The Common Criticisms of Psychology - Essay Example

 I. Introduction II. An Overview of Common Criticisms III. Artificiality in Psychology a). Social Psychology b). Cognitive Psychology c). Positive Psychology IV. Breakthrough Model and the Principle of Connectivity V. Single Causality and Multiple Causality VI. Conclusion I. Introduction Much of the criticisms of psychology as a discipline of study are aimed at its status as a science. Critics of various hues argue that psychology is too fuzzy to be a science. There are different types of criticism that draw strength from various theoretical sources. The criticisms toward psychology could be classified as logical and illogical or informed or ill informed criticisms. Most of the informed criticisms adopt a sort of positivist stand. On the other hand, there are radical psychologists who criticize psychology for being ideological and status-quoist. Besides, some of the sub-disciplines of psychology are relied on research methods like surveys and questionnaires, hence, the criticism that the ‘facts’ in psychology are not scientific facts. In addition, psychology infers from subjective self-reports as an accepted practice since study areas such as behavior, personality and emotions cannot be measured directly. Hence, the criticism that no objective science can rely on such analytical categories that are normative and subjective. II. An Overview of Common Criticisms It has been agreed that organized psychology plays a vital role in addressing a wide range of social issues. However, there are concerns about the ideological nature of psychology when it intervenes on social issues. Theorists such as Fox (1985) and Prilleltensky (1994) hold the view that psychology too is inescapably political as the public discourse by psychologists is inherently political. Radical Psychology Network, which is an international organization of psychologists belives that psychology quite often aligns with the status quo and consciously or unconsciously identifies against concerns of progress and social justice. Therefore, they advocate that psychology must take broader stand on issues related to burning social problems by making it more socially committed. It is argued that even psychological research is constituted and affected by mainstream beliefs and practices (Fox, 1985). Moreover, the emphasis on empirical research which is characteristic of a majority of psychologists prevents it from answering many a crucial social questions since they are normative and cannot be objectively measured. Similarly, the use of Null Hypotheses Testing has been widely criticized for the misunderstanding and misinterpretations of NHT results among the researchers. On the other hand, psychology has been criticized for its lopsided reliance on laboratory methods and statistical analyses. Therefore, psychology underestimates the strength of qualitative and interpretive analysis in dealing with the complexities of life in the real world. Also, qualitative analysis does not necessitates the psychologists to manipulate and, thereby objectify the research participants. In quantitative analysis, there is no place for what people have to tell about their own lives. There role is to act merely as spectators in accordance with the psychologists’ design, even when they are informed about it. In addition, people who raise ethical concerns argue that psychology does not pay sufficient attention to the harmful effects of its theories and practices on individuals and societies. Although, there are codes and restriction to mitigate such effects, psychologists are not always in a position to control the detrimental effects of their experiments which may not be immediately apparent. In other words, psychology involves in experiments with people. Therapeutic effectiveness has been questioned from many corners. Some argue that it is futile to empirically examine the psychotherapeutic strategies. Therapies that are widely in use do not have legitimate theoretical base or supportive empirical evidence. The criticisms favoring the viewpoint that psychology underestimates the potential of human agency in order about desired changes and therefore, being entrapped in a static view of the social world. Furthermore, psychology cannot be seen as value neutral as it upholds many values and beliefs which are generally accepted or prevalent in the existing society. III. Artificiality in Psychology It has been observed that psychological experiments contain inherent artificiality “in the sense that causal variables are isolated from their normal contextual variation” (Reis and Judd, 2000). The laboratory situation is artificial so that there arises a tension between external validity and internal validity. There are number of psychologists who believe that internal validity as paramount. For conforming empirical regularity, external validity deemed to be more important. Therefore, the ‘artificiality criticism’ argues that whatever is found from laboratory experiments, it has no validity in the outside world. In other words, the laboratory situation is entirely different from the real life situations. The concern is that whether it is correct to reach conclusions about the real world from the manufactured condition in the experiments. The spontaneity of the outside laboratory situation is what misses in the laboratory experiment. a). Social Psychology The internal conditions in a social psychological experiment might significantly vary from the external conditions in which the concerned phenomenon occur. Therefore, the tests results from social psychology experiments could be of no use for understanding the real social phenomena and social behaviours. Contending this point of view, there is an argument that “social psychology experiments are not always artificial, nor is everyday life always real” (Abelson et.al, 2004). It means that the artificiality of social psychological helps to purify the so called real from its obscure nature caused by its interactions with the misleading variables. b). Cognitive Psychology Cognitive psychology has also faced criticisms on grounds of its artificiality. The idea is that cognitive psychology fails to take account of ecological validity while analyzing the cognitive process. For instance, the cognition of the students, in the experimental designs of cognitive psychology, is considered to be an independent attribute, which is free from the social influences. c) Positive Psychology Positive Psychology holds an unrealistic division between what is positive and what is not in real life and overemphasizes the role of factors of pleasure in their experimental designs. In order to sustain the artificial dichotomy between positive and negative aspects of life, positive psychology once again depends upon a dichotomy between good and bad which is inherently value biased. IV. Breakthrough Model and the Principle of Connectivity The breakthrough model of scientific research, which drawn from the theoretical reflections of Thomas Kuhn, upholds that paradigm shifts denote scientific revolutions. When a particular paradigm that is universally accepted among the practitioners of a particular science but finds difficult to explain events and outcomes, paves way for a new paradigm as it constitutes a revolution in that area of science. The breakthrough model stresses upon the anomalies between the existing paradigm and the existing reality which cannot be comprehended without a paradigm shift. On the contrary, the connectionist model gives importance to non-linear and dynamic system approaches in analyzing events and outcomes. Here, networks are paramount, not scientific breakthroughs. Connectionism looks upon the matrix of units and the processes and patterns of connections among them while the breakthrough model sees the reality as totally different for different for different paradigms. (Horgan &Tienson,1996) V. Single Causality and Multiple Causality There are many a theoretical schools under the umbrella field called psychology so that it is not possible to explain events and outcomes without being accused of reductionism. The fact that few events and outcomes are composed of single factors makes it impossible to comprehend a phenomenon with the help of single theoretical perspective. For instance, it is widely noted that the treatment of psychopathology requires an eclectic premise of theories ranging from cognitive behaviorism to psychoanalysis since it occurs in a combination of many factors. Theoretically speaking, it is possible for many factors that shape an event or an outcome could simultaneously come to existence. The argument is not that single causality is an impossibility, rather it is a rare phenomenon in reality. VI. Conclusion The common criticisms toward the discipline of psychology shed light to many of its actual weaknesses. Nevertheless such criticisms do not necessarily undermine the raison d'etre of psychology as a legitimate area of study, rather, helps it to attain more theoretical rigor and validity. For the purpose, it is necessary to examine the criticisms themselves from the standpoint of self criticism and engaged reflection. References Abelson, R.P. et.al (2004). Experiments with People: Revelations from Social Psychology. New York. Routledge. Fox, D. R. (1985). Psychology, Ideology, Utopia and the Commons. American Psychologist, 40, 48-58. Horgan, T. &Tienson, J. (1996) Connectionism and the Philosophy of Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Prilleltensky, I. (1994). The morals and politics of psychology: Psychological discourse and the status quo. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Reis, H. T. & Judd, M.C. (2000). Research Methods in Social and Personal Psychology. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Read More