Common Criticisms of Psychology Research Paper

Introduction

Psychology can be defined as the study of the mind and behavior. It is the application of knowledge in the study of human activity such as the day to day lives and mental illness. It is a social science that differs from the others in that it involves the study of behavior and mental processes of individuals. Topics covered in the study of psychology include but not limited to personality, perception, motivation, brain functioning, and behavioral changes. Psychology knowledge can be applied in many aspects of human activity e.g. education. There are various criticisms in the study of human mind and behavior which have been discussed by many scientists. This paper will look at the common types of criticism compare and contrast the breakthrough model and connectivity principle and also compare and contrast single-cause explanation and multiple causation.

Common Criticisms

The study of psychology is subjective rather than objective and cannot always be relied upon for the prediction of human behavior. For example it becomes had to define a disorder and to distinguish someone who has it from one who does not have it. Sigmund Freud is one of the ancient psychologists who developed a procedure called psychoanalysis used to treat the medically ill individuals. “The doctor’s ‘treatment’ involves eliciting repressed memories from the patient by interpreting the responses to his questions” (Asiado, 2007). However, the validity of Freud’s procedure is questionable and has been criticized by other psychologist. The doctor’s treatment as defined by Freud seems to be strange because the doctor and the patient hold conversations only, with nothing passing between them. Moreover, the doctor’s interpretation is not objective or testable. However, Freud’s treatment has been popular and has some logic in it. For example he observed that individual personality is understood by interpreting a description of childhood experiences (Asiado, 2007).

Another common criticism in psychology is the criticisms of artificiality. This refers to the state of imitation or lack of naturalness in the human behavior. It is making judgment without taking into consideration the needs of a particular situation or person. There is a discrepancy between internal and external validity of research in psychology. Internal validity refers to the ability of making casual conclusions after carrying out a research. In most cases these results are replicable and vigorous. On the other hand, external validity refers to the likelihood of generalizing conclusion based on the situation that incited the research. Loewenstern (1999) observed that, in psychology, research is based more on the internal validity and less on the external validity. This is not the case in field experiments where a position is held between the two findings. However, Ortmann & Hertwig (2002) noticed that there has been an increase in the recognition of field experiments which has created an interest in the external validity of laboratory experiments. A major obstacle to the external validity of an experiment is the artificiality of the setting. If the laboratory institutions and incentives do not sufficiently mirror those outside-the- laboratory situation they intend to study, the loss of external validity may be significant.

The criticisms of artificiality can be applied in other sub disciplines of psychology such as abnormal psychology, social psychology, and organizational psychology. Abnormal psychology is based on arguments against specific applications that do not reflect any objection to human experiments. Artificiality affects such findings and does not give a clear picture of the human behavior. Social psychology is affected in that, a lot of imitation affects human’s social life because of demise of their originality. Lack of naturalness and originality affects the organizational structures not only in the work place but also in the community.

Breakthrough Model and Connectivity Principle

The breakthrough model in scientific research assumes that, all problems are solved when a solitary and critical experiment utterly makes a decision on an issue and capsizes all prior knowledge while the connectivity principle explains both new and old research in scientific experiments and gives a description of how they connect with each other in making scientific advances. The breakthrough model leads to a lot of confusion in developing theories because it does not make reference to previous findings. In connectivity principle, a new theory is developed which makes contact with earlier established experimental facts which reduces confusion. The new theory explains new facts and accounts for old ones. We should not overly rely on the breakthrough model because answers to questions cannot be solved by using only one experiment. They usually take a lot of time which involves carrying out many experiments to ascertain the validity of the answers (Dekkers, 2005).

Infringing connectivity is immense for the makers of pseudo-science hypothesis; it’s in essence a way to the vicious circle of consumers’ curiosity in a new and modern way of doing and/or illuminating things. They are acquainted with the knowledge that the common person on the street may not desire for all the particulars of research on the new-fangled and exhilarating theory, a number of people will just take in an impressive new theory from an individual testimonial on TV or radio (Dekkers, 2005). This is awful for psychology in that the public observation of psychological research will look like their observation of pseudo-science. They won’t have a sensible outlook on how psychological theory develops and the explanation of previous data along with new findings in research.

Single-Cause Explanation and the Principle Of Multiple Causation

Causality is the relationship between the effect and the cause. In this case, the effect is the consequence of the cause of an action. Single-cause and multiple causations are approaches that are used to explain the factors that lead to the occurrence of an effect. Some effects are said to have been caused by a single cause while others are caused by a multiple of factors. Single-cause explanation involves oversimplifying a number of factors that might have contributed to a consequence to only one contributing factor. It is an exaggerated kind of approach because effects can not be caused wholly by only one factor. This explanation of events and outcomes gives biased result because some of the causes are neglected. In multiple causation, the occurrence of an effect is deemed to have been caused by a number of factors. This approach takes into consideration all the factors that might have caused an effect without generalizing on only one cause.

Conclusion

Psychology is the study of human mind and behavior. Over time, this study has received numerous criticisms based on its finding. This includes the criticism of artificiality which tends to imitate human behavior. The breakthrough model has some negative aspects that make the gradual synthesis model to be a better approach in the understanding of conclusion made in psychology. The gradual synthesis model is affected by two major principles: converging evidence and connectivity. The connectivity principle is a cumulative kind of approach which stresses on the inclusion of old information in the process of making new theories and ideas.

Reference List

1. Asiado, T. (2007). Sigmund Freud and His Couch.
2. Dekkers, R. (2005). Evolution: organizations and the dynamics of the environment. Springer
3. Lowenstein, G., 1999: “Experimental Economics from the Vantage-point of Behavioral Economics”; The Economic Journal, 109: F25-F34.
4. Ortmann, A., and R. Hertwig, 2002: “The Costs of Deception: Evidence from Psychology”; Experimental Economics, 5: 111-132.