Rhetoric of psychological measurement theory and practice

Metascience scholars have long been concerned with tracking the use of rhetorical language in scientific discourse, oftentimes to analyze the legitimacy and validity of scientific claim-making. Psychology, however, has only recently become the explicit target of such metascientific scholarship, much of which has been in response to the recent crises surrounding replicability of quantitative research findings and questionable research practices. The focus of this paper is on the rhetoric of psychological measurement and validity scholarship, in both the theoretical and methodological and empirical literatures. We examine various discourse practices in published psychological measurement and validity literature, including: (a) clear instances of rhetoric (i.e., persuasion or performance); (b) common or rote expressions and tropes (e.g., perfunctory claims or declarations); (c) metaphors and other "literary" styles; and (d) ambiguous, confusing, or unjustifiable claims. The methodological approach we use is informed by a combination of conceptual analysis and exploratory grounded theory, the latter of which we used to identify relevant themes within the published psychological discourse. Examples of both constructive and useful or misleading and potentially harmful discourse practices will be given. Our objectives are both to contribute to the critical methodological literature on psychological measurement and connect metascience in psychology to broader interdisciplinary examinations of science discourse.

Promoting Liberal Education through Introductory Psychology: The Perspective-Based Approach

Introductory psychology is typically presented to undergraduates as a set of loosely related topics reflecting the organization of most textbooks. The empirically based evidence presented in the topical format is likely to be limited by progressive knowledge obsolesce and replicability challenges impacting contemporary science. We suggest that psychology instructors consider an alternative course format organized by theories or perspectives. A perspective-centered introductory psychology provides a consistent and pluralistic view of the field and embeds research findings and methodology within psychology’s major explanatory theories. Current trends in undergraduate higher education emphasize career readiness. Development of critical thinking and applying psychological principles to real-world situations, including students’ own lives, may be better achieved through a perspective-based approach. Given that the typical introductory psychology student is a non-major taking the course to fulfil liberal arts requirements, a perspective approach offers several advantages. A focus on understanding human behavior from multiple vantage points is a skill valued by prospective employers of new bachelor’s degree recipients. With its emphasis on divergent and dialectical reasoning, a perspectivecenteredintroductory psychology course can become the centerpiece of the general education curriculum. In addition to promoting post-formal reasoning, a perspective-centered introductory psychology illustrates the diverse epistemologies that have shaped our field.

Rating scales institutionalise a network of logical errors and conceptual problems in research practices: A rigorous analysis showing ways to tackle psychology's crises

This article explores in-depth the metatheoretical and methodological foundations on which rating scales-by their very conception, design and application-are built and traces their historical origins. It brings together independent lines of critique from different scholars and disciplines to map out the problem landscape, which centres on the failed distinction between psychology's study phenomena (e.g., experiences, everyday constructs) and the means of their exploration (e.g., terms, data, scientific constructs)-psychologists' cardinal error. Rigorous analyses reveal a dense network of 12 complexes of problematic concepts, misconceived assumptions and fallacies that support each other, making it difficult to be identified and recognised by those (unwittingly) relying on them (e.g., various forms of reductionism, logical errors of operationalism, constructification, naïve use of language, quantificationism, statisticism, result-based data generation, misconceived nomotheticism). Through the popularity of rating scales for efficient quantitative data generation, uncritically interpreted as psychological measurement, these problems have become institutionalised in a wide range of research practices and perpetuate psychology's crises (e.g., replication, confidence, validation, generalizability). The article provides an in-depth understanding that is needed to get to the root of these problems, which preclude not just measurement but also the scientific exploration of psychology's study phenomena and thus its development as a science. From each of the 12 problem complexes; specific theoretical concepts, methodologies and methods are derived as well as key directions of development. The analyses-based on three central axioms for transdisciplinary research on individuals, (1) complexity, (2) complementarity and (3) anthropogenicity-highlight that psychologists must (further) develop an explicit metatheory and unambiguous terminology as well as concepts and theories that conceive individuals as living beings, open self-organising systems with complementary phenomena and dynamic interrelations across their multi-layered systemic contexts-thus, theories not simply of elemental properties and structures but of processes, relations, dynamicity, subjectivity, emergence, catalysis and transformation. Philosophical and theoretical foundations of approaches suited for exploring these phenomena must be developed together with methods of data generation and methods of data analysis that are appropriately adapted to the peculiarities of psychologists' study phenomena (e.g., intra-individual variation, momentariness, contextuality). Psychology can profit greatly from its unique position at the intersection of many other disciplines and can learn from their advancements to develop research practices that are suited to tackle its crises holistically.

Development of Three Psychology Sub-Disciplines Over the Past 30 Years: A Citation Analysis

At the end of the last century, there was a debate about whether cognitive psychology had superseded behavioral psychology and psychoanalysis, and the question was raised of whether the latter two might even be dead. The aim of this study was to investigate how these sub-disciplines have developed since then. The citation count, Journal Impact Factor (JIF), and Immediacy Index of four leading journals from each sub-discipline were abstracted for the years 1998, 2008, and 2018. Trends were analyzed using joinpoint regression analysis. The average number of times each sub-discipline’s journals were cited increased between 1988 and 2018. The cognitive journals’ JIF increased slightly, the behavioral journals’ doubled, and the psychoanalytic journals’ remained at the same level. The average annual percentage change for citations to the International Journal of Psychoanalysis showed that the number of citations statistically significantly increased over the years. This was also the case for the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Its JIF trend changed at one point: it decreased up through 2006, after which it increased. Citations to Cognitive Psychology also increased over time, while there was no evidence that its JIF changed. This shows that all three sub-disciplines are still alive and relevant.

Gerd Jüttemann’s “Historical Psychology”: Why it should have succeeded, why it was ignored, and what that means for the future

Over recent years, several publications have drawn attention to the fact that mainstream psychology has neglected cross-temporal variability and the historicity of the human psyche. One of the early proponents of a historical perspective on psychological matters is German psychologist Gerd Jüttemann. Despite his pioneer work and his continued publication efforts from the 1980s until today, his ideas have largely been ignored by the academic discourse, both inside and outside Germany. The question is: Why? Based on a brief overview of his writings, this article argues that it was not (only) a result of Jüttemann being at odds with the zeitgeist, but was also caused by conceptual problems as well as practical obstacles. Understanding why historical psychology remained at the brink of the academic discipline can help contemporary scholars to develop a perspective on the historicity of the human psyche that has a better chance to be heard.

Toward a (“Dissolved”) Psychology of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Relations: A Complexity-Informed Proposal

Our world is in a state of critical transition demanding new, creative, ecosystemically fit and sustainable responses to complex challenges. We need both new types of knowledge and new modes of knowledge production. Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity have the potential to support more congruently complex forms of knowledge (differentiated, integrated, recursive, emergent, ecosystemically fit). Their success is dependent on a deeper understanding of their own organizational complexity. In this paper, I highlight key knowledge gaps and research questions for the development of a richer knowledge base to guide the intentional management and facilitation of Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinary Relations toward creative and abductive outcomes. I defend the investigation of creativity and abduction, as hallmarks of the complexity of Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity, from a process, relational and complexity-informed perspective, mobilizing contributions from Psychology. I discuss Psychology’s modes of engagement with Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in addressing complex challenges. In this context, I introduce the notion of “dissolution” as an Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary relational process supporting the theoretical, methodological and pragmatic enrichment or transformation and increased complexity of different disciplines, bodies of knowledge or modes of knowing. Finally, I propose a new domain for research and practice: a (“Dissolved”) Psychology of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Relations.