Criticism of Psychology
From Wikinfo
Contents |
Criticism and controversies
Status as a science
A common criticism of psychology concerns its fuzziness as a science. Philosopher Thomas Kuhn's 1962 critique implied psychology overall was in a pre-paradigm state, lacking the agreement on overarching theory found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics. Because some areas of psychology rely on research methods such as surveys and questionnaires, critics have claimed that psychology is not as scientific as many assume. Other phenomena that psychologists are interested in such as personality, thinking and emotion cannot be directly measured and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which may be of limited use to an objectifying science.
The validity of probability testing as a research tool has been called into question. There is concern that this statistical method may promote trivial findings as meaningful, especially when large samples are used.[1] Some psychologists have responded with an increased use of effect size statistics, rather than sole reliance on the traditional p<.05 decision rule in statistical hypothesis testing.
In recent years, and particularly in the U.S., there has been increasing debate about the nature of therapeutic effectiveness and about the relevance of empirically examining psychotherapeutic strategies.[2] One argument states that some therapies are based on discredited theories and are unsupported by empirical evidence. The other side points to recent research suggesting that all mainstream therapies are of about equal effectiveness, while also arguing that controlled studies often do not take into consideration real-world conditions (e.g. the high co-morbidity rate or the experience of clinicians); that research is heavily biased towards the methods of the cognitive behavioral therapies (CBT); and that it typically under-represents minority groups.
Fringe clinical practices
There is also concern from researchers about a perceived gap between scientific theory and its application, in particular with the application of esoteric practices. Exponents of evidence-based approaches to clinical psychology practice say that the gap is increasing, and researchers such as Beyerstein (2001) say there has been a large increase in the number of mental health training programs that do not emphasize science training.[3] According to Lilienfeld (2002) “a wide variety of unvalidated and sometimes harmful psychotherapeutic methods, including psychoanalysis, facilitated communication for infantile autism, suggestive techniques for memory recovery (e.g., hypnotic age-regression, guided imagery, body work), energy therapies (e.g., Thought Field Therapy, Emotional Freedom Technique), and New Age therapies of seemingly endless stripes (e.g., rebirthing, reparenting, past-life regression, Primal therapy, neurolinguistic programming ) have either emerged or maintained their popularity in recent decades."[4] Allen Neuringer made a similar point in the field of the experimental analysis of behavior in 1984.[5] There are some differences of opinion over the actual extent of the research practitioner gap, but the consensus is on the concern about fringe or quack practices, and the legal view favours the use of empirical validation for any psychological intervention (Faigman and Monahan 2005). The emphasis on improvement of evidence-based practice has been made in order to increase the general public's confidence in the health professions, and to avoid instances whereby clients forgo evidence-based treatments in favour of unvalidated fringe therapies.
References
| This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at Psychology. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. The text of this Wikinfo article is available under the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. |
