treated in the sciences (Wundt 1896a ).

Natural sciences explore the objective contents mediated by experience that can be obtained by subtracting from the concrete experience the subjective aspects always contained in it. Hence, natural scientists consider the objects of experience in their properties as conceived independently of the subjects experiencing them, using the perspective of mediate experience (mittelbare Erfahrung; Wundt 1896a ). Therefore, natural scientists develop theories, approaches and technologies that help minimise the involvement of human perceptual and conceptual abilities in research processes and filter out their effects on research outcomes. This approach is facilitated by the peculiarities of natural-science study phenomena (of the non-living world, in particular), in which general laws, immutable relationships and natural constants can be identified that remain invariant across time and space and that can be measured and mathematically formalised (Uher 2020b ).

Psychologists, in turn, explore the experiencing subjects and their understanding and interpretation of their experiential contents and how this mediates their concrete experience of ‘reality’. This involves the perspective of immediate experience (unmittelbare Erfahrung), with immediate indicating absence of other phenomena mediating their perception (Wundt 1896a ). Immediate experience comprises connected processes, whereby every process has an objective content but is, at the same time, also a subjective process. Inner experience, Wundt highlighted, is not a special part of experience but rather constitutes the entirety of all immediate experience; thus, inner and outer experience do not constitute separate channels of information as often assumed (Uher 2016a ). That is, psychology deals with the entire experience in its immediate subjective reality. The inherent relation to the perceiving and experiencing subject— subject reference —is therefore a fundamental category in psychology. Subjects are feeling and thinking beings capable of intentional action who pursue purposes and values. This entails agency, volition, value orientation and teleology. As a consequence, Wundt highlighted, research on these phenomena can determine only law-like generalisations that allow for exceptions and singularities (Fahrenberg 2019 ). Given this, it is meaningless to use theories-to-laws ratios as indicators of scientificity (e.g., in Simonton 2015 ; Zagaria et al. 2020 ).

Constructs: Concepts in Science AND Everyday Psychology

The processual and transient nature of immediate experience (and many behaviours) imposes further challenges because, of processual entities, only a part exists at any moment (Whitehead 1929 ). Experiential phenomena can therefore be conceived only through generalisation and abstraction from their occurrences over time, leading to concepts, beliefs and knowledge about them , which are psychical phenomena in themselves as well but different from those they are about (reflected in the terms experien cing versus experien ce ; Erleben versus Erfahrung; Uher 2015b , 2016a ). Abstract concepts, because they are theoretically constructed, are called constructs (Kelly 1963 ). All humans implicitly develop constructs (through abduction, see below) to describe and explain regularities they observe in themselves and their world. They use constructs to anticipate the unknown future and to choose among alterative actions and responses (Kelly 1963 ; Valsiner 2012 ).

Constructs about experiencing, experience and behaviour form important parts of our everyday knowledge and language. This entails intricacies because psychologists cannot simply put this everyday psychology aside for doing their science, even more so as they are studying the phenomena that are at the centre of everyday knowledge and largely accessible only through (everyday) language. Therefore, psychologists cannot invent scientific terms and concepts that are completely unrelated to those of everyday psychology as natural scientists can do (Uher 2015b ). But this also entails that, to first delineate their study phenomena, psychologists need not elaborate scientific definitions because everyday psychology already provides some terms, implicit concepts and understanding—even if these are ambiguous, discordant, circular, overlapping, context-dependent and biased. This may explain the proliferation of terms and concepts and the lack of clear definitions of key phenomena in scientific psychology.

Constructs and language-based methods entail further challenges. The construal of constructs allowed scientists to turn abstract ideas into entities, thereby making them conceptually accessible to empirical study. But this entification misguides psychologists to overlook their constructed nature (Slaney and Garcia 2015 ) by ascribing to constructs an ontological status (e.g., ‘traits’ as psychophysical mechanisms; Uher 2013 ). Because explorations of many psychological study phenomena are intimately bound to language, psychologists must differentiate their study phenomena from the terms, concepts and methods used to explore them, as indicated by the terms psych ical versus psych ological (from Greek -λογία, -logia for body of knowledge)—differentiations not commonly made in the English-language publications dominating in contemporary psychology (Lewin 1936 ; Uher 2016a ).

Psychology’s Exceptional Position Among the Sciences and Philosophy

The concepts of mediate and immediate experience illuminate psychology’s special interrelations with the other sciences and philosophy. Wundt conceived the natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften; e.g., physics, physiology) as auxiliary to psychology and psychology, in turn, as supplementary to the natural sciences “in the sense that only together they are able to exhaust the empirical knowledge accessible to us“ (Fahrenberg 2019 ; Wundt 1896b , p. 102). By exploring the universal forms of immediate experience and the regularities of their connections, psychology is also the foundation of the intellectual sciences (Geisteswissenschaften, commonly (mis)translated as humanities; e.g., philology, linguistics, law), which explore the actions and effects emerging from humans’ immediate experiences (Fahrenberg 2019 ). Psychology also provides foundations for the cultural and social sciences (Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften; e.g., sociology; anthropology), which explore the products and processes emerging from social and societal interactions among experiencing subjects who are thinking and intentional agents pursuing values, aims and purposes. Moreover, because psychology considers the subjective and the objective as the two fundamental conditions underlying theoretical reflection and practical action and seeks to determine their interrelations, Wundt regarded psychology also a preparatory empirical science for philosophy (especially epistemology and ethics; Fahrenberg 2019 ).

Psychology’s exceptional position at the intersection with diverse sciences and with philosophy is reflected in the extremely heterogeneous study phenomena explored in its diverse sub-disciplines, covering all areas of human life. Some examples are individuals’ sensations and perceptions of physical phenomena (e.g., psychophysics, environmental psychology, engineering psychology), biological and pathological phenomena associated with experience and behaviour (e.g., biopsychology, neuropsychology, clinical psychology), individuals’ experience and behaviour in relation to others and in society (e.g., social psychology, personality psychology, cultural psychology, psycholinguistics, economic psychology), as well as in different periods and domains of life (e.g., developmental psychology, educational psychology, occupational psychology). No other science explores such a diversity of study phenomena. Their exploration requires a plurality of epistemologies, methodologies and methods, which include experimental and technology-based investigations (e.g., neuro-imaging, electromyography, life-logging, video-analyses), interpretive and social-science investigations (e.g., of texts, narratives, multi-media) as well as investigations involving self-report and self-observation (e.g., interviews, questionnaires, guided introquestion).

All this shows that psychology cannot be a unitary science. Adequate explorations of so many different kinds of phenomena and their interrelations with the most elusive of all—immediate experience—inherently require a plurality of epistemologies, paradigms, theories, methodologies and methods that complement those developed for the natural sciences, which are needed as well. Their systematic integration within just one discipline, made necessary by these phenomena’s joint emergence in the single individual as the basic unit of analysis, makes psychology in fact the hardest science of all.

Idiographic and Nomothetic Strategies of Knowledge Generation

Immediate experience, given its subjective, processual, context-dependent, and thus ever-changing nature, is always unique and unprecedented. Exploring such particulars inherently requires idiographic strategies, in which local phenomena of single cases are modelled in their dynamic contexts to create generalised knowledge from them through abduction. In abduction, scientists infer from observations of surprising facts backwards to a possible theory that, if it were true, could explain the facts observed (Peirce 1901 ; CP 7.218). Abduction leads to the creation of new general knowledge, in which theory and data are circularly connected in an open-ended cycle, allowing to further generalise, extend and differentiate the new knowledge created. By generalising from what was once and at another time as well, idiographic approaches form the basis of nomothetic approaches, which are aimed at identifying generalities common to all particulars of a class and at deriving theories or laws to account for these generalities. This Wundtian approach to nomothetic research, because it is case-by-case based , allows to create generalised knowledge about psychical processes and functioning, thus building a bridge between the individual and theory development (Lamiell 2003 ; Robinson 2011 ; Salvatore and Valsiner 2010 ).

But beliefs in the superiority of natural-science principles misled many psychologists to interpret nomothetic strategies solely in terms of the Galtonian methodology, in which many cases are aggregated and statistically analysed on the sample-level . This limits research to group-level hypothesis testing and theory development to inductive generalisation, which are uninformative about single cases and cannot reveal what is, indeed, common to all (Lamiell 2003 ; Robinson 2011 ). This entails numerous fallacies, such as the widespread belief between-individual structures would be identical to and even reflect within-individual structures (Molenaar 2004 ; Uher 2015d ). Galtonian nomothetic methodology has turned much of today’s psychology into a science exploring populations rather than individuals. That is, blind adherence to natural-science principles has not advanced but, instead, substantially impeded the development of psychology as a science.

Moving Psychology Beyond its Current Conceptual Deadlock

Wundt’s opening of psychology’s first laboratory marked its official start as an independent science. Its dynamic developments over the last 140 years testify to psychology’s importance but also to the peculiarities of its study phenomena and the intricate challenges that these entail for scientific explorations. Yet, given its history, it seems unlikely that psychology can finally pull itself out of the swamps of conceptual vagueness and theoretical inconsistencies using just its own concepts and theories, in a feat similar to that of the legendary Baron Münchhausen. Psychology can, however, capitalise on its exceptional constellation of intersections with other sciences and philosophy that arises from its unique focus on the individual. Although challenging, this constitutes a rich source for perspective-taking and stimulation of new developments that can meaningfully complement and expand its own genuine achievements as shown in the paradigm outlined now.

The Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm)

The Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals ( TPS-Paradigm 2 ) is targeted toward making explicit and scrutinising the most basic assumptions that different disciplines make about research on individuals to help scientists critically reflect on; discuss and refine their theories and practices; and to derive ideas for new developments (therefore philosophy-of–science ). It comprises a system of interrelated philosophical, metatheoretical and methodological frameworks that coherently build upon each other (therefore paradigm ). In these frameworks, concepts from various lines of thought, both historical and more recent, and from different disciplines (e.g., psychology, life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences, metrology, philosophy of science) that are relevant for exploring research objects in (relation to) individuals were systematically integrated, refined and complemented by novel ones, thereby creating unitary frameworks that transcend disciplinary boundaries (therefore transdisciplinary ; Uher 2015a , b , 2018c ).

The Philosophical Framework: Presuppositions About Research on Individuals

The philosophical framework specifies three sets of presuppositions that are made in the TPS-Paradigm about the nature and properties of individuals and the phenomena studied in (relations to) them as well as about the notions by which knowledge about them can be gained.

• All science is done by humans and therefore inextricably entwined with and limited by human’s perceptual and conceptual abilities. This entails risks for particular fallacies of the human mind (e.g., oversimplifying complexity, Royce 1891 ; reifying linguistic abstractions, Whitehead 1929 ). Scientists researching individuals face particular challenges because they are individuals themselves, thus inseparable from their research objects. This entails risks for anthropocentric, ethnocentric and egocentric biases influencing metatheories and methodologies (Uher 2015b ). Concepts from social, cultural and theoretical psychology, sociology, and other fields (e.g., Gergen 2001 ; Valsiner 1998 ; Weber 1949 ) were used to open up meta-perspectives on research processes and help scientists reflect on their own presuppositions, ideologies and language that may (unintentionally) influence their research.
• Individuals are complex living organisms , which can be conceived as open (dissipative) and nested systems. On each hierarchical level, they function as organised wholes from which new properties emerge not predictable from their constituents and that can feed back to the constituents from which they emerge, causing complex patterns of upward and downward causation. With increasing levels of organisation, ever more complex systems emerge that are less rule-bound, highly adaptive and historically unique. Therefore, dissecting systems into elements cannot reveal the processes governing their functioning and development as a whole; assumptions on universal determinism and reductionism must be rejected. Relevant concepts from thermodynamics, physics of life, philosophy, theoretical biology, medicine, psychology, sociology and other fields (e.g., Capra 1997 ; Hartmann 1964 ; Koffka 1935 ; Morin 2008 ; Prigogine and Stengers 1997 ; Varela et al. 1974 ; von Bertalanffy 1937 ) about dialectics, complexity and nonlinear dynamic systems were used to elaborate their relevance for research on individuals.
• The concept of complementarity is applied to highlight that, by using different methods, ostensibly incompatible information can be obtained about properties of the same object of research that are nevertheless all equally essential for an exhaustive account of it and that may therefore be regarded as complementary to one another. Applications of this concept, originating from physics (wave-particle dilemma in research on the nature of light; Bohr 1937 ; Heisenberg 1927 ), to the body-mind problem emphasise the necessity for a methodical dualism to account for observations of two categorically different realities that require different frames of reference, approaches and methods (Brody and Oppenheim 1969 ; Fahrenberg 1979 , 2013 ; Walach 2013 ). Complementarity was applied to specify the peculiarities of psychical phenomena and to derive methodological concepts (Uher, 2016a ). It was also applied to develop solutions for the nomothetic-idiographic controversy in ‘personality’ research (Uher 2015d ).

These presuppositions underlie the metatheoretical and the methodological framework.

Metatheoretical Framework

The metatheoretical framework formalises a phenomenon’s accessibility to human perception under everyday conditions using three metatheoretical properties: internality-externality, temporal extension, and spatiality conceived complementarily as physical (spatial) and “non-physical” (without spatial properties). The particular constellations of their forms in given phenomena were used to metatheoretically define and differentiate from one another various kinds of phenomena studied in (relation to) individuals: morphology, physiology, behaviour, psyche, semiotic representations (e.g., language), artificial outer-appearance modifications (e.g., clothing) and contexts (e.g., situations; Uher 2015b ).

These metatheoretical concepts allowed to integrate and further develop established concepts from various fields to elaborate the peculiarities of the phenomena of the psyche 3 and their functional connections with other phenomena (e.g., one-sided psyche-externality gap; Uher 2013 ), to trace their ontogenetic development and to explore the fundamental imperceptibility of others’ psychical phenomena and its role in the development of agency, language, instructed learning, culture, social institutions and societies in human evolution (Uher 2015a ). The metatheoretical definition of behaviour 4 enabled clear differentiations from psyche and physiology, and clarified when the content-level of language in itself constitutes behaviour, revealing how language extends humans’ behavioural possibilities far beyond all non-language behaviours (Uher 2016b ). The metatheoretical definition of ‘personality’ as individual-specificity in all kinds of phenomena studied in individuals (see above) highlighted the unique constellation of probabilistic, differential and temporal patterns that merge together in this concept, the challenges this entails and the central role of language in the formation of ‘personality’ concepts. This also enabled novel approaches for conceptual integrations of the heterogeneous landscape of paradigms and theories in ‘personality’ research (Uher 2015b , c , d , 2018b ). The semiotic representations concept emphasised the composite nature of language, comprising psychical and physical phenomena, thus both internal and external phenomena. Failure to consider the triadic relations among meaning, signifier and referent inherent to any sign system as well as their inseparability from the individuals using them was shown to underly various conceptual fallacies, especially regarding data generation and measurement (Uher 2018a , 2019 ).

Methodological Framework

The metatheoretical framework is systematically linked to the methodological framework featuring three main areas.

• General concepts of phenomenon-methodology matching . The three metatheoretical properties were used to derive implications for research methodology, leading to new concepts that help to identify fallacies and mismatches (e.g., nunc-ipsum methods for transient phenomena, intro questive versus extro questive methods to remedy methodological problems in previous concepts of introspection; Uher 2016a , 2019 ).
• Methodological concepts for comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species were developed (Uher 2015e ). Approaches for taxonomising individual differences  in various kinds of phenomena in human populations and other species were systematised on the basis of their underlying rationales. Various novel approaches, especially behavioural ones, were developed to systematically test and complement the widely-used lexical models derived from everyday language (Uher 2015b , c , d , 2018b , c ).
• Theories and practices of data generation and measurement from psychology, social sciences and metrology, the science of measurement and foundational to the physical sciences, were scrutinised and compared. These transdisciplinary analyses identified two basic methodological principles of measurement underlying metrological concepts that are also applicable to psychological and social-science research (data generation traceability, numerical traceability; Uher 2020b ). Further analyses explored the involvement of human abilities in data generation across the empirical sciences (Uher 2019 ) and raters’ interpretation and use of standardised assessment scales (Uher 2018a ).

Empirical demonstrations of these developments and analyses in various empirical studies involving humans of different sociolinguistic backgrounds as well as several nonhuman primate species (e.g., Uher 2015e , 2018a ; Uher et al. 2013a , b ; Uher and Visalberghi 2016 ) show the feasibility of this line of research. Grounded in established concepts from various disciplines, it offers many possibilities for fruitful cross-scientific collaborations waiting to be explored in order to advance the fascinating science of individuals.

Author Contributions

I declare I am the sole creator of this research.

Funding Information

This research was conducted without funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

I declare to have no conflicting or competing interests.

2 http://researchonindividuals.org .

3 The psyche is defined as the “entirety of the phenomena of the immediate experiential reality both conscious and non-conscious of living organisms” (Uher 2015c , p. 431, derived from Wundt 1896a ).

4 Behaviours are defined as the “external changes or activities of living organisms that are functionally mediated by other external phenomena in the present moment” (Uher 2016b , p. 490).

Publisher's Note

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

• Alexandrova, A., & Haybron, D. M. (2016). Is construct validation valid? Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 1098–1109. 10.1086/687941
• Bohr N. Causality and complementarity. Philosophy of Science. 1937; 4 (3):289–298. doi: 10.1086/286465. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brody N, Oppenheim P. Application of Bohr’s principle of complementarity to the mind-body problem. Journal of Philosophy. 1969; 66 (4):97–113. doi: 10.2307/2024529. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Capra F. The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. New York: Anchor Books; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fahrenberg, J. (1979). The complementarity principle in psychophysiological research and somatic medicine. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 27 (2), 151–167. [ PubMed ]
• Fahrenberg J. Zur Kategorienlehre der Psychologie: Komplementaritätsprinzip; Perspektiven und Perspektiven-Wechsel. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fahrenberg, J. (2019). Wilhelm Wundt (1832 – 1920). Introduction, quotations, reception, commentaries, attempts at reconstruction . Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
• Fanelli D, Glänzel W. Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8 (6):e66938. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066938. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gauch, H. G. J. (2015). Scientific method in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56(10) , 803–813. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.803. [ PubMed ]
• Ginge, B. (1996). Identifying gender in the archaeological record: Revising our stereotypes. Etruscan Studies, 3, Article 4.
• Hartmann N. Der Aufbau der realen Welt. Grundriss der allgemeinen Kategorienlehre (3. Aufl.) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43 (3–4), 172–198. 10.1007/BF01397280.
• Kant, I. (1798/2000). Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (Reinhard Brandt, ed.). Felix Meiner.
• Kelley TL. Interpretation of educational measurements. Yonkers: World; 1927. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs . W.W. Norton.
• Koffka K. Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World; 1935. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamiell, J. (2003). Beyond individual and group differences: Human individuality, scientific psychology, and William Stern’s critical personalism . Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781452229317.
• Lamiell, J. (2019). Psychology’s misuse of statistics and persistent dismissal of its critics . Springer International. 10.1007/978-3-030-12131-0.
• Lewin K. Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1936. [ Google Scholar ]
• Molenaar PCM. A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective. 2004; 2 (4):201–218. doi: 10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morin E. On complexity. Cresskill: Hampton Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Omi Y. Tension between the theoretical thinking and the empirical method: Is it an inevitable fate for psychology? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2012; 46 (1):118–127. doi: 10.1007/s12124-011-9185-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peirce, C. S. (1901/1935). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (CP 7.218—1901, On the logic of drawing history from ancient documents especially from testimonies) . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1997). The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature . Free Press.
• Robinson OC. The idiographic/nomothetic dichotomy: Tracing historical origins of contemporary confusions. History & Philosophy of Psychology. 2011; 13 :32–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Royce, J. (1891). The religious aspect of philosophy: A critique of the bases of conduct and of faith. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.
• Salvatore S, Valsiner J. Between the general and the unique. Theory & Psychology. 2010; 20 :817–833. doi: 10.1177/0959354310381156. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simonton DK. Psychology as a science within Comte’s hypothesized hierarchy: Empirical investigations and conceptual implications. Review of General Psychology. 2015; 19 (3):334–344. doi: 10.1037/gpr0000039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slaney KL, Garcia DA. Constructing psychological objects: The rhetoric of constructs. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. 2015; 35 (4):244–259. doi: 10.1037/teo0000025. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorndike EL. Notes on child study. 2. New York: Macmillan; 1903. [ Google Scholar ]
• Toomela, A., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? Information Age Publishing.
• Uher J. Personality psychology: Lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts reveal only half of the story-Why it is time for a paradigm shift. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2013; 47 (1):1–55. doi: 10.1007/s12124-013-9230-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher, J. (2015a). Agency enabled by the psyche: Explorations using the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals. In C. W. Gruber, M. G. Clark, S. H. Klempe, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Constraints of agency: Explorations of theory in everyday life. Annals of Theoretical Psychology (Vol. 12) (pp. 177–228). 10.1007/978-3-319-10130-9_13.
• Uher J. Conceiving “personality”: Psychologist’s challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2015; 49 (3):398–458. doi: 10.1007/s12124-014-9283-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J. Developing “personality” taxonomies: Metatheoretical and methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of data generation and reduction principles. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2015; 49 (4):531–589. doi: 10.1007/s12124-014-9280-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J. Interpreting “personality” taxonomies: Why previous models cannot capture individual-specific experiencing, behaviour, functioning and development. Major taxonomic tasks still lay ahead. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2015; 49 (4):600–655. doi: 10.1007/s12124-014-9281-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher, J. (2015e). Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour. In D. Emmans & A. Laihinen (Eds.), Comparative Neuropsychology and Brain Imaging (Vol. 2), Series Neuropsychology: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 223–284). 10.13140/RG.2.1.3848.8169
• Uher, J. (2016a). Exploring the workings of the Psyche: Metatheoretical and methodological foundations. In J. Valsiner, G. Marsico, N. Chaudhary, T. Sato & V. Dazzani (Eds.), Psychology as the science of human being: The Yokohama Manifesto (pp. 299–324). 10.1007/978-3-319-21094-0_18.
• Uher J. What is behaviour? And (when) is language behaviour? A metatheoretical definition. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2016; 46 (4):475–501. doi: 10.1111/jtsb.12104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J. Quantitative data from rating scales: An epistemological and methodological enquiry. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018; 9 :2599. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02599. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J. Taxonomic models of individual differences: A guide to transdisciplinary approaches. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2018; 373 (1744):20170171. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0171. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher, J. (2018c). The Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals: Foundations for the science of personality and individual differences. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences: Volume I: The science of personality and individual differences (pp. 84–109). 10.4135/9781526451163.n4.
• Uher J. Data generation methods across the empirical sciences: differences in the study phenomena’s accessibility and the processes of data encoding. Quality & Quantity. International Journal of Methodology. 2019; 53 (1):221–246. doi: 10.1007/s11135-018-0744-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J. Human uniqueness explored from the uniquely human perspective: Epistemological and methodological challenges. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2020; 50 :20–24. doi: 10.1111/jtsb.12232. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher, J. (2020b). Measurement in metrology, psychology and social sciences: data generation traceability and numerical traceability as basic methodological principles applicable across sciences. Quality & Quantity. International Journal of Methodology, 54 , 975-1004. 10.1007/s11135-020-00970-2.
• Uher J, Addessi E, Visalberghi E. Contextualised behavioural measurements of personality differences obtained in behavioural tests and social observations in adult capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) Journal of Research in Personality. 2013; 47 (4):427–444. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J, Visalberghi E. Observations versus assessments of personality: A five-method multi-species study reveals numerous biases in ratings and methodological limitations of standardised assessments. Journal of Research in Personality. 2016; 61 :61–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.02.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uher J, Werner CS, Gosselt K. From observations of individual behaviour to social representations of personality: Developmental pathways, attribution biases, and limitations of questionnaire methods. Journal of Research in Personality. 2013; 47 (5):647–667. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.03.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind : A sociogenetic approach to personality. Harvard University Press.
• Valsiner J. A guided science: History of psychology in the mirror of its making. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Varela FG, Maturana HR, Uribe R. Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. BioSystems. 1974; 5 (4):187–196. doi: 10.1016/0303-2647(74)90031-8. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• von Bertalanffy L. Das Gefüge des Lebens. Leipzig: Teubner; 1937. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walach, H. (2013). Psychologie: Wissenschaftstheorie, Philosophische Grundlagen und Geschichte (3. Aufl.) . Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
• Weber, M. (1949). On the methodology of the social sciences (E. Shils & H. Finch, Eds.). New York: Free Press.
• Whitehead AN. Process and reality. New York: Harper; 1929. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wundt, W. (1896a). Grundriss der Psychologie . Stuttgart: Körner. Retrieved from https://archive.org/ .
• Wundt W. Über die Definition der Psychologie. Philosophische Studien. 1896; 12 :9–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zagaria, A., Andò, A., & Zennaro, A. (2020). Psychology: A giant with feet of clay. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science. 10.1007/s12124-020-09524-5. [ PubMed ]

• Essay Editor

Is Psychology a Science

1. introduction.

This article is a concern to answer the question: Is psychology a science? What criteria do scientists apply when they seek to determine whether a particular discipline is a science, and what special resources, perspectives, and methodology do scientific disciplines have that place them beyond other areas of human knowledge? The remainder of the article develops the twofold claim that the scientific resources of psychology are considerably stronger than they are often taken to be, and that achieving a settled scientific status clarifies and strengthens psychology as an academic discipline. The twofold claim is developed by first criticizing the view that the status of psychology is not yet settled, and then positively by showing how psychology is a science by the usual canons of science. Nothing is said here about what makes a particular psychological model valuable, useful, realistic, or worth adopting. Causal laws can be simply supplemented with strategies to counteract environmental conditions other than those that are thought centrally involved in the situation-specific induction of the behavior in question. Although correlation, logical denial, expansion, and normal conditions have been widely discussed in the philosophical literature, we take it that scientists are aware of these criteria by being members of a modern scientific community.

1.1. Background and Context

Is psychology a science? The answer to this question is immensely important to the ultimate shape of the field. Thanks to Kuhn, we now know that the answer to such questions is often dependent upon the existence of an antecedent consensus on the kind of question being asked. Consequently, before we venture an answer to the question of whether psychology is a science, we need to know something about what "science" means and, more particularly, about the sense in which it is being used in the question. And to the question about the scientific character of psychology, contemporary discussions revolve around the object of study in academic and professional psychology. Recently, an influential group of psychologists - Lewin's Positivists in the American Psychological Association and, later, behavior analysis - have maintained that the only appropriate subject of psychology is public, overt behavior and, perhaps, private presentations of the same. Both the physicist's "atoms in the void" and the neuroanalyst's "egos in the nervous system" are kinds of entities that remain beyond the pale of experimental study. The previously mentioned Finnish Psychological Review (1976) contains many contributions to this view of science in psychology, characterized generally as the "science of behavior."

2. Defining Science

What is science? This is neither a simple nor unimportant question, for many attempts to work out what may be special about human psychology may be founded simply on what can be said to be the scientific status of psychological theories and findings, not only in relation to those of the natural sciences, but also with reference to its human sciences and also to the so-called formal sciences. These determinations can exercise a powerful effect on psychology's development and the character and organization of its research. Defining science We know what core members of the natural sciences are. To be sure, their activities are not confined to identifying unrelated existents and observing regulative relationships, but anything other than these activities are today recognized as phases of science rather than its default state. Based on extended periods of speculation and groupings of largely ad hoc observation, however, there are growing tendencies to widen the range of activities that can be considered to be cycles of science. But if we include speculative and data-capturing phases in this way, what is left to differentiate science from other forms of human activity? And if there is no clear response to these questions, then are we justified in using science as a model for guiding our activities, and how do we evaluate deflections by us from these models? Furthermore, what justification do claims of the privileged status of science then have?

2.1. Characteristics of Science

What is the essence of that most special form of intellectual inquiry we call science? The answer is not obvious, for scientists do not subject their work to a priori definitions. Even so, much more is known about the characteristics of science than is commonly supposed. Science is begun and continued by human beings, so the operation of science, in particular its elementary facets, are likely to be largely understandable. A central characteristic of science is its empirical foundation. No scientific proposition is immune to empirical test, that is, to check against observation or experiment. We may not, for example, speak meaningfully of those properties of ancient Egyptian statues that did not leave a record for modern science but sculptor and agent. In the absence of empiricity, the words we use refer only to our own fantasies, to our wishful thinking or to the creations of dreamed worlds. Such concepts are of use in the arts or theology, but not in the practice of science. The end result of science must be a body of empirical propositions that are observable so that others can independently come to terms with them. The data of science are public domain, and they cannot be the property of any sect, creed, or special interest. Thus the ability of others to repeat the critical observations is an important safeguard for distinguishing pragmatic or religious issues from the legitimate subject matter of science. Science is also rational. The empirical test decides finally among competing observations that bear on the same problem, so the inquirer is compelled to be rational in setting the test and in evaluating the response. The rationality of science contrasts sharply with dogmatism, which tolerates no reasoned examination of its premises. Good science demands recognition of the fallibility of individual perspectives. Knowledge and ignorance, error and truth are difficult to distinguish; error is persistent and never absent; but the fact that everyone can be mistaken about something serves as a very practical guide in minimizing the infrequency of error. Lacking the resources to consult all the evidence that may be relevant, the scientist inevitably turns to others, following the guidance of those who have wider and more comprehensive training. As the result of thousands of years of shared experience, we now know the kinds of empirical demonstration that are acceptable in science.

3. Psychology as a Science

Clearly, if psychology is to be labeled scientific, its statements must be better than mere guesswork. What, then, is demanded for a statement to be scientific? Above all, a scientific statement - or a psychological theory - must be verifiable; it must be capable of being shown to be right or wrong or at least capable of being shown to be more likely or less likely. For the most part, the evidence showing whether a statement is likely to be correct lies in the particular fact situation known about the world at large. But even in the case where the evidence is lacking, it should be possible, at least in principle, to determine what evidence if available would support either the presence or absence of a given state of affairs. Finally, granted evidence that establishes the basis of the theory or statement, it should be capable of accounting quantitatively for the observations. However, further analysis of the previous section suggests that our criterion applies only to psychology in its special aspect as a body of specific knowledge. Typically, the public is not concerned with whether psychology is a science or not, it asks - often flippantly, sometimes seriously - whether a specific psychologist's theory or opinion is correct. If all psychologists ceased to compare psychology to physics, astronomy, or any other science, and instead insisted upon judging specific psychological evidence on its own merits, this question would recede in importance. However, for the reason that the public's and psychology's specific knowledge overlap, the opinions of psychologists concerning the scientific status of their discipline are important.

3.1. Historical Perspectives

When a psychologist calls psychology a science, his meaning is not always clear. The Victorians turned philosophy upside down and made a considerable muddle of individual psychology because, for those who were clear-sighted enough to look, there was abundant evidence that the basic principles of the new science of man would have to be based upon biology and not upon notions of physics or chemistry. Biological science was largely concerned with a peculiar and difficult form of organization that set it apart from the grosser physical systems. When Tyndall said, "I affirm that no shred of reliable experimental testimony exists to prove that life in our day, and under our conditions, had ever appeared independently of antecedent life," he was certainly not thinking of species in the Darwinian sense or of the individual organism. He had in mind a yet deeper biological principle; the state of matter was irrelevant; the only active principle in life was the organization of certain living organisms; and he could produce no proof that this originated from inorganic or was different from that of organic matter. A biological criterion such as life presents many difficulties, but it has the merit of invoking a quality with which the study and system of living things are specially concerned. It provides criteria for experimental study that are consistent with the knowledge and observational method of biologists generally. Psychologists generally are aware of an allied difficulty with the idea of mind. They have developed one set of observational methods which seem to show that mental events are solely concerned with analyzing stimuli and working out responses without awareness of time. There is a quite different set of more accurate methods of introspection that shows mental events as subjective appreciation of time. Mind is equally resistant to being made a mere adjunct of biology. There is a real sense in which we have to admit that, though we are not an obvious anomaly, we are of a different order, if not of reality at least of appearance, from the rest of the universe. This seeming hiatus is the pièce de résistance and experimental challenge of psychology. Like physicists, psychologists want to prevent philosophers from coming back and attempting to adjudicate upon the basis of the hierarchy of things. And, like the biologists before them, they are therefore content to appeal to their most direct and revealing methods of observation and experiment.

3.2. Methodological Approaches

The notion of the psychological experiment as giving us knowledge of a qualitatively different kind from that given by introspective reports has always played a major role in attempts to give a scientific status to psychological inquiry. But the notion of the experiment is open to ambiguity. We distinguish between two versions of this major notion of experiment: a minimal and a maximal version. The minimal version holds that experiments are one of several different methodologies available to psychologists for discovering psychological laws of some kind of phenomena. The maximal version holds that experimental discoveries represent facts that are given a special status over and above anything that can be discovered by any other method that is currently available or likely to become available. In reality, few psychologists espouse the maximal version, since most would agree that some facts about the human mind or body might well be discoverable by experiment (given sufficiently advanced experimental technology) and that these facts can only be discovered in this manner. The psychologist would be hard-pressed to suggest what such hypothetical facts might be. But many psychologists act as if they believed that human experimental procedures already have a special standing, over and above qualitative microgenetic evidence, particularly when applied to the so-called basic processes of the mind. For the only known discoveries made by experiments on these 'basic processes' are either about such basic processes as language or processing, memory, and so on, involving humans' technology, perceptual neural substrates, or are so banal when held up for psychological scrutiny. For example, with some children, anxiety affects memorizing, which can only be considered as a fact in history.

3.3. Contemporary Debates

Contemporary debates. After World War II, philosophy of science became not only the name for a sub-discipline within the traditional territory of philosophy that was roughly mapped out by the twentieth-century English and American word 'philosophy', but also the name of a movement in philosophy that spread widely, infecting philosophers of numerous other fields including even those of specialized sciences. In the last two decades of the century, the claims of this movement both about what the philosophy of science is about, and about the implications for science of what the philosophy of science has discovered began to be seriously re-examined. The very content and topics of philosophy of science went under scrutiny, and the conclusion was reached that there were no general accounts that could meaningfully be given of the several relevant notions with which those discussions were conducted. These failures led to a reorientation to specific debates in specific sciences, and away from all-embracing general accounts. What have been the implications for the philosophy of science and its social sciences, as the subjects of their conversations have revolutionized those sciences? Despite central domains of fundamental agreement, society, language and ethics have not maintained singular pervasive institutions and research programs. The disciplinary territories of economics and political science were created only within the last 150 to 300 years, and those of sociology and anthropology only within the last 175 years. Psychology is the unruly child of the social sciences. Its parentage, nature, strength and purpose are all matters of debate. Its place is the social sciences, and its relation to them are contestant. While professionals erect academic buildings and statues of towering figures, cultural prejudices underpin constructions, and historical personalities are celebrated or persecuted for reasons that may not be widely appreciated.

Related articles

The impact of a student's academic performance on their future success.

1. Introduction The following work provides a brief overview of a paper about the impact of a student's academic performance on their future success. Why is this issue important? First, the scholarship which is focused on the transition of a student from school to higher educational establishments as well as practical implications of the research results are analyzed in the work. Some publications regarding the impact of a student's academic performance during the educational process on their f ...

Análisis de los fundamentos teóricos de la psicología cognitiva

1. Introducción a la psicología cognitiva Una de las finalidades de la presente Unidad Didáctica es llevar a cabo un análisis de los fundamentos teóricos de la psicología cognitiva, partiendo de los modelos más fundamentales, para seguidamente, detenernos en algunos problemas actuales. En particular, nos centraremos en modelos cognitivos tales como el de procesamiento secuencial-continuo propuesto por Atkinson y Shiffrin (1968), el modelo de procesamiento paralelo propuesto por Kolers y Roedige ...

The Impact of Non-Monetary Rewards on Employee Motivation and Job Satisfaction

1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of non-monetary rewards on employees' motivation and job satisfaction, and the relationship between these two components of organizational culture. The paper empirically evaluates and critically assesses the use of high-commitment management (HCM) practices in the UK and Hawaiian hotel sectors. A key focus of HCM is the provision of non-monetary rewards, and evidence suggests that non-monetary rewards act as an expresser of m ...

The Impact of Professional Development on Employee Performance and Job Satisfaction

1. Introduction What is the meaning of meaningful professional development activities? How should these activities be planned? And finally, how can professionals be convinced to participate in these activities and transfer the knowledge learned to their workplace? Professional development is considered a key to the improvement of employee performance and job satisfaction. However, the management of development, transfer, and maintenance of learned knowledge is far from being straightforward. In ...

The Impact of Parental Involvement on Students' Academic Achievement

1. Introduction The academic achievement of students in schools has been the concern of parents, educators, policymakers, and the public, and the discussions in this area have been ongoing for many years. It has long been a controversy and uncertainty among the stakeholders in education with the question of what influences students to perform better in their subjects and to show intention in learning. Realizing that students' academic achievement plays a very crucial role in the child's educati ...

The Impact of COVID-19 Challenges on Mental Health and Well-Being

1. Introduction The emergence and global spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) challenge the physical, economic, and mental health and well-being of individuals, communities, and governments around the world. The COVID-19 pandemic, further complicated by issues including social isolation measures, economic tension, and social unrest, presents a perfect storm for poor mental health, with a profound and pervasive impact on individuals, families, and societies. Many people are currently ex ...

La capacidad de adaptación en un mundo en constante cambio

1. Introducción A lo largo de muchos siglos, culturas, gobiernos y empresas se han preocupado de "preservar" sus principales elementos. Sin embargo, entendemos hoy que preservar es caer en una suerte de estado rígidamente anquilosado, que poco o nada aporta a un entorno que se torna efímero. Lo que caracteriza a los seres vivos (de manera genérica) y a las empresas (de manera particular) es, prácticamente, la misma conducta exitosa: adaptarse para permanecer, por encima de todas las cosas. Si e ...

Analyzing the Importance of Collaboration and Communication in Effective Teamwork

1. Introduction Effective teamwork is a critical aspect of helping employees feel engaged and satisfied at work. Team projects that go smoothly, with team members communicating well and completing what they need to do, are a signal that the team is operating effectively. Often, employees who work within successful teams are also happy and satisfied in their jobs. There are numerous reasons why individuals' satisfaction at work increases with successful teams. Promotions and recognition in the w ...

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

1.1 Psychology as a Science

Learning objectives.

• Explain why using our intuition about everyday behavior is insufficient for a complete understanding of the causes of behavior.
• Describe the difference between values and facts and explain how the scientific method is used to differentiate between the two.

Despite the differences in their interests, areas of study, and approaches, all psychologists have one thing in common: They rely on scientific methods. Research psychologists use scientific methods to create new knowledge about the causes of behavior, whereas psychologist-practitioners , such as clinical, counseling, industrial-organizational, and school psychologists, use existing research to enhance the everyday life of others. The science of psychology is important for both researchers and practitioners.

In a sense all humans are scientists. We all have an interest in asking and answering questions about our world. We want to know why things happen, when and if they are likely to happen again, and how to reproduce or change them. Such knowledge enables us to predict our own behavior and that of others. We may even collect data (i.e., any information collected through formal observation or measurement ) to aid us in this undertaking. It has been argued that people are “everyday scientists” who conduct research projects to answer questions about behavior (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). When we perform poorly on an important test, we try to understand what caused our failure to remember or understand the material and what might help us do better the next time. When our good friends Monisha and Charlie break up, despite the fact that they appeared to have a relationship made in heaven, we try to determine what happened. When we contemplate the rise of terrorist acts around the world, we try to investigate the causes of this problem by looking at the terrorists themselves, the situation around them, and others’ responses to them.

The Problem of Intuition

The results of these “everyday” research projects can teach us many principles of human behavior. We learn through experience that if we give someone bad news, he or she may blame us even though the news was not our fault. We learn that people may become depressed after they fail at an important task. We see that aggressive behavior occurs frequently in our society, and we develop theories to explain why this is so. These insights are part of everyday social life. In fact, much research in psychology involves the scientific study of everyday behavior (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1967).

The problem, however, with the way people collect and interpret data in their everyday lives is that they are not always particularly thorough. Often, when one explanation for an event seems “right,” we adopt that explanation as the truth even when other explanations are possible and potentially more accurate. For example, eyewitnesses to violent crimes are often extremely confident in their identifications of the perpetrators of these crimes. But research finds that eyewitnesses are no less confident in their identifications when they are incorrect than when they are correct (Cutler & Wells, 2009; Wells & Hasel, 2008). People may also become convinced of the existence of extrasensory perception (ESP), or the predictive value of astrology, when there is no evidence for either (Gilovich, 1993). Furthermore, psychologists have also found that there are a variety of cognitive and motivational biases that frequently influence our perceptions and lead us to draw erroneous conclusions (Fiske & Taylor, 2007; Hsee & Hastie, 2006). In summary, accepting explanations for events without testing them thoroughly may lead us to think that we know the causes of things when we really do not.

Research Focus: Unconscious Preferences for the Letters of Our Own Name

A study reported in the Journal of Consumer Research (Brendl, Chattopadhyay, Pelham, & Carvallo, 2005) demonstrates the extent to which people can be unaware of the causes of their own behavior. The research demonstrated that, at least under certain conditions (and although they do not know it), people frequently prefer brand names that contain the letters of their own name to brand names that do not contain the letters of their own name.

The research participants were recruited in pairs and were told that the research was a taste test of different types of tea. For each pair of participants, the experimenter created two teas and named them by adding the word stem “oki” to the first three letters of each participant’s first name. For example, for Jonathan and Elisabeth, the names of the teas would have been Jonoki and Elioki.

The participants were then shown 20 packets of tea that were supposedly being tested. Eighteen packets were labeled with made-up Japanese names (e.g., “Mataku” or “Somuta”), and two were labeled with the brand names constructed from the participants’ names. The experimenter explained that each participant would taste only two teas and would be allowed to choose one packet of these two to take home.

One of the two participants was asked to draw slips of paper to select the two brands that would be tasted at this session. However, the drawing was rigged so that the two brands containing the participants’ name stems were always chosen for tasting. Then, while the teas were being brewed, the participants completed a task designed to heighten their needs for self-esteem, and that was expected to increase their desire to choose a brand that had the letters of their own name. Specifically, the participants all wrote about an aspect of themselves that they would like to change.

After the teas were ready, the participants tasted them and then chose to take a packet of one of the teas home with them. After they made their choice, the participants were asked why they chose the tea they had chosen, and then the true purpose of the study was explained to them.

The results of this study found that participants chose the tea that included the first three letters of their own name significantly more frequently (64% of the time) than they chose the tea that included the first three letters of their partner’s name (only 36% of the time). Furthermore, the decisions were made unconsciously; the participants did not know why they chose the tea they chose. When they were asked, more than 90% of the participants thought that they had chosen on the basis of taste, whereas only 5% of them mentioned the real cause—that the brand name contained the letters of their name.

Once we learn about the outcome of a given event (e.g., when we read about the results of a research project), we frequently believe that we would have been able to predict the outcome ahead of time. For instance, if half of a class of students is told that research concerning attraction between people has demonstrated that “opposites attract” and the other half is told that research has demonstrated that “birds of a feather flock together,” most of the students will report believing that the outcome that they just read about is true, and that they would have predicted the outcome before they had read about it. Of course, both of these contradictory outcomes cannot be true. (In fact, psychological research finds that “birds of a feather flock together” is generally the case.) The problem is that just reading a description of research findings leads us to think of the many cases we know that support the findings, and thus makes them seem believable. The tendency to think that we could have predicted something that has already occurred that we probably would not have been able to predict is called the hindsight bias , or the tendency to think that we could have predicted something that has already occurred that we probably would not have been able to predict.

Why Psychologists Rely on Empirical Methods

All scientists, whether they are physicists, chemists, biologists, sociologists, or psychologists, use empirical methods to study the topics that interest them. Empirical methods include the processes of collecting and organizing data and drawing conclusions about those data. The empirical methods used by scientists have developed over many years and provide a basis for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data within a common framework in which information can be shared. We can label the scientific method as the set of assumptions, rules, and procedures that scientists use to conduct empirical research .

Psychologists use a variety of techniques to measure and understand human behavior.

Tim Sheerman-Chase – “Volunteer Duty” Psychology Testing – CC BY 2.0 CAFNR – CC BY-NC 2.0

Although scientific research is an important method of studying human behavior, not all questions can be answered using scientific approaches. Statements that cannot be objectively measured or objectively determined to be true or false are not within the domain of scientific inquiry. Scientists therefore draw a distinction between values and facts. Values are personal statements such as “Abortion should not be permitted in this country,” “I will go to heaven when I die,” or “It is important to study psychology.” Facts are objective statements determined to be accurate through empirical study. Examples are “There were more than 21,000 homicides in the United States in 2009,” or “Research demonstrates that individuals who are exposed to highly stressful situations over long periods of time develop more health problems than those who are not.”

Because values cannot be considered to be either true or false, science cannot prove or disprove them. Nevertheless, as shown in Table 1.1 “Examples of Values and Facts in Scientific Research” , research can sometimes provide facts that can help people develop their values. For instance, science may be able to objectively measure the impact of unwanted children on a society or the psychological trauma suffered by women who have abortions. The effect of capital punishment on the crime rate in the United States may also be determinable. This factual information can and should be made available to help people formulate their values about abortion and capital punishment, as well as to enable governments to articulate appropriate policies. Values also frequently come into play in determining what research is appropriate or important to conduct. For instance, the U.S. government has recently supported and provided funding for research on HIV, AIDS, and terrorism, while denying funding for research using human stem cells.

Although scientists use research to help establish facts, the distinction between values and facts is not always clear-cut. Sometimes statements that scientists consider to be factual later, on the basis of further research, turn out to be partially or even entirely incorrect. Although scientific procedures do not necessarily guarantee that the answers to questions will be objective and unbiased, science is still the best method for drawing objective conclusions about the world around us. When old facts are discarded, they are replaced with new facts based on newer and more correct data. Although science is not perfect, the requirements of empiricism and objectivity result in a much greater chance of producing an accurate understanding of human behavior than is available through other approaches.

Levels of Explanation in Psychology

The study of psychology spans many different topics at many different levels of explanation which are the perspectives that are used to understand behavior . Lower levels of explanation are more closely tied to biological influences, such as genes, neurons, neurotransmitters, and hormones, whereas the middle levels of explanation refer to the abilities and characteristics of individual people, and the highest levels of explanation relate to social groups, organizations, and cultures (Cacioppo, Berntson, Sheridan, & McClintock, 2000).

The same topic can be studied within psychology at different levels of explanation, as shown in Figure 1.3 “Levels of Explanation” . For instance, the psychological disorder known as depression affects millions of people worldwide and is known to be caused by biological, social, and cultural factors. Studying and helping alleviate depression can be accomplished at low levels of explanation by investigating how chemicals in the brain influence the experience of depression. This approach has allowed psychologists to develop and prescribe drugs, such as Prozac, which may decrease depression in many individuals (Williams, Simpson, Simpson, & Nahas, 2009). At the middle levels of explanation, psychological therapy is directed at helping individuals cope with negative life experiences that may cause depression. And at the highest level, psychologists study differences in the prevalence of depression between men and women and across cultures. The occurrence of psychological disorders, including depression, is substantially higher for women than for men, and it is also higher in Western cultures, such as in the United States, Canada, and Europe, than in Eastern cultures, such as in India, China, and Japan (Chen, Wang, Poland, & Lin, 2009; Seedat et al., 2009). These sex and cultural differences provide insight into the factors that cause depression. The study of depression in psychology helps remind us that no one level of explanation can explain everything. All levels of explanation, from biological to personal to cultural, are essential for a better understanding of human behavior.

Figure 1.3 Levels of Explanation

The Challenges of Studying Psychology

Understanding and attempting to alleviate the costs of psychological disorders such as depression is not easy, because psychological experiences are extremely complex. The questions psychologists pose are as difficult as those posed by doctors, biologists, chemists, physicists, and other scientists, if not more so (Wilson, 1998).

A major goal of psychology is to predict behavior by understanding its causes. Making predictions is difficult in part because people vary and respond differently in different situations. Individual differences are the variations among people on physical or psychological dimensions. For instance, although many people experience at least some symptoms of depression at some times in their lives, the experience varies dramatically among people. Some people experience major negative events, such as severe physical injuries or the loss of significant others, without experiencing much depression, whereas other people experience severe depression for no apparent reason. Other important individual differences that we will discuss in the chapters to come include differences in extraversion, intelligence, self-esteem, anxiety, aggression, and conformity.

Because of the many individual difference variables that influence behavior, we cannot always predict who will become aggressive or who will perform best in graduate school or on the job. The predictions made by psychologists (and most other scientists) are only probabilistic. We can say, for instance, that people who score higher on an intelligence test will, on average, do better than people who score lower on the same test, but we cannot make very accurate predictions about exactly how any one person will perform.

Another reason that it is difficult to predict behavior is that almost all behavior is multiply determined , or produced by many factors. And these factors occur at different levels of explanation. We have seen, for instance, that depression is caused by lower-level genetic factors, by medium-level personal factors, and by higher-level social and cultural factors. You should always be skeptical about people who attempt to explain important human behaviors, such as violence, child abuse, poverty, anxiety, or depression, in terms of a single cause.

Furthermore, these multiple causes are not independent of one another; they are associated such that when one cause is present other causes tend to be present as well. This overlap makes it difficult to pinpoint which cause or causes are operating. For instance, some people may be depressed because of biological imbalances in neurotransmitters in their brain. The resulting depression may lead them to act more negatively toward other people around them, which then leads those other people to respond more negatively to them, which then increases their depression. As a result, the biological determinants of depression become intertwined with the social responses of other people, making it difficult to disentangle the effects of each cause.

Another difficulty in studying psychology is that much human behavior is caused by factors that are outside our conscious awareness, making it impossible for us, as individuals, to really understand them. The role of unconscious processes was emphasized in the theorizing of the Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), who argued that many psychological disorders were caused by memories that we have repressed and thus remain outside our consciousness. Unconscious processes will be an important part of our study of psychology, and we will see that current research has supported many of Freud’s ideas about the importance of the unconscious in guiding behavior.

Key Takeaways

• Psychology is the scientific study of mind and behavior.
• Though it is easy to think that everyday situations have commonsense answers, scientific studies have found that people are not always as good at predicting outcomes as they think they are.
• The hindsight bias leads us to think that we could have predicted events that we actually could not have predicted.
• People are frequently unaware of the causes of their own behaviors.
• Psychologists use the scientific method to collect, analyze, and interpret evidence.
• Employing the scientific method allows the scientist to collect empirical data objectively, which adds to the accumulation of scientific knowledge.
• Psychological phenomena are complex, and making predictions about them is difficult because of individual differences and because they are multiply determined at different levels of explanation.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• Can you think of a time when you used your intuition to analyze an outcome, only to be surprised later to find that your explanation was completely incorrect? Did this surprise help you understand how intuition may sometimes lead us astray?
• Describe the scientific method in a way that someone who knows nothing about science could understand it.
• Consider a behavior that you find to be important and think about its potential causes at different levels of explanation. How do you think psychologists would study this behavior?

Brendl, C. M., Chattopadhyay, A., Pelham, B. W., & Carvallo, M. (2005). Name letter branding: Valence transfers when product specific needs are active. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 405–415.

Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Sheridan, J. F., & McClintock, M. K. (2000). Multilevel integrative analyses of human behavior: Social neuroscience and the complementing nature of social and biological approaches. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (6), 829–843.

Chen, P.-Y., Wang, S.-C., Poland, R. E., & Lin, K.-M. (2009). Biological variations in depression and anxiety between East and West. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, 15 (3), 283–294.

Cutler, B. L., & Wells, G. L. (2009). Expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification. In J. L. Skeem, S. O. Lilienfeld, & K. S. Douglas (Eds.), Psychological science in the courtroom: Consensus and controversy (pp. 100–123). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2007). Social cognition: From brains to culture . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Gilovich, T. (1993). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life . New York, NY: Free Press.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hsee, C. K., & Hastie, R. (2006). Decision and experience: Why don’t we choose what makes us happy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (1), 31–37.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192–240). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Seedat, S., Scott, K. M., Angermeyer, M. C., Berglund, P., Bromet, E. J., Brugha, T. S.,…Kessler, R. C. (2009). Cross-national associations between gender and mental disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66 (7), 785–795.

Wells, G. L., & Hasel, L. E. (2008). Eyewitness identification: Issues in common knowledge and generalization. In E. Borgida & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom (pp. 159–176). Malden, NJ: Blackwell.

Williams, N., Simpson, A. N., Simpson, K., & Nahas, Z. (2009). Relapse rates with long-term antidepressant drug therapy: A meta-analysis. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 24 (5), 401–408.

Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge . New York, NY: Vintage Books

Introduction to Psychology Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Early history

Behaviourism, freud and his followers, after world war ii and sputnik.

• Impact and aftermath of the cognitive revolution
• Social cognitive neuroscience
• Epigenetics
• Evolving scope and structure of psychological science
• Multiple tools and methods for diverse goals
• Complex data-analysis methods

• Where was Sigmund Freud educated?
• What did Sigmund Freud die of?
• Why is Sigmund Freud famous?

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Verywell Mind - An Overview of Psychology
• Simply Psychology - What is Psychology?
• Khan Academy - Introduction to psychology - Depression and major depressive disorder
• Psychology Today - Psychology
• Social Science LibreTexts - What is Psychology?
• WebMD - Guide to Psychiatry and Counseling
• Official Site of the American Psychological Association
• psychology - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• psychology - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

psychology , scientific discipline that studies mental states and processes and behaviour in humans and other animals.

The discipline of psychology is broadly divisible into two parts: a large profession of practitioners and a smaller but growing science of mind , brain , and social behaviour. The two have distinctive goals, training, and practices, but some psychologists integrate the two.

(Read Sigmund Freud’s 1926 Britannica essay on psychoanalysis.)

In Western culture , contributors to the development of psychology came from many areas, beginning with philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle . Hippocrates philosophized about basic human temperaments (e.g., choleric, sanguine , melancholic) and their associated traits. Informed by the biology of his time, he speculated that physical qualities, such as yellow bile or too much blood, might underlie differences in temperament ( see also humour ). Aristotle postulated the brain to be the seat of the rational human mind, and in the 17th century René Descartes argued that the mind gives people the capacities for thought and consciousness : the mind “decides” and the body carries out the decision—a dualistic mind-body split that modern psychological science is still working to overcome. Two figures who helped to found psychology as a formal discipline and science in the 19th century were Wilhelm Wundt in Germany and William James in the United States . James’s The Principles of Psychology (1890) defined psychology as the science of mental life and provided insightful discussions of topics and challenges that anticipated much of the field’s research agenda a century later.

During the first half of the 20th century, however, behaviourism dominated most of American academic psychology. In 1913 John B. Watson , one of the influential founders of behaviourism, urged reliance on only objectively measurable actions and conditions, effectively removing the study of consciousness from psychology. He argued that psychology as a science must deal exclusively with directly observable behaviour in lower animals as well as humans, emphasized the importance of rewarding only desired behaviours in child rearing, and drew on principles of learning through classical conditioning (based on studies with dogs by the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov and thus known as Pavlovian conditioning ). In the United States most university psychology departments became devoted to turning psychology away from philosophy and into a rigorous empirical science.

Beginning in the 1930s, behaviourism flourished in the United States, with B.F. Skinner leading the way in demonstrating the power of operant conditioning through reinforcement. Behaviourists in university settings conducted experiments on the conditions controlling learning and “shaping” behaviour through reinforcement, usually working with laboratory animals such as rats and pigeons. Skinner and his followers explicitly excluded mental life, viewing the human mind as an impenetrable “black box,” open only to conjecture and speculative fictions. Their work showed that social behaviour is readily influenced by manipulating specific contingencies and by changing the consequences or reinforcement (rewards) to which behaviour leads in different situations. Changes in those consequences can modify behaviour in predictable stimulus-response (S-R) patterns. Likewise, a wide range of emotions , both positive and negative, may be acquired through processes of conditioning and can be modified by applying the same principles.

Concurrently, in a curious juxtaposition , the psychoanalytic theories and therapeutic practices developed by the Vienna-trained physician Sigmund Freud and his many disciples—beginning early in the 20th century and enduring for many decades—were undermining the traditional view of human nature as essentially rational. Freudian theory made reason secondary: for Freud, the unconscious and its often socially unacceptable irrational motives and desires, particularly the sexual and aggressive, were the driving force underlying much of human behaviour and mental illness . Making the unconscious conscious became the therapeutic goal of clinicians working within this framework.

Freud proposed that much of what humans feel, think, and do is outside awareness, self-defensive in its motivations, and unconsciously determined. Much of it also reflects conflicts grounded in early childhood that play out in complex patterns of seemingly paradoxical behaviours and symptoms. His followers, the ego psychologists, emphasized the importance of the higher-order functions and cognitive processes (e.g., competence motivation , self-regulatory abilities) as well as the individual’s psychological defense mechanisms . They also shifted their focus to the roles of interpersonal relations and of secure attachment in mental health and adaptive functioning, and they pioneered the analysis of these processes in the clinical setting.

After World War II , American psychology, particularly clinical psychology, grew into a substantial field in its own right, partly in response to the needs of returning veterans. The growth of psychology as a science was stimulated further by the launching of Sputnik in 1957 and the opening of the Russian-American space race to the Moon . As part of this race, the U.S. government fueled the growth of science. For the first time, massive federal funding became available, both to support behavioral research and to enable graduate training. Psychology became both a thriving profession of practitioners and a scientific discipline that investigated all aspects of human social behaviour, child development , and individual differences, as well as the areas of animal psychology, sensation , perception , memory , and learning.

Training in clinical psychology was heavily influenced by Freudian psychology and its offshoots. But some clinical researchers, working with both normal and disturbed populations, began to develop and apply methods focusing on the learning conditions that influence and control social behaviour. This behaviour therapy movement analyzed problematic behaviours (e.g., aggressiveness , bizarre speech patterns, smoking , fear responses) in terms of the observable events and conditions that seemed to influence the person’s problematic behaviour. Behavioral approaches led to innovations for therapy by working to modify problematic behaviour not through insight, awareness, or the uncovering of unconscious motivations but by addressing the behaviour itself. Behaviourists attempted to modify the maladaptive behaviour directly, examining the conditions controlling the individual’s current problems, not their possible historical roots. They also intended to show that such efforts could be successful without the symptom substitution that Freudian theory predicted. Freudians believed that removing the troubling behaviour directly would be followed by new and worse problems. Behaviour therapists showed that this was not necessarily the case.

To begin exploring the role of genetics in personality and social development , psychologists compared the similarity in personality shown by people who share the same genes or the same environment . Twin studies compared monozygotic (identical) as opposed to dizygotic (fraternal) twins, raised either in the same or in different environments . Overall, these studies demonstrated the important role of heredity in a wide range of human characteristics and traits, such as those of the introvert and extravert , and indicated that the biological-genetic influence was far greater than early behaviourism had assumed. At the same time, it also became clear that how such dispositions are expressed in behaviour depends importantly on interactions with the environment in the course of development, beginning in utero.

Psychology as a Science

Is psychology a science.

There is much debate over whether or not psychology is a science. Here are the arguments for and against the idea, as well as basic criteria for something being a science.

Factors that make something a science

• Controlled, experimental conditions that can show cause and effect and can test hypotheses.
• Highly standardised experiments that can be repeated in the same way - reliability
• Use of IVs and DVs.
• The scientific method – objective, systematic and replicable.
• The scientific cycle – objective, systematic and replicable observation. Building, refining or falsifying, development of a scientific theory, constant testing/refining and back to the theory.

For psychology being a science

• It relies on objective and systematic methods, so is more than the passive acceptance of facts.
• Because scientific methods rely on a belief in determinism, they are able to establish causes through use of methods that are empirical and replicable.
• If scientific theories no longer fit the facts, they can be refined/abandoned. Psychologists are always replicating each other’s work so poor theories become redundant quickly.

Against psychology being a science

• It concentrates so much on objectivity and control that it tells us little about how people act in more natural environments.
• Much of the subject matter in psychology is unobservable, so cannot be measured with any degree of accuracy.
• Not all psychologists share the view that all human behaviour can be explored using scientific methods.
• Allport (1947) took an eclectic approach to the study of psychology combining both the scientific methods of behaviourism and Freudian concepts of unconscious motivation – the best of both worlds!

1 Social Influence

1.1 Social Influence

1.1.1 Conformity

1.1.2 Asch (1951)

1.1.3 Sherif (1935)

1.1.4 Conformity to Social Roles

1.1.5 BBC Prison Study

1.1.6 End of Topic Test - Conformity

1.1.7 Obedience

1.1.8 Analysing Milgram's Experiment

1.1.9 Agentic State & Legitimate Authority

1.1.10 Variables of Obedience

1.1.11 Resistance to Social Influence

1.1.12 Minority Influence & Social Change

1.1.13 Minority Influence & Social Impact Theory

1.1.14 End of Topic Test - Social Influences

1.1.15 Exam-Style Question - Conformity

1.1.16 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Social Influence

2.1.1 Multi-Store Model of Memory

2.1.2 Short-Term vs Long-Term Memory

2.1.3 Long-Term Memory

2.1.4 Support for the Multi-Store Model of Memory

2.1.5 Duration Studies

2.1.6 Capacity Studies

2.1.7 Coding Studies

2.1.8 The Working Memory Model

2.1.9 The Working Memory Model 2

2.1.10 Support for the Working Memory Model

2.1.11 Explanations for Forgetting

2.1.12 Studies on Interference

2.1.13 Cue-Dependent Forgetting

2.1.14 Eye Witness Testimony - Loftus & Palmer

2.1.15 Eye Witness Testimony Loftus

2.1.16 Eyewitness Testimony - Post-Event Discussion

2.1.17 Eyewitness Testimony - Age & Misleading Questions

2.1.18 Cognitive Interview

2.1.19 Cognitive Interview - Geiselman & Fisher

2.1.20 End of Topic Test - Memory

2.1.21 Exam-Style Question - Memory

2.1.22 A-A* (AO3/4) - Memory

3 Attachment

3.1 Attachment

3.1.1 Caregiver-Infant Interaction

3.1.2 Condon & Sander (1974)

3.1.3 Schaffer & Emerson (1964)

3.1.4 Multiple Attachments

3.1.5 Studies on the Role of the Father

3.1.6 Animal Studies of Attachment

3.1.7 Explanations of Attachment

3.1.8 Attachment Types - Strange Situation

3.1.9 Cultural Differences in Attachment

3.1.10 Disruption of Attachment

3.1.11 Disruption of Attachment - Privation

3.1.12 Overcoming the Effects of Disruption

3.1.13 The Effects of Institutionalisation

3.1.14 Early Attachment

3.1.15 Critical Period of Attachment

3.1.16 End of Topic Test - Attachment

3.1.17 Exam-Style Question - Attachment

3.1.18 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Attachment

4 Psychopathology

4.1 Psychopathology

4.1.1 Definitions of Abnormality

4.1.2 Definitions of Abnormality 2

4.1.3 Phobias, Depression & OCD

4.1.4 Phobias: Behavioural Approach

4.1.5 Evaluation of Behavioural Explanations of Phobias

4.1.6 Depression: Cognitive Approach

4.1.7 OCD: Biological Approach

4.1.8 Evidence for the Biological Approach

4.1.9 End of Topic Test - Psychopathy

4.1.10 Exam-Style Question - Phobias

4.1.11 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Psychopathology

5 Approaches in Psychology

5.1 Approaches in Psychology

5.1.1 Psychology as a Science

5.1.2 Origins of Psychology

5.1.3 Reductionism & Problems with Introspection

5.1.4 The Behaviourist Approach - Classical Conditioning

5.1.5 Pavlov's Experiment

5.1.6 Little Albert Study

5.1.7 The Behaviourist Approach - Operant Conditioning

5.1.8 Social Learning Theory

5.1.9 The Cognitive Approach 1

5.1.10 The Cognitive Approach 2

5.1.11 The Biological Approach

5.1.12 Gottesman (1991) - Twin Studies

5.1.13 Brain Scanning

5.1.14 Structure of Personality & Little Hans

5.1.15 The Psychodynamic Approach (A2 only)

5.1.16 Humanistic Psychology (A2 only)

5.1.17 Aronoff (1957) (A2 Only)

5.1.18 Rogers' Client-Centred Therapy (A2 only)

5.1.19 End of Topic Test - Approaches in Psychology

5.1.20 Exam-Style Question - Approaches in Psychology

5.2 Comparison of Approaches (A2 only)

5.2.1 Psychodynamic Approach

5.2.2 Cognitive Approach

5.2.3 Biological Approach

5.2.4 Behavioural Approach

5.2.5 End of Topic Test - Comparison of Approaches

6 Biopsychology

6.1 Biopsychology

6.1.1 Nervous System Divisions

6.1.2 Neuron Structure & Function

6.1.3 Neurotransmitters

6.1.4 Endocrine System Function

6.1.5 Fight or Flight Response

6.1.6 The Brain (A2 only)

6.1.7 Localisation of Brain Function (A2 only)

6.1.8 Studying the Brain (A2 only)

6.1.9 CIMT (A2 Only) & Postmortem Examinations

6.1.10 Biological Rhythms (A2 only)

6.1.11 Studies on Biological Rhythms (A2 Only)

6.1.12 End of Topic Test - Biopsychology

6.1.13 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Biopsychology

7 Research Methods

7.1 Research Methods

7.1.1 Experimental Method

7.1.2 Observational Techniques

7.1.3 Covert, Overt & Controlled Observation

7.1.4 Self-Report Techniques

7.1.5 Correlations

7.1.6 Exam-Style Question - Research Methods

7.1.7 End of Topic Test - Research Methods

7.2 Scientific Processes

7.2.1 Aims, Hypotheses & Sampling

7.2.2 Pilot Studies & Design

7.2.3 Questionnaires

7.2.4 Variables & Control

7.2.5 Demand Characteristics & Investigator Effects

7.2.6 Ethics

7.2.7 Limitations of Ethical Guidelines

7.2.8 Consent & Protection from Harm Studies

7.2.9 Peer Review & The Economy

7.2.10 Validity (A2 only)

7.2.11 Reliability (A2 only)

7.2.12 Features of Science (A2 only)

7.2.13 Paradigms & Falsifiability (A2 only)

7.2.14 Scientific Report (A2 only)

7.2.15 Scientific Report 2 (A2 only)

7.2.16 End of Topic Test - Scientific Processes

7.3 Data Handling & Analysis

7.3.1 Types of Data

7.3.2 Descriptive Statistics

7.3.3 Correlation

7.3.4 Evaluation of Descriptive Statistics

7.3.5 Presentation & Display of Data

7.3.6 Levels of Measurement (A2 only)

7.3.7 Content Analysis (A2 only)

7.3.8 Case Studies (A2 only)

7.3.9 Thematic Analysis (A2 only)

7.3.10 End of Topic Test - Data Handling & Analysis

7.4 Inferential Testing

7.4.1 Introduction to Inferential Testing

7.4.2 Sign Test

7.4.3 Piaget Conservation Experiment

7.4.4 Non-Parametric Tests

8 Issues & Debates in Psychology (A2 only)

8.1 Issues & Debates in Psychology (A2 only)

8.1.1 Culture Bias

8.1.2 Sub-Culture Bias

8.1.3 Gender Bias

8.1.4 Ethnocentrism

8.1.5 Cross Cultural Research

8.1.6 Free Will & Determinism

8.1.7 Comparison of Free Will & Determinism

8.1.8 Reductionism & Holism

8.1.9 Reductionist & Holistic Approaches

8.1.10 Nature-Nurture Debate

8.1.11 Interactionist Approach

8.1.12 Nature-Nurture Methods

8.1.13 Nature-Nurture Approaches

8.1.14 Idiographic & Nomothetic Approaches

8.1.15 Socially Sensitive Research

8.1.16 End of Topic Test - Issues and Debates

9 Option 1: Relationships (A2 only)

9.1 Relationships: Sexual Relationships (A2 only)

9.1.1 Sexual Selection & Human Reproductive Behaviour

9.1.2 Intersexual & Intrasexual Selection

9.1.3 Evaluation of Sexual Selection Behaviour

9.1.4 Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-Disclosure

9.1.5 Evaluation of Self-Disclosure Theory

9.1.6 Self Disclosure in Computer Communication

9.1.7 Factors Affecting Attraction: Physical Attributes

9.1.8 Matching Hypothesis Studies

9.1.9 Factors Affecting Physical Attraction

9.1.10 Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter Theory 1

9.1.11 Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter Theory 2

9.1.12 Evaluation of Filter Theory

9.1.13 End of Topic Test - Sexual Relationships

9.2 Relationships: Romantic Relationships (A2 only)

9.2.1 Social Exchange Theory

9.2.2 Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory

9.2.3 Equity Theory

9.2.4 Evaluation of Equity Theory

9.2.5 Rusbult’s Investment Model

9.2.6 Evaluation of Rusbult's Investment Model

9.2.7 Relationship Breakdown

9.2.8 Studies on Relationship Breakdown

9.2.9 Evaluation of Relationship Breakdown

9.2.10 End of Topic Test - Romantic relationships

9.3 Relationships: Virtual & Parasocial (A2 only)

9.3.1 Virtual Relationships in Social Media

9.3.2 Evaluation of Reduced Cues & Hyperpersonal

9.3.3 Parasocial Relationships

9.3.4 Attachment Theory & Parasocial Relationships

9.3.5 Evaluation of Parasocial Relationship Theories

9.3.6 End of Topic Test - Virtual & Parasocial Realtions

10 Option 1: Gender (A2 only)

10.1 Gender (A2 only)

10.1.1 Sex, Gender & Androgyny

10.1.2 Gender Identity Disorder

10.1.3 Biological & Social Explanations of GID

10.1.4 Biological Influences on Gender

10.1.5 Effects of Hormones on Gender

10.1.6 End of Topic Test - Gender 1

10.1.7 Kohlberg’s Theory of Gender Constancy

10.1.8 Evaluation of Kohlberg's Theory

10.1.9 Gender Schema Theory

10.1.10 Psychodynamic Approach to Gender Development 1

10.1.11 Psychodynamic Approach to Gender Development 2

10.1.12 Social Approach to Gender Development

10.1.13 Criticisms of Social Theory

10.1.14 End of Topic Test - Gender 2

10.1.15 Media Influence on Gender Development

10.1.16 Cross Cultural Research

10.1.17 Childcare & Gender Roles

10.1.18 End of Topic Test - Gender 3

11 Option 1: Cognition & Development (A2 only)

11.1 Cognition & Development (A2 only)

11.1.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development 1

11.1.2 Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development 2

11.1.3 Schema Accommodation Assimilation & Equilibration

11.1.4 Piaget & Inhelder’s Three Mountains Task (1956)

11.1.5 Conservation & Class Inclusion

11.1.6 Evaluation of Piaget

11.1.7 End of Topic Test - Cognition & Development 1

11.1.8 Vygotsky

11.1.9 Evaluation of Vygotsky

11.1.10 Baillargeon

11.1.11 Baillargeon's studies

11.1.12 Evaluation of Baillargeon

11.1.13 End of Topic Test - Cognition & Development 2

11.1.14 Sense of Self & Theory of Mind

11.1.15 Baron-Cohen Studies

11.1.16 Selman’s Five Levels of Perspective Taking

11.1.17 Biological Basis of Social Cognition

11.1.18 Evaluation of Biological Basis of Social Cognition

11.1.19 Important Issues in Social Neuroscience

11.1.20 End of Topic Test - Cognition & Development 3

11.1.21 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Cognition & Development

12 Option 2: Schizophrenia (A2 only)

12.1 Schizophrenia: Diagnosis (A2 only)

12.1.1 Classification & Diagnosis

12.1.2 Reliability & Validity of Diagnosis

12.1.3 Gender & Cultural Bias

12.1.4 Pinto (2017) & Copeland (1971)

12.1.5 End of Topic Test - Scizophrenia Diagnosis

12.2 Schizophrenia: Treatment (A2 only)

12.2.1 Family-Based Psychological Explanations

12.2.2 Evaluation of Family-Based Explanations

12.2.3 Cognitive Explanations

12.2.4 Drug Therapies

12.2.5 Evaluation of Drug Therapies

12.2.6 Biological Explanations for Schizophrenia

12.2.7 Dopamine Hypothesis

12.2.8 End of Topic Test - Schizoprenia Treatment 1

12.2.9 Psychological Therapies 1

12.2.10 Psychological Therapies 2

12.2.11 Evaluation of Psychological Therapies

12.2.12 Interactionist Approach - Diathesis-Stress Model

12.2.13 Interactionist Approach - Triggers & Treatment

12.2.14 Evaluation of the Interactionist Approach

12.2.15 End of Topic Test - Scizophrenia Treatments 2

13 Option 2: Eating Behaviour (A2 only)

13.1 Eating Behaviour (A2 only)

13.1.1 Explanations for Food Preferences

13.1.2 Birch et al (1987) & Lowe et al (2004)

13.1.3 Control of Eating Behaviours

13.1.4 Control of Eating Behaviour: Leptin

13.1.5 Biological Explanations for Anorexia Nervosa

13.1.6 Psychological Explanations: Family Systems Theory

13.1.7 Psychological Explanations: Social Learning Theory

13.1.8 Psychological Explanations: Cognitive Theory

13.1.9 Biological Explanations for Obesity

13.1.10 Biological Explanations: Studies

13.1.11 Psychological Explanations for Obesity

13.1.12 Psychological Explanations: Studies

13.1.13 End of Topic Test - Eating Behaviour

14 Option 2: Stress (A2 only)

14.1 Stress (A2 only)

14.1.1 Physiology of Stress

14.1.2 Role of Stress in Illness

14.1.3 Role of Stress in Illness: Studies

14.1.4 Social Readjustment Rating Scales

14.1.5 Hassles & Uplifts Scales

14.1.6 Stress, Workload & Control

14.1.7 Stress Level Studies

14.1.8 End of Topic Test - Stress 1

14.1.9 Physiological Measures of Stress

14.1.10 Individual Differences

14.1.11 Stress & Gender

14.1.12 Drug Therapy & Biofeedback for Stress

14.1.13 Stress Inoculation Therapy

14.1.14 Social Support & Stress

14.1.15 End of Topic Test - Stress 2

15 Option 3: Aggression (A2 only)

15.1 Aggression: Physiological (A2 only)

15.1.1 Neural Mechanisms

15.1.2 Serotonin

15.1.3 Hormonal Mechanisms

15.1.4 Genetic Factors

15.1.5 Genetic Factors 2

15.1.6 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Physiological 1

15.1.7 Ethological Explanation

15.1.8 Innate Releasing Mechanisms & Fixed Action Pattern

15.1.9 Evolutionary Explanations

15.1.10 Buss et al (1992) - Sex Differences in Jealousy

15.1.11 Evaluation of Evolutionary Explanations

15.1.12 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Physiological 2

15.2 Aggression: Social Psychological (A2 only)

15.2.1 Social Psychological Explanation

15.2.2 Buss (1963) - Frustration/Aggression

15.2.3 Social Psychological Explanation 2

15.2.4 Social Learning Theory (SLT) 1

15.2.5 Social Learning Theory (SLT) 2

15.2.6 Limitations of Social Learning Theory (SLT)

15.2.7 Deindividuation

15.2.8 Deindividuation 2

15.2.9 Deindividuation - Diener et al (1976)

15.2.10 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Social Psychology

15.2.11 Institutional Aggression: Prisons

15.2.12 Evaluation of Dispositional & Situational

15.2.13 Influence of Computer Games

15.2.14 Influence of Television

15.2.15 Evaluation of Studies on Media

15.2.16 Desensitisation & Disinhibition

15.2.17 Cognitive Priming

15.2.18 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Social Psychology

16 Option 3: Forensic Psychology (A2 only)

16.1 Forensic Psychology (A2 only)

16.1.1 Defining Crime

16.1.2 Measuring Crime

16.1.3 Offender Profiling

16.1.4 Evaluation of Offender Profiling

16.1.5 John Duffy Case Study

16.1.6 Biological Explanations 1

16.1.7 Biological Explanations 2

16.1.8 Evaluation of the Biological Explanation

16.1.9 Cognitive Explanations

16.1.10 Moral Reasoning

16.1.11 Psychodynamic Explanation 1

16.1.12 Psychodynamic Explanation 2

16.1.13 End of Topic Test - Forensic Psychology 1

16.1.14 Differential Association Theory

16.1.15 Custodial Sentencing

16.1.16 Effects of Prison

16.1.17 Evaluation of the Effects of Prison

16.1.18 Recidivism

16.1.19 Behavioural Treatments & Therapies

16.1.20 Effectiveness of Behavioural Treatments

16.1.21 Restorative Justice

16.1.22 End of Topic Test - Forensic Psychology 2

17 Option 3: Addiction (A2 only)

17.1 Addiction (A2 only)

17.1.1 Definition

17.1.2 Brain Neurochemistry Explanation

17.1.3 Learning Theory Explanation

17.1.4 Evaluation of a Learning Theory Explanation

17.1.5 Cognitive Bias

17.1.6 Griffiths on Cognitive Bias

17.1.7 Evaluation of Cognitive Theory (A2 only)

17.1.8 End of Topic Test - Addiction 1

17.1.9 Gambling Addiction & Learning Theory

17.1.10 Social Influences on Addiction 1

17.1.11 Social Influences on Addiction 2

17.1.12 Personal Influences on Addiction

17.1.13 Genetic Explanations of Addiction

17.1.14 End of Topic Test - Addiction 2

17.2 Treating Addiction (A2 only)

17.2.1 Drug Therapy

17.2.2 Behavioural Interventions

17.2.3 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy

17.2.4 Theory of Reasoned Action

17.2.5 Theory of Planned Behaviour

17.2.6 Six Stage Model of Behaviour Change

17.2.7 End of Topic Test - Treating Addiction

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Psychopathology

Origins of Psychology

Home — Essay Samples — Psychology — Social Psychology — Why Psychology Is Considered A Science

A Discussion of Whether Psychology is a Science

• Categories: Social Psychology

About this sample

Words: 496 |

Published: Dec 16, 2021

Words: 496 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Works Cited

• Bunge, M. (2009). Is psychology a unified science? Cognitive Systems Research, 10(2), 162-176.
• Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford University Press.
• Fuchs, T., & Mahr, A. (2019). Psychology as science: The theoretical framework of psychology as a natural science. In The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Empathy (pp. 38-53). Routledge.
• Gergen, K. J. (2015). The science of psychology as methodologically embodied skepticism. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of Psychology: Global Perspectives (pp. 225-242). Oxford University Press.
• Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
• Lambert, A. J. (2013). Toward a positive psychology of religion: Belief science in the postmodern era. Journal of Humanistic Psychology , 53(2), 195-215.
• Popper, K. R. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
• Thagard, P. (2012). The cognitive science of science: Explanation, discovery, and conceptual change. MIT Press.
• Wundt, W. (1897). Outlines of Psychology. Wilhelm Engelmann.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science Psychology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 662 words

4 pages / 1605 words

2 pages / 1100 words

3 pages / 1251 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Social Psychology

Racism is a deeply ingrained issue in society that continues to plague communities across the globe. While overt acts of racism are widely condemned, there exists a more insidious form of racism that often goes unnoticed: the [...]

Social dilemmas happen when the members of a group, culture, or society are in possible conflict over the establishment and use of shared “public goods”. Public goods are benefits that are shared by a community and that everyone [...]

Procrastination is a common issue amongst college students, which can greatly impact their academic performance and overall success. This informative speech will explore the causes and consequences of procrastination in college, [...]

Higher education has become an essential part of society in the modern world. As the job market becomes increasingly competitive, the value of a college education has never been greater. While some may argue that college is not [...]

“The adjustment one individual makes affects the adjustments the others must make, which in turn require readjustment.” — John Thibaut and Harold Kelley According to the textbook, the definition of Social [...]

The four main models to explain psychological abnormality are the biological, behavioral, cognitive, and psychodynamic models. We will also be discussing the humanistic-existential and the sociocultural model. They all attempt [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Home > Blog > Academic Degrees > Health Science News > How Is Psychology a Science: What You Should Know

Academic Degrees , Health Science News

How Is Psychology a Science: What You Should Know

Updated: June 19, 2024

Published: July 7, 2021

There’s been a long debate about the question: “Is psychology a science?” By defining what psychology is and looking at the ways in which academics have defined science, we can come to see how psychology is classified as a science.

To get to this endpoint, let’s explore the details about psychology and science.

What is Psychology?

The term psychology can be broken down into its root words that are Greek. Psyche means “mind” or “soul.” Logos means “the study of.” Psychology is the study of mental processes and human behavior.

Psychology consists of the following scientific steps:

• Collecting facts
• Developing theories and hypotheses to explain the facts
• Testing the theories

What Makes Psychology a Science?

Regardless of how you view psychology, it’s either going to be placed into the social sciences or science category. To support psychology as a science, we turn to the idea of empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is able to be supported and verified by way of observation and experience, as opposed to simply relying on logic or theory.

Through empirical evidence, psychologists can understand human behavior because of observation. Since the mind cannot be directly observed, it is through actions that psychologists are able to better grasp what may be happening in the mind.

Going deeper, psychology leverages the following:

• Reasoning: Psychologists rely on scientific reasoning to interpret and design psychological research and interpret phenomena.
• Discipline: At the core of psychology sits the scientific method. Psychologists conduct studies and contribute to research based on verifiable evidence.
• Research: Like traditional science, psychologists make use of quantitative and qualitative research methods that are necessary for performing analysis and drawing conclusions.
• Application: To practice psychology in a practical setting, students must complete further education beyond a bachelor’s degree. In most instances, a psychologist will need to obtain a PhD. This advanced education will consist of research skills and robust knowledge and application of the scientific method.

Key Characteristics of a Science

To define any field as a science, it generally will cover these key elements:

Objectivity

When conducting any study, researchers must remain unbiased and objective. They cannot let their own emotions and feelings enter the process. Additionally, while it’s not always possible to fully remove bias, it is necessary to minimize it as much as possible. That’s a main tenet of science.

Empirical evidence

Evidence is collected through experiments and observations. Again, this negates the entry of belief. While data is being collected, the information is diligently recorded so that other researchers can review the validity and the process.

In order to deduce cause and effect (independent variables and dependent variables), variables must be controlled.

Hypothesis testing

To start off the process, an observation is made. Then, scientists, academics, and researchers create their hypothesis, which is a prediction that’s rooted in theory. These hypotheses should be clearly stated and then tested through unbiased experiments.

Predictability

Based on the findings of research, scientists should technically be able to forecast and predict the future.

Replication

When scientists develop experiments, they should be able to be replicated to test if the outcomes are the same given different variables. When the same results occur based on the same conditions, then that provides credibility and accuracy to the findings, which can give way to the creation of a scientific theory or discovery.

Social Science: A Definition

It’s clear to see how psychology maintains the elements of science. However, the argument exists because it also can fall into the category of a social science based on the definition.

A social science is any academic study or science that looks at human behavior in a social and cultural aspect. Such studies include: sociology, anthropology, economics, political science, and for some, psychology.

Psychology as a Social Science

When it comes to studying psychology in college, most institutions will classify psychology under social science. As a student, you’ll study social behaviors, human development, and emotions, which all include social science methods. However, depending on the speciality of psychology you can pursue, some align more closely with hard science and others with social science.

For example, neuropsychology and biological psychology are closer to physical sciences. Social psychology, as you probably guessed, is closely aligned to the social sciences.

What Do Psychologists Do?

The main goal of a psychologist is to understand humans’ emotions, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. In both the short term and long term, clinical psychologists work with patients to help them deal with and overcome their problems.

Psychologists have the opportunity to work in a variety of settings and study various sub disciplines. For example, a psychologist can work as a clinical psychologist, child psychologist, career counselor, professor, or neuropsychologist, to name a few.

Psychologists can be found working in private practice, rehabilitation facilities, schools, hospitals, clinics, corporations, sports teams, and other settings.

How to Become a Psychologist

To practice as a psychologist, you must complete the licensure process. Before becoming licensed, you’ll need to earn a degree.

Here are the basics steps you’ll need to follow to work in this rewarding field:

• Undergraduate Studies: Begin by earning your bachelor’s degree. You can do so in psychology or a related field like education, communication, or sociology, for example.
• Graduate Studies: To specialize, you’ll continue your formal education with a master’s, doctor of psychology (PsyD), PhD in Psychology, or education specialist (EdS) in Psychology.
• Intern: Based on your level of study, you’ll have to fulfill a specified number of hours working under a licensed psychologist and learning from them while completing projects.
• Licensure: To legally call yourself a psychologist and work as a psychologist, you’ll have to obtain licensure . The steps to do so will vary by state and location. However, the general idea is that you will have to pass national exams and work under supervision of a licensed psychologist. Some states also may require an oral examination or jurisprudence examination to understand the legal issues concerning psychology.

The Bottom Line

No matter how you look at it, the answer is yes to the question, “Is psychology a science?” While some people will argue that psychology is a social science, others will view it as a hard science.

Regardless of how you categorize the area of study and career, there are a variety of subspecialties and career paths to choose within the realm.

In this article

At UoPeople, our blog writers are thinkers, researchers, and experts dedicated to curating articles relevant to our mission: making higher education accessible to everyone. Read More

Is Psychology a Science?

During the mid-19th century, scholars (although at that time probably termed philosophers) wanted to study human nature with the aim of applying the scientific method to observe, record, and treat human behavior that was deemed as unnatural. They believed that if people could be studied in a scientific manner, there would be a greater accuracy in understanding present behavior, in predicting future behavior, and, most controversially, in altering behavior through scientific intervention. There are many areas of psychology, each attempting to explain behavior from slightly different perspectives;

Related posts:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples

Is Psychology a Science?

Updated 12 December 2023

Downloads 58

Category Psychology ,  Science

There has been an argument on whether psychology is a science or pseudoscience. Psychology is the defined by the American Psychology Association as the study of the behavior and mind (Carlson, 2014). It studies how the mind works, and how it affects the behavior. Pseudoscience consists of observations or beliefs that are incorrectly considered to be founded on scientific methods (Armstrong, 2010). Scientific methods are the procedures that characterize natural science that is characterized by operationalizable definition, a measurement that is reliable, control conditions, and reliability (Armstrong, 2010). From these definitions characteristics, psychology can be argued to be a science.

Why psychology is a science

            Psychology is science as because it is based on scientific process. The scientific process is founded on a hypothetico-deductive model formulated by Karl Popper (Sharma, 2006). He proposed that theories ought to be put first, which are then applied in the generation of hypotheses that are falsifiable through experiment and observation. Popper points out that falsification is the only way of being certain (Yearley, 1985). Classic Psychologists rely on laboratory controlled experiments and reject any invisible or hidden forces as influencing behavior (Dienes, 2008). The lab based approach is also adopted by cognitive psychologists (Carlson, 2014). Thus psychology can be regarded as science as uses experiments and observation to falsify theories.

            Psychology is science as its theories can be falsified. According to Popper the typical method of pseudoscience is looking for verifications. If any behavior by an individual can be explained, then the theory cannot be criticized using observations. It means that it loses its empirical character. Theories can only be improved if they are criticized (Dienes, 2008). Popper was trying to differentiate science from non-science was not only on classification but also an analysis of how to grow knowledge. Regarding the growing knowledge the point is whether a theory is used in inspiring falsifiable predictions, which in turn are applied in the improvement of the theory. Psychology conducts observations and experiments with the aim of testing a theory. It thus means that psychological theories are falsifiable, creating room for criticism and verification. Psychological theories have an empirical character (L'Abate, 2014). However, it does not mean that it is all the psychological theories that have an empirical character. As Popper points out, the Freudian psychoanalysis theory is not falsifiable. That is contrary to the view of Grunbaum, who argued that the theory is falsifiable. He argues based on the fact that comprehensible projections can be drawn from the psychoanalysis theory account (Lack " Rousseau, 2016). Consequently, psychological theories are scientific as they contain prediction statements making psychology a science.

Psychology is a science because it uses scientific methods. Psychology shows characteristics of scientific methods. Psychology uses theories that generate hypotheses. The hypotheses are verified using empirical methods and observations. Psychology is also considered science due to its theories that can be criticized. Hence psychological theories have empirical character. Psychological theories such as the psychoanalysis theory have prediction statements that are verified through empirical methods to increase knowledge and grow the theory. From these arguments, it is evident that psychology can be classified as a science.

Armstrong, B. (2010). Scientific methods. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73, 7.

Carlson, N. R. (2014). Psychology: The science of behavior. Pearson.

Dienes, Z. (2008). Understanding psychology as a science: An introduction to scientific and statistical inference. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

L'Abate, L. (2014). Clinical psychology and psychotherapy as a science. Place of publication not identified: Springer.

Lack, C. W., " Rousseau, J. (2016). Critical thinking, science, and pseudoscience: Why we can't trust our brains. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Sharma, A. (2006). Scientific methods. New Delhi: Vishvabharti Publications.

Yearley, S. (1985). Imputing intentionality: Popper, demarcation and Darwin, Freud and Marx. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16, 4, 337-50.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

Related topics.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Type your email

By clicking “Submit”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy policy. Sometimes you will receive account related emails.

• Faculty/Staff
• MyMichiganTech
• Safety Data Sheets
• Website Settings
• Psychology and Human Factors
• Undergraduate

Psychology—BS

Save a Second, a Dollar, a Relationship, or a Life

If you are intrigued by the inner workings of the psyche, a Bachelor of Science in Psychology from Michigan Tech will allow you to mold that curiosity into a meaningful career.

Psychology is the scientific study of human behavior and cognitive processes. This broad discipline seeks to understand the human condition and explain behavior using scientific methods, with the fundamental goal of improving the well-being of individuals and our overall society.

Request Information

Form loading . . .

Psychologists can apply their training to help preserve or rehabilitate people's interpersonal relationships and mental health, and to help businesses safeguard assets such as time, finances, and human resources. From health practitioners who manage and treat psychological disorders, to business professionals who foster a healthy and productive workplace, to researchers who solve practical problems—psychology offers diverse applications and career pathways that attract many students to the discipline.

Flexible Degree, Countless Opportunities

A degree in psychology paves the way for a myriad of careers in countless settings, including government, industry, law, sports science, engineering, communications, and computers/technology. New psychology graduates entering the job market may qualify for entry-level positions in mental health, social/human services, and business administration.

Data crunching is the next big thing and a psychology grad is equipped to go beyond the numbers to interpret meaning, track trends, and gather insights. Scientific research, another growing field, requires the use of case study, content analysis, lab and field experiments, and surveys—research approaches that you gain experience with as a psychology major. In a more traditional vein, the demand for counseling and therapy services is expected to continue rising along with awareness of mental health as a component of overall well-being.

Concentrations

Psychology is a broad discipline. Focusing your effort on a concentration allows you to specialize and align with a future career interest, increasing your chances of securing graduate school acceptance or a job post-graduation.

Clinical/Counseling Psychology

The Clinical/Counseling Psychology concentration focuses on theories that inform how people function both personally and in their relationships at all ages; the emotional, social, work, school, and physical health concerns people may have at different stages in their lives; and the assessment and treatment of mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders. Students gain in-depth knowledge of normal development, psychological disorders, psychological theories, and treatment techniques.

Cognitive Psychology

The Cognitive Psychology concentration focuses on brain, perception, attention, memory, thinking and decision making with additional courses in the application of cognitive theory to work (e.g., industrial/organizational psychology), social media, and design (e.g., human centered design, cognitive task analysis).

Social Psychology

The Social Psychology concentration focuses on how individuals interact with, and are affected by, each other and their environments. Thematic areas include social and intergroup relations; social justice and perception; social influence; attitude and attitude change; motivation; emotion; industrial/organizational psychology; personality; and social cognition.

Schedule a Virtual Meeting

Request Info

Schedule a Visit

• 3 concentration options
• 100% of psychology students participate in research or a field experience
• 90% graduate school acceptance rate—higher than the national average of 20%

Tomorrow Needs Professionals Who Understand The Human Condition

In a fast-moving and increasingly more stressed society, the need for mental health professionals will continue to grow. And psychology graduates can apply their deep understanding of human behavior, motivation, and cognitive processes to various roles in today's tech-driven business world, like customer service, human resources, management, marketing, and sales. With knowledge in psychology, you can help predict employee and customer behavior which leads to better decision-making and more effective strategies.

Career Opportunities for Psychology Majors

Those with a BS in Psychology work in some of the most satisfying jobs. Mental Health Counselor is #100 , School Psychologist is #94 , and Psychologist is #80 of the 100 Best Jobs according to US News and World Report. Some of the other career paths open to you with a BS in Psychology:

• Account Manager
• Behavior Analyst/Technician
• Case Worker
• Child Protection Worker
• College Admissions Counselor or Recruiter
• Community Recreation Coordinator
• Corrections Officer
• Drug/Substance Abuse Counselor
• Employment Counselor
• Family Services Coordinator
• Group Home Coordinator
• Health and Wellness Coach
• Hospital Patient Services Representative
• Marketing Researcher
• Marketing Specialist/Manager
• Occupational Analyst
• Program Manager
• Public Relations
• Residential Youth Counselor
• Social Service Director
• Training Specialist
• Youth Development Leader

Michigan Tech's Psychology Program: The Perfect Preparation for Graduate Studies

The growing list of graduate schools that have enrolled Michigan Tech psychology graduates includes:

• Boston College
• Brandeis University
• Canisius College
• Central Michigan University
• Florida State University
• Kansas State University
• Marquette University
• Minnesota State University
• Montana State University
• Northern Michigan University
• St. George's University
• Southern Illinois University
• University of Denver
• University of Massachusetts
• University of St. Thomas
• University of Wisconsin-Madison
• University of Wisconsin-Stout
• Western Michigan University

Ready to take the next step?

Learn more about studying psychology at Michigan's flagship technological university.

"The program is really small and it's a really close relationship with the faculty. There are a lot of chances for research and building those important connections with people in your field." Hannah DeRuyter '23, BS Psychology

Study Psychology at a Technological University

A rapidly changing world demands professionals who think critically, communicate clearly with a variety of audiences, and engage with empathy and understanding in diverse workplaces. Put your keen understanding of how and why people think, feel, and behave the way they do to make a difference in people's lives and impact the way humans live, work, and play.

• Get personalized attention : 6:1 student to faculty ratio. Nearly every major class is taught by one of our core faculty. Your instructors will take the time to get to know you and help you explore career possibilities. Faculty are doing interesting research in a variety of domains; you can join their lab or develop your own research ideas with them.
• Customize your education : Our programs are flexible by design, allowing you to create a personalized program of study to explore your interests and build a unique portfolio of skills and experiences that sets you apart on the job market. Choose a concentration in clinical psychology and counseling, social psychology, or cognitive psychology. You can also use your free electives to pursue a minor without increasing your time to graduation. Many of our students choose minors in areas that complement psychology, including pre-health professions , business , public health , diversity studies , math , and computer science .
• Engage in research : As an undergraduate, work on research with a faculty mentor in one of our labs or research groups . Gain hands-on experience with state-of-the-art research methods and tools. Research experiences give students a competitive advantage when applying for graduate school and for research-based jobs in industry. All psychology students gain foundational research skills through a two-semester research course in which they work in teams to design, conduct, and present the results of a study of their choice.
• Gain hands-on experience through internships : You can complete an internship to explore job possibilities and build your skill sets in real-world settings without needing to take a semester off to do so. Past internship locations have included the Center for Student Mental Health and Well-being, the Copper Country Intermediate School District, U.P. Kids foster and adoption services, The Barbara Kettle Gundlach Shelter for Domestic Abuse, and many others.

Undergraduate Majors in Psychology and Human Factors

• Human Factors

Not sure which major is the right fit? No problem. Just declare the General Sciences and Arts major , give yourself time, and decide when you arrive on campus. To learn more speak to an academic advisor .

Undergraduate Minors

Specialize in a secondary discipline outside of or complementary to your major, expand your knowledge base, and boost your potential career options with a psychology minor . Want a future career in law or medicine? A minor in a pre-professional program such as Law and Society  or Pre-Health prepares you for graduate school. Or choose any of the other 80+ minors . Although you can declare a minor anytime, we recommend that you begin your minor studies as early as possible in your academic career. To learn more speak to an academic advisor .

Tomorrow Needs You

Supercharge your understanding of people. Apply your knowledge to help preserve or rehabilitate people's interpersonal relationships and mental health, or to help businesses safeguard assets such as time, finances, and human resources. You'll join the ranks of health practitioners who manage and treat psychological disorders, business professionals who foster a healthy and productive workplace, or collaborative researchers from a variety of fields who work together to solve some of the most important social problems through innovative solutions. Diverse applications and career pathways await.

"Being curious is part of the culture, because we are so research driven." Katie Ulinski '23, BS Psychology, BS Human Factors

Becoming a Psychological Scientist

Successfully apply to graduate school and help diversify the field.

The application process for doctoral programs for psychological science has several steps. Join APA for a series of eight videos and live question and answer sessions with psychological scientists and current graduate students from different subfields with lived experience and expertise in the application process. Sessions will offer advice and strategies for navigating all the steps of the application process, discuss important considerations for selecting a program, and highlight resources for funding your graduate education. The series will address challenges and systemic barriers for students and is free and open to all.

Choosing a satisfying career (PDF, 344KB)

Session 1 (pre-session): Tips on Top Things to Know as You Apply to Graduate School

Watch a pre-session video to gain insight into the top tips for applying to doctoral programs for psychological science.

Session 1: Top Things to Know as You Apply to Graduate School

Join APA for a panel discussion to gain insight into the top tips for applying to doctoral programs for psychological science.

Session 2 (pre-session): Tips on Writing a Compelling Application Statement

Watch a pre-session video to gain tips for writing a statement that makes a strong case for admission.

Session 2: Writing a Compelling Application Statement

Join APA for a panel discussion about writing compelling personal statements.

Session 3 (pre-session): Tips on Interviewing With Confidence

Watch the pre-session video to gain tips for navigating graduate school interviews

Session 3: Interviewing with Confidence

Join APA for a panel discussion about navigating graduate school interviews.

Session 4: Guidance for Students of Color

Join APA for a panel discussion about applying to graduate school for psychology as a student of color.

Session 5: Selecting a Program that is a Good Fit for You

Join APA for a panel discussion about selecting a program that is a good fit for you.

Session 6: Applying to Post-Bacc Positions

Watch a short video about post-bacc positions to gain tips for finding positions, applying, and making the most of post-bacc opportunities.

Session 7: How to Afford Applying and Attending Graduate School

Watch a short video about strategies and resources to afford applying and attending graduate school.

Session 8: Navigating Your First Year of Graduate School

Watch a short video about about navigating the first year of graduate school.

Session 9: Guidance for Students with Disabilities

Watch a short video about about applying to and navigating graduate school for psychology as a student with a disability.

More events and training

Apa event calendar.

Upcoming conferences, events and trainings.

Training and Webinars

Live and on-demand learning on topics for scientists, practitioners and applied psychologists.

Cross-Cultural Psychology

The effects of culture on coming out, exploring the causes of the global divide on coming out..

Posted August 27, 2024 | Reviewed by Margaret Foley

• Many LGBTQ+ traditions, such as coming out, originated in the West.
• Self-disclosure models describe the struggle between identity and social belonging.
• LGBTQ+ youth in traditional cultures may experience significant challenges after disclosing sexual identity.

This post is written by T. Roy, research affiliate at the Department of Psychology, Monk Prayogshala.

"Coming out" or self-disclosure is a process in which members of the LGBTQIA+ community reveal their sexual orientation . whether just to significant people or as a full public disclosure. According to Erik Erikson's paradigm, adolescence is characterized by a psychosocial conflict between identity and role confusion linked to the desire to belong to a group and explore one’s identity. In the process of establishing an identity, LGBTQ+ youth may experience an identity crisis as they juggle between affiliation with a minority group and the inherent pressure of self-disclosure.

Much of LGBTQ+ history has its roots in Western countries with predominantly Caucasian populations. The French Revolution, in the 18th century, marked the first wave of decriminalization of homosexuality, with France being the first country to do so. In the second wave of decriminalization, during the 1960s, the movement expanded to include several countries in northern and western Europe. Today, more than half of European countries have legalized same-sex marriage , a privilege not enjoyed by many countries. In fact, the tradition of the “pride parade,” a peaceful protest by LGBTQ+ individuals of being openly "out and proud," originated in American cities.

National Coming Out Day, which was first celebrated in America on October 11, 1988, through the initiative of an LGBTQ+ political activist and psychologist, is now celebrated in a few other Western countries. The celebration is rooted in the premise that coming out can be a liberating and empowering experience. However, this Western-centric view has been critiqued, arguing that it ignores the complexities of self-disclosure for queer communities in different sociopolitical and cultural contexts. Coming out is a challenging process for many in traditional or collectivistic cultures due to enforced heteronormativity.

Research conducted on the self-disclosure of queer identities in collectivistic countries such as Japan, India, China, and Taiwan has highlighted the specificity of the cultural experience of self-disclosure within individualistic and collectivistic countries. A 2018 study investigated the two self-disclosure models, “coming out” (leaving the family to gain sexual freedom) and “coming home” (staying with the family while concealing queerness), in China. Chinese queer individuals prioritize social harmony over individual identity, making the “coming home” model more culturally relevant. The study described a third model, “coming with,” which integrates aspects of both approaches and is more appropriate within Chinese culture, allowing individuals to navigate family relationships while preserving queer sexuality .

Another narrative review of the self-disclosure process in international and Indian scenarios identified parental/family support and cultural/traditional barriers as major themes in the coming out process. An Indian study (2021) explored same-sex sexuality disclosure in metropolitan India. Research studies like these highlight the need to endorse family values originating from collectivistic societal norms. One review compares parents' reactions to coming out in traditional families to Kubler-Ross’s grief model: Parents start with denial , anger , and bargaining (in the form of a hope for conversion), and if lucky, reach the acceptance stage. The families see it as a “phase” stemming from Western pop culture. The fear of rejection after revealing sexual identity may contribute to the "disclosure distress" experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals.

Most LGBTQ+ individuals in Eastern societies choose not to come out to the family. In collectivistic societies, association with the family takes precedence over individual identity. A 2024 study discussed how a family’s reaction to self-disclosure of sexual identity may be rooted in race/ ethnicity or cultural-level acceptance of sexual minorities. In fact, it is observed that culturally traditional families often resort to faith-healing methods or conversion therapies to keep the youth integrated into the religious and cultural values.

Many countries across the globe have minimal laws for the protection of LGBTQ+ individuals, and some (e.g., a number of Middle Eastern regions) intentionally restrict privileges for queer people. Making the decision to come out of the closet in such countries could expose individuals to life-threatening consequences. In India, Section 377 of the constitution that criminalizes homosexuality was repealed in 2018. Many conservative communities of India criticize this verdict, labeling it as a "Western influence" and against religious and cultural values, while ironically ignoring that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was introduced by the British colonialists and not by independent India.

The mainstream narrative of self-disclosure or "coming out of the closet" reflects Western traditions that ignore the influence of family, culture, and heritage. In the current sociocultural context, the meaning of coming out is still rooted in the Western school of thought, putting visibility over privacy. It is ironic how in a community where gender and sexual identity are considered fluid or on a spectrum, the entirety of the community is divided into a dichotomy of "those who are out" and "those who are not out." The act of coming out is not an inevitable or a one-size-fits-all expectation; it is a choice where authenticity doesn’t have to mean sacrificing safety and belonging.

Curtis, J., Dickson, A., Loft, P., Mills, C., & Rajendralal, R. (2022, February 9). LGBT+ rights and issues in the Middle East. House of Commons Library. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9457/

Mignot, J.F. (2024, April 29). Decriminalization of homosexuality since the 18th century. N-IUSSP magazine

Shadeedi, M. (2018, March 30). Globalizing the Closet: Is ‘Coming Out’ a Western concept? My Kali magazine

Smalley, S. (2024, July, 18). LGBTQ+ people in Middle East and North Africa subject to intense digital oppression, research finds. The Record.

Monk Prayogshala Research Institution is a not-for-profit academic research institution in Mumbai, India.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Skip to Content

Current Students

Interested in more? Search Courses

• Search Input Submit Search

Admission Steps

Forensic psychology - ma, admission requirements.

Terms and Deadlines

Degree and GPA Requirements

Prerequisites

Additional standards for non-native english speakers, additional standards for international applicants.

For the 2025-2026 academic year

See 2024-2025 requirements instead

Fall 2025 quarter (beginning in September)

Final submission deadline: January 8, 2025

Final submission deadline: Applicants cannot submit applications after the final submission deadline.

Degrees and GPA Requirements

Bachelors degree: All graduate applicants must hold an earned baccalaureate from a regionally accredited college or university or the recognized equivalent from an international institution.

University GPA requirement: The minimum grade point average for admission consideration for graduate study at the University of Denver must meet one of the following criteria:

A cumulative 2.5 on a 4.0 scale for the baccalaureate degree.

A cumulative 2.5 on a 4.0 scale for the last 60 semester credits or 90 quarter credits (approximately two years of work) for the baccalaureate degree.

An earned master’s degree or higher from a regionally accredited institution or the recognized equivalent from an international institution supersedes the minimum GPA requirement for the baccalaureate.

A cumulative GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale for all graduate coursework completed for applicants who have not earned a master’s degree or higher.

Applicants WITHOUT a psychology background (major or minor), must meet the department's psychology prerequisite prior to matriculation.  The psychology prerequisite can be met either through psychology coursework or by obtaining a score of at least 660 or higher on the psychology subject GRE exam. Applicants should state how they plan to meet the psychology prerequisite in their application. For the psychology coursework prerequisite, applicants must complete four (4) psychology courses earning a 'B' or better in these classes from a regionally accredited institution. Applicants offered admission should be aware that all psychology classes must be completed before registration in September.

Official scores from the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), International English Language Testing System (IELTS), C1 Advanced or Duolingo English Test are required of all graduate applicants, regardless of citizenship status, whose native language is not English or who have been educated in countries where English is not the native language. Your TOEFL/IELTS/C1 Advanced/Duolingo English Test scores are valid for two years from the test date.

The minimum TOEFL/IELTS/C1 Advanced/Duolingo English Test score requirements for this degree program are:

Minimum TOEFL Score (Internet-based test): 80

Minimum IELTS Score: 6.5

Minimum C1 Advanced Score: 176

Minimum Duolingo English Test Score: 115

Additional Information:

Read the English Language Proficiency policy for more details.

Read the Required Tests for GTA Eligibility policy for more details.

Per Student & Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) regulation, international applicants must meet all standards for admission before an I-20 or DS-2019 is issued, [per U.S. Federal Register: 8 CFR § 214.3(k)] or is academically eligible for admission and is admitted [per 22 C.F.R. §62]. Read the Additional Standards For International Applicants policy for more details.

Application Materials

Transcripts, letters of recommendation.

Required Essays and Statements

We require a scanned copy of your transcripts from every college or university you have attended. Scanned copies must be clearly legible and sized to print on standard 8½-by-11-inch paper. Transcripts that do not show degrees awarded must also be accompanied by a scanned copy of the diploma or degree certificate. If your academic transcripts were issued in a language other than English, both the original documents and certified English translations are required.

Transcripts and proof of degree documents for postsecondary degrees earned from institutions outside of the United States will be released to a third-party international credential evaluator to assess U.S. education system equivalencies. Beginning July 2023, a non-refundable fee for this service will be required before the application is processed.

Upon admission to the University of Denver, official transcripts will be required from each institution attended.

Two (2) letters of recommendation are required.  Letters should be submitted by recommenders through the online application.

Essays and Statements

Essay instructions.

Please respond to the the following two essay questions and upload in one document to the online application.  Please number each essay response.   The word limit for both essays combined is 1500 words. - Essay 1: Describe someone you know who has engaged in behavior of which you disapprove. How has this behavior affected your view of this person? How has your relationship with this person changed? How do you understand your reactions to this person? How might your personal history influence how you react? - Essay 2: Write about a time you received feedback with which you did not agree.

Résumé Instructions

The résumé (or C.V.) should include work experience, research, and/or volunteer work.

Faculty review completed applications December through early February.  We will notify applicants via email with an admissions status update sometime in late January/early February.  If invited to interview, interviews will be held online in late February. For more information about the programs that the Graduate School of Professional Psychology (GSPP) offers, please refer to GSPP's admissions webpage.  If you have any questions or concerns regarding admission requirements, deadlines, and late application materials, please contact [email protected] or call (303) 871-3736.

Start the Application

Online Application

Financial Aid Information

Start your application.

Your submitted materials will be reviewed once all materials and application fees have been received.

Our program can only consider your application for admission if our Office of Graduate Education has received all your online materials and supplemental materials by our application deadline.

Application Fee: $65.00 Application Fee

International Degree Evaluation Fee: $50.00 Evaluation Fee for degrees (bachelor's or higher) earned from institutions outside the United States.

Applicants should complete their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) by February 15. Visit the Office of Financial Aid for additional information.

• marquette.edu //
• Contacts //
• A-Z Index //
• Give to Marquette

Marquette.edu  //  College of Education  //  Graduate Studies  //  Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology  // 

Master's Degrees Admission Process and Requirements

The Department of Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology offers a Master of Arts degree program in school counseling or a Master of Science degree program in clinical mental health counseling, with the option to specialize in addictions counseling or child and adolescent counseling.

Prerequisites for admission

Applicants to all graduate programs in the Department of Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology should have graduated with, or be about to graduate with, a bachelor's or a master's degree from an accredited institution appropriate to their chosen field of graduate study. Experience in human service (field work, or service learning, or volunteer or employment) is helpful.

Admission Process

For more information on the application and admission process for the online Master of Science in Clinical Mental Health Counseling, please visit that program's How to Apply page.

Admission applications that are incomplete or received after the deadline will not be reviewed. To ensure your file is complete and on time, please contact the Graduate School at 414-288-7137 or email at [email protected] .

• Master's admission applications due to the Graduate School: Wednesday, February 1, 2024
• Master's virtual interviews (approximately 8am-4pm CST): Friday, March 3, 2024

Expand all   |   Collapse all  

Materials to be submitted for application

All of the following materials must be submitted to the Graduate School by the appropriate deadline.

• Graduate School application form and application fee
• If coursework was completed within the United States, submit copies of all current and previous college/universities except Marquette.
• If coursework was completed outside of the United States, a transcript evaluation is required. A copy of a course-by-course evaluation is approved for the application process.
• Test scores on the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) general test are normally required, not the GRE subject test (psychology). Please see the GRE website for score reporting schedules. NOTE: The GRE is optional for 2024-2025.
• A statement of purpose. Please use the guidelines listed on the Marquette Graduate School webpage on drafting a SOP .
• Resume or Vita.
• Three letters of recommendation from individuals who can address one's academic and professional potential.
• International applicants only must submit a TOEFL score or other acceptable proof of English proficiency.

For further application information, please contact the Graduate School at 414-288-7137, find Marquette's admissions materials online or email Coreen Bukowski , academic coordinator.

Virtual Interviews

After all applications are reviewed, the highest-ranking applicants will be contacted for an interview, which is required for admission. International applicants and others for whom the timeline/CST wouldn't be conducive can request to interview over the phone on a mutually agreed date/time prior to the listed interview date. Master's interviews will be periodically all day (8am-4pm CST) on Friday, March 8, 2024 .

Applicant evaluation by departmental faculty

Department faculty comprehensively review applicant files, emphasizing all aspects of applicants' backgrounds. Our assessments of potential for graduate study and success in the field are based on all components of the application, and we do not use cutoff scores with regard to previous grades or test scores. The previous median GRE combined test score of our recent master's in counseling students was 303, and the median undergraduate GPA was 3.5. The median score on the GRE writing assessment for master's students was 4.5. The faculty admits students with lower test scores or grades when there are significant compensating factors that are important for determining success in the field. If relevant, applicants should highlight these factors in their Statement of Purpose.

Those applicants who are judged to show good potential for graduate study in our department are then invited for an interview with the departmental faculty and a group of current graduate students. After the interviews have been completed, faculty review each application and make a decision about admission to the program.

Tuition and financial aid information

Tuition for a graduate education student can be found on the Graduate School tuition page . This level of tuition is fairly competitive with other institutions.

Most of the scholarships and assistantships that we offer go to doctoral students, but occasionally there are assistantships given to master’s students. Master’s students who are primary and secondary school teachers in southeastern Wisconsin are eligible for two scholarship opportunities: the Milwaukee Area Teachers Scholarship, which provides scholarships for K-12 teachers from the greater Milwaukee area, and the Catholic Schools Scholarship, which covers part of the tuition for students employed by Archdiocese of Milwaukee schools. These scholarships are available only to students enrolled at Marquette. More information is available at the Graduate School's financial aid page.

We will not know the number of assistantships available to next year's students until our admissions offers are sent out during the middle of the spring semester.

Visiting the department

You are welcome to visit the department to find out more about our programs. We are located in room 146 of the Walter Schroeder Health and Education Complex, 560 N. 16th Street. See our campus map we are building number 29. Please contact Coreen via email or 414-288-5730 to let us know you are interested in visiting or would like someone to contact you. Contact the Graduate School to schedule a campus visit/tour .

Marquette's Graduate School also holds a fall open house. Stay tuned for more information.

We look forward to meeting you!

Quick Links

• Resources for Current Students
• Resources for Admitted Students
• Our Commitment to Diversity
• Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology
• Ph.D. Program Outcome and Disclosure
• Master of Science in Clinical Mental Health Counseling
• Online Master of Science in Clinical Mental Health Counseling
• Master of Arts in School Counseling
• Master's Degrees Program and Student Outcomes
• Faculty Expertise
• Faculty and Staff Directory
• Research Centers and Clinics

PROBLEM WITH THIS WEBPAGE?

Report an accessibility problem

To report another problem, please contact [email protected] .

Marquette University Schroeder Health and Education Complex Milwaukee, WI 53233 Phone: (800) 222-6544

• Campus contacts
• Search marquette.edu

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Privacy Policy Legal Disclaimer Non-Discrimination Policy Accessible Technology

© 2024 Marquette University