psychology as a science uk essay

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

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 17 June 2020
• Volume 55 , pages 212–224, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jana Uher   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2450-4943 1  

15k Accesses

17 Citations

70 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Psychology: a Giant with Feet of Clay

Current Trends and Perspectives

Comments on “presentism and diversity in the history of psychology”.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

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 Footnote 1 ) 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 Footnote 2 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 Footnote 3 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.

http://researchonindividuals.org .

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 ).

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).

Alexandrova, A., & Haybron, D. M. (2016). Is construct validation valid? Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 1098–1109. https://doi.org/10.1086/687941

Bohr, N. (1937). Causality and complementarity. Philosophy of Science, 4 (3), 289–298.

Article   Google Scholar  

Brody, N., & Oppenheim, P. (1969). Application of Bohr’s principle of complementarity to the mind-body problem. Journal of Philosophy, 66 (4), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024529 .

Capra, F. (1997). The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter . New York: Anchor Books.

Google Scholar  

Fahrenberg, J. (1979). The complementarity principle in psychophysiological research and somatic medicine. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 27 (2), 151–167.

Fahrenberg, J. (2013). Zur Kategorienlehre der Psychologie: Komplementaritätsprinzip; Perspektiven und Perspektiven-Wechsel . Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.

Fahrenberg, J. (2019). Wilhelm Wundt (1832 – 1920). Introduction, quotations, reception, commentaries, attempts at reconstruction . Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.

Fanelli, D., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8 (6), e66938. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066938 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.803 .

Ginge, B. (1996). Identifying gender in the archaeological record: Revising our stereotypes. Etruscan Studies, 3, Article 4.

Hartmann, N. (1964). Der Aufbau der realen Welt. Grundriss der allgemeinen Kategorienlehre (3. Aufl.) . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Book   Google Scholar  

Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43 (3–4), 172–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01397280 .

Kant, I. (1798/2000). Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (Reinhard Brandt, ed.). Felix Meiner.

Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements . Yonkers: World.

Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs . W.W. Norton.

Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology . New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.

Lamiell, J. (2003). Beyond individual and group differences: Human individuality, scientific psychology, and William Stern’s critical personalism . Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229317 .

Lamiell, J. (2019). Psychology’s misuse of statistics and persistent dismissal of its critics . Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12131-0 .

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 2 (4), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1 .

Morin, E. (2008). On complexity . Cresskill: Hampton Press.

Omi, Y. (2012). Tension between the theoretical thinking and the empirical method: Is it an inevitable fate for psychology? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46 (1), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-011-9185-4 .

Article   PubMed   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, O. C. (2011). The idiographic/nomothetic dichotomy: Tracing historical origins of contemporary confusions. History & Philosophy of Psychology, 13 , 32–39.

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. (2010). Between the general and the unique. Theory & Psychology, 20 , 817–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310381156 .

Simonton, D. K. (2015). Psychology as a science within Comte’s hypothesized hierarchy: Empirical investigations and conceptual implications. Review of General Psychology, 19 (3), 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000039 .

Slaney, K. L., & Garcia, D. A. (2015). Constructing psychological objects: The rhetoric of constructs. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35 (4), 244–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000025 .

Thorndike, E. L. (1903). Notes on child study (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Toomela, A., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? Information Age Publishing.

Uher, J. (2013). 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, 47 (1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-013-9230-6 .

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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10130-9_13 .

Uher, J. (2015b). Conceiving “personality”: Psychologist’s challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49 (3), 398–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-014-9283-1 .

Uher, J. (2015c). Developing “personality” taxonomies: Metatheoretical and methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of data generation and reduction principles. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49 (4), 531–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-014-9280-4 .

Uher, J. (2015d). 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, 49 (4), 600–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-014-9281-3 .

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). https://doi.org/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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21094-0_18 .

Uher, J. (2016b). What is behaviour? And (when) is language behaviour? A metatheoretical definition. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 46 (4), 475–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12104 .

Uher, J. (2018a). Quantitative data from rating scales: An epistemological and methodological enquiry. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 2599. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02599 .

Uher, J. (2018b). Taxonomic models of individual differences: A guide to transdisciplinary approaches. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 373 (1744), 20170171. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0171 .

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). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526451163.n4 .

Uher, J. (2019). 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, 53 (1), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0744-3 .

Uher, J. (2020a). Human uniqueness explored from the uniquely human perspective: Epistemological and methodological challenges. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 50 , 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12232 .

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-00970-2 .

Uher, J., Addessi, E., & Visalberghi, E. (2013). Contextualised behavioural measurements of personality differences obtained in behavioural tests and social observations in adult capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Research in Personality, 47 (4), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.013

Uher, J., & Visalberghi, E. (2016). 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, 61 , 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.02.003 .

Uher, J., Werner, C. S., & Gosselt, K. (2013). From observations of individual behaviour to social representations of personality: Developmental pathways, attribution biases, and limitations of questionnaire methods. Journal of Research in Personality, 47 (5), 647–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.03.006

Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind : A sociogenetic approach to personality. Harvard University Press.

Valsiner, J. (2012). A guided science: History of psychology in the mirror of its making . New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Varela, F. G., Maturana, H. R., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. BioSystems, 5 (4), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0303-2647(74)90031-8 .

von Bertalanffy, L. (1937). Das Gefüge des Lebens . Leipzig: Teubner.

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, A. N. (1929). Process and reality . New York: Harper.

Wundt, W. (1896a). Grundriss der Psychologie . Stuttgart: Körner. Retrieved from https://archive.org/ .

Wundt, W. (1896b). Über die Definition der Psychologie. Philosophische Studien, 12 , 9–66.

Zagaria, A., Andò, A., & Zennaro, A. (2020). Psychology: A giant with feet of clay. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09524-5 .

Download references

This research was conducted without funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

I declare I am the sole creator of this research.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jana Uher .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/competing interests.

I declare to have no conflicting or competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Uher, J. Psychology’s Status as a Science: Peculiarities and Intrinsic Challenges. Moving Beyond its Current Deadlock Towards Conceptual Integration. Integr. psych. behav. 55 , 212–224 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09545-0

Download citation

Published : 17 June 2020

Issue Date : March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09545-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Terminology
• Soft Science
• Integrative framework
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

How to Write a Psychology Essay

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:

Before you write your essay, it’s important to analyse the task and understand exactly what the essay question is asking. Your lecturer may give you some advice – pay attention to this as it will help you plan your answer.

Next conduct preliminary reading based on your lecture notes. At this stage, it’s not crucial to have a robust understanding of key theories or studies, but you should at least have a general “gist” of the literature.

After reading, plan a response to the task. This plan could be in the form of a mind map, a summary table, or by writing a core statement (which encompasses the entire argument of your essay in just a few sentences).

After writing your plan, conduct supplementary reading, refine your plan, and make it more detailed.

It is tempting to skip these preliminary steps and write the first draft while reading at the same time. However, reading and planning will make the essay writing process easier, quicker, and ensure a higher quality essay is produced.

Components of a Good Essay

Now, let us look at what constitutes a good essay in psychology. There are a number of important features.

• Global Structure – structure the material to allow for a logical sequence of ideas. Each paragraph / statement should follow sensibly from its predecessor. The essay should “flow”. The introduction, main body and conclusion should all be linked.
• Each paragraph should comprise a main theme, which is illustrated and developed through a number of points (supported by evidence).
• Knowledge and Understanding – recognize, recall, and show understanding of a range of scientific material that accurately reflects the main theoretical perspectives.
• Critical Evaluation – arguments should be supported by appropriate evidence and/or theory from the literature. Evidence of independent thinking, insight, and evaluation of the evidence.
• Quality of Written Communication – writing clearly and succinctly with appropriate use of paragraphs, spelling, and grammar. All sources are referenced accurately and in line with APA guidelines.

In the main body of the essay, every paragraph should demonstrate both knowledge and critical evaluation.

There should also be an appropriate balance between these two essay components. Try to aim for about a 60/40 split if possible.

Most students make the mistake of writing too much knowledge and not enough evaluation (which is the difficult bit).

It is best to structure your essay according to key themes. Themes are illustrated and developed through a number of points (supported by evidence).

Choose relevant points only, ones that most reveal the theme or help to make a convincing and interesting argument.

Knowledge and Understanding

Remember that an essay is simply a discussion / argument on paper. Don’t make the mistake of writing all the information you know regarding a particular topic.

You need to be concise, and clearly articulate your argument. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences.

Each paragraph should have a purpose / theme, and make a number of points – which need to be support by high quality evidence. Be clear why each point is is relevant to the argument. It would be useful at the beginning of each paragraph if you explicitly outlined the theme being discussed (.e.g. cognitive development, social development etc.).

Try not to overuse quotations in your essays. It is more appropriate to use original content to demonstrate your understanding.

Psychology is a science so you must support your ideas with evidence (not your own personal opinion). If you are discussing a theory or research study make sure you cite the source of the information.

Note this is not the author of a textbook you have read – but the original source / author(s) of the theory or research study.

For example:

Bowlby (1951) claimed that mothering is almost useless if delayed until after two and a half to three years and, for most children, if delayed till after 12 months, i.e. there is a critical period.

Maslow (1943) stated that people are motivated to achieve certain needs. When one need is fulfilled a person seeks to fullfil the next one, and so on.

As a general rule, make sure there is at least one citation (i.e. name of psychologist and date of publication) in each paragraph.

Remember to answer the essay question. Underline the keywords in the essay title. Don’t make the mistake of simply writing everything you know of a particular topic, be selective. Each paragraph in your essay should contribute to answering the essay question.

Critical Evaluation

In simple terms, this means outlining the strengths and limitations of a theory or research study.

There are many ways you can critically evaluate:

Methodological evaluation of research

Is the study valid / reliable ? Is the sample biased, or can we generalize the findings to other populations? What are the strengths and limitations of the method used and data obtained?

Be careful to ensure that any methodological criticisms are justified and not trite.

Rather than hunting for weaknesses in every study; only highlight limitations that make you doubt the conclusions that the authors have drawn – e.g., where an alternative explanation might be equally likely because something hasn’t been adequately controlled.

Compare or contrast different theories

Outline how the theories are similar and how they differ. This could be two (or more) theories of personality / memory / child development etc. Also try to communicate the value of the theory / study.

Debates or perspectives

Refer to debates such as nature or nurture, reductionism vs. holism, or the perspectives in psychology . For example, would they agree or disagree with a theory or the findings of the study?

What are the ethical issues of the research?

Does a study involve ethical issues such as deception, privacy, psychological or physical harm?

Gender bias

If research is biased towards men or women it does not provide a clear view of the behavior that has been studied. A dominantly male perspective is known as an androcentric bias.

Cultural bias

Is the theory / study ethnocentric? Psychology is predominantly a white, Euro-American enterprise. In some texts, over 90% of studies have US participants, who are predominantly white and middle class.

Does the theory or study being discussed judge other cultures by Western standards?

Animal Research

This raises the issue of whether it’s morally and/or scientifically right to use animals. The main criterion is that benefits must outweigh costs. But benefits are almost always to humans and costs to animals.

Animal research also raises the issue of extrapolation. Can we generalize from studies on animals to humans as their anatomy & physiology is different from humans?

The PEC System

It is very important to elaborate on your evaluation. Don’t just write a shopping list of brief (one or two sentence) evaluation points.

Instead, make sure you expand on your points, remember, quality of evaluation is most important than quantity.

When you are writing an evaluation paragraph, use the PEC system.

• Make your P oint.
• E xplain how and why the point is relevant.
• Discuss the C onsequences / implications of the theory or study. Are they positive or negative?

For Example

• Point: It is argued that psychoanalytic therapy is only of benefit to an articulate, intelligent, affluent minority.
• Explain: Because psychoanalytic therapy involves talking and gaining insight, and is costly and time-consuming, it is argued that it is only of benefit to an articulate, intelligent, affluent minority. Evidence suggests psychoanalytic therapy works best if the client is motivated and has a positive attitude.
• Consequences: A depressed client’s apathy, flat emotional state, and lack of motivation limit the appropriateness of psychoanalytic therapy for depression.

Furthermore, the levels of dependency of depressed clients mean that transference is more likely to develop.

Using Research Studies in your Essays

Research studies can either be knowledge or evaluation.

• If you refer to the procedures and findings of a study, this shows knowledge and understanding.
• If you comment on what the studies shows, and what it supports and challenges about the theory in question, this shows evaluation.

Writing an Introduction

It is often best to write your introduction when you have finished the main body of the essay, so that you have a good understanding of the topic area.

If there is a word count for your essay try to devote 10% of this to your introduction.

Ideally, the introduction should;

Identify the subject of the essay and define the key terms. Highlight the major issues which “lie behind” the question. Let the reader know how you will focus your essay by identifying the main themes to be discussed. “Signpost” the essay’s key argument, (and, if possible, how this argument is structured).

Introductions are very important as first impressions count and they can create a h alo effect in the mind of the lecturer grading your essay. If you start off well then you are more likely to be forgiven for the odd mistake later one.

Writing a Conclusion

So many students either forget to write a conclusion or fail to give it the attention it deserves.

If there is a word count for your essay try to devote 10% of this to your conclusion.

Ideally the conclusion should summarize the key themes / arguments of your essay. State the take home message – don’t sit on the fence, instead weigh up the evidence presented in the essay and make a decision which side of the argument has more support.

Also, you might like to suggest what future research may need to be conducted and why (read the discussion section of journal articles for this).

Don”t include new information / arguments (only information discussed in the main body of the essay).

If you are unsure of what to write read the essay question and answer it in one paragraph.

Points that unite or embrace several themes can be used to great effect as part of your conclusion.

The Importance of Flow

Obviously, what you write is important, but how you communicate your ideas / arguments has a significant influence on your overall grade. Most students may have similar information / content in their essays, but the better students communicate this information concisely and articulately.

When you have finished the first draft of your essay you must check if it “flows”. This is an important feature of quality of communication (along with spelling and grammar).

This means that the paragraphs follow a logical order (like the chapters in a novel). Have a global structure with themes arranged in a way that allows for a logical sequence of ideas. You might want to rearrange (cut and paste) paragraphs to a different position in your essay if they don”t appear to fit in with the essay structure.

To improve the flow of your essay make sure the last sentence of one paragraph links to first sentence of the next paragraph. This will help the essay flow and make it easier to read.

Finally, only repeat citations when it is unclear which study / theory you are discussing. Repeating citations unnecessarily disrupts the flow of an essay.

Referencing

The reference section is the list of all the sources cited in the essay (in alphabetical order). It is not a bibliography (a list of the books you used).

In simple terms every time you cite/refer to a name (and date) of a psychologist you need to reference the original source of the information.

If you have been using textbooks this is easy as the references are usually at the back of the book and you can just copy them down. If you have been using websites, then you may have a problem as they might not provide a reference section for you to copy.

References need to be set out APA style :

Author, A. A. (year). Title of work . Location: Publisher.

Journal Articles

Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (year). Article title. Journal Title, volume number (issue number), page numbers

A simple way to write your reference section is use Google scholar . Just type the name and date of the psychologist in the search box and click on the “cite” link.

Next, copy and paste the APA reference into the reference section of your essay.

Once again, remember that references need to be in alphabetical order according to surname.

Origins Of Psychology And The Emergence Of Psychology As A Science

March 10, 2021 - paper 2 psychology in context | approaches to human behaviour.

It all started with  Wundt!

Wundt is often referred to as the   ‘Father of Psychology’  (who defined Psychology as ‘the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour’). Wundt set up the first lab dedicated to psychological enquiry in Germany, in the 1870s. He promoted the use of introspection as a way of studying mental processes.

Wundt’s researchers were trained to examine their thought processes for feelings, emotions and sensations. Research was completed at the university in a controlled environment. The researchers would report back to him what they had experienced and their analysis of that experience. Paved the way for psychology to be accepted as a science in its own right.

(1)  Determinism   the idea that all behaviour is caused by internal or external factors alone, there is no element of free will that influences a response to a stimulus

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Cookies on our website

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use our site so we can improve it for everyone. Also, we'd like to serve you some cookies set by other services to show you relevant content.

Psychology as a science (C8511)

15 credits, Level 4

Autumn teaching

This is the first in a series of four core research method modules.

This module primarily focuses on the scientific method:

• why the scientific method is important
• how psychologists conduct sound scientific studies
• how we create measurable research questions.

You will also be given opportunities to refine your skills for summarising and visualising data. Ethical issues for conducting experimental research will also be discussed.

Contact hours and workload

We regularly review our modules to incorporate student feedback, staff expertise, as well as the latest research and teaching methodology. We’re planning to run these modules in the academic year 2024/25. However, there may be changes to these modules in response to feedback, staff availability, student demand or updates to our curriculum. We’ll make sure to let you know of any material changes to modules at the earliest opportunity.

This module is offered on the following courses:

• Psychology (with a professional placement year) BSc
• Psychology BSc
• Psychology with Business and Management BSc
• Psychology with Clinical Approaches BSc
• Psychology with Criminology BSc
• Psychology with Neuroscience BSc

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 ]

Personalised lessons and regular feedback to ensure you ace your exams! Book a free consultation today

Gain hands-on experience of how physics is used in different fields. Experience life as a uni student and boost your university application with our summer programme!

• Revision notes >
• A-Level Psychology Revision Notes >

What is the 'psychology as a science' debate and can you explain it?

The debate over whether psychology is a science has been ongoing since the discipline emerged in the late 19th century. At its core, the debate revolves around whether psychology can be considered a true science in the same sense as physics, chemistry, and biology.

Those who argue that psychology is a science point to the use of the scientific method in psychological research, which involves formulating hypotheses, collecting and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions based on empirical evidence. They also note that psychology draws on many of the same statistical and methodological tools as other sciences.

On the other hand, critics of the idea that psychology is a science argue that human behavior and mental processes are too complex to be studied using traditional scientific methods. They argue that the subjective nature of mental states makes it difficult to quantify and measure them in the same way as physical phenomena. Additionally, they point out that many psychological studies rely on self-report measures, which may not be reliable indicators of internal mental states.

Ultimately, the debate over whether psychology is a science is likely to continue, as different individuals and schools of thought have different criteria for what constitutes a science. However, it’s worth noting that psychology has made many important scientific contributions, including the development of influential theories of human behavior and the identification of evidence-based treatments for mental health conditions.

The “psychology as a science” debate is an ongoing discussion over whether psychology can be considered a true science in the same sense as physics, chemistry, and biology.

Critics argue that human behavior and mental processes are too complex to be studied using traditional scientific methods, and that the subjective nature of mental states makes it difficult to quantify and measure them in the same way as physical phenomena.

Supporters of psychology as a science point to the use of the scientific method in psychological research, which involves formulating hypotheses, collecting and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions based on empirical evidence.

The scientific status of psychology has important implications for the validity of psychological theories and the development of evidence-based treatments for mental health conditions.

Yes, some argue that psychology can be considered both a science and an art, as it involves both the application of scientific principles and the development of personal and creative skills in working with individuals and communities.

Still got a question? Leave a comment

Leave a comment, cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Let's get acquainted ? What is your name?

Nice to meet you, {{name}} what is your preferred e-mail address, nice to meet you, {{name}} what is your preferred phone number, what is your preferred phone number, just to check, what are you interested in, when should we call you.

It would be great to have a 15m chat to discuss a personalised plan and answer any questions

What time works best for you? (UK Time)

Pick a time-slot that works best for you ?

How many hours of 1-1 tutoring are you looking for?

My whatsapp number is..., for our safeguarding policy, please confirm....

Please provide the mobile number of a guardian/parent

Which online course are you interested in?

What is your query, you can apply for a bursary by clicking this link, sure, what is your query, thank you for your response. we will aim to get back to you within 12-24 hours., lock in a 2 hour 1-1 tutoring lesson now.

If you're ready and keen to get started click the button below to book your first 2 hour 1-1 tutoring lesson with us. Connect with a tutor from a university of your choice in minutes. (Use FAST5 to get 5% Off!)

How to Write a Great Psychology Essay

Categories Psychology Education

Writing a great psychology essay takes skill. You need good research skills to provide an adequate empirical background. You also need to put your analytical skills to work to evaluate the research and then build a coherent argument. If you are not used to writing psychology essays, it can be a little challenging at first (especially if you are also learning how to use APA format).

Remember, the skill of writing an exceptional psychology essay lies not only in presenting information, but also in synthesizing and explaining it effectively. If you need to write a psychology essay for a class, here are some tips to help you get started.

Table of Contents

Key Takeaways

• Craft a strong thesis statement highlighting the main points of your psychology essay.
• Incorporate research studies to support arguments and critically evaluate their validity and reliability.
• Structure the essay with a clear introduction, focused body paragraphs, and a compelling conclusion.
• Include critical analysis by evaluating research methodologies, strengths, weaknesses, and ethical considerations.

What to Include in an APA Format Essay

To craft a great psychology essay, it’s important to make sure you follow the right format. While your instructor may have specific instructions, the typical format for an essay includes the following sections:

• The title page
• The abstract
• The introduction
• The main body
• The reference section

Mastering the key components of a psychology essay is vital for crafting a compelling and academically sound piece of writing. To start, a good introduction sets the stage for your essay, providing a clear overview of what will be discussed.

Moving on to the main body, each paragraph should focus on a main theme, supported by evidence from research studies published in peer-reviewed journals. It’s pivotal to critically evaluate these studies, considering their validity, reliability, and limitations to strengthen your arguments.

Incorporating research studies not only adds credibility to your essay but also demonstrates a deep understanding of theoretical perspectives in psychology.

The Structure of a Psychology Essay

Each section of a psychology essay should also follow a specific format:

The Title Page

The title page is the first impression of your essay, and it should be formatted according to APA guidelines. It typically includes:

• The title of your essay : Make sure it’s concise, descriptive, and gives the reader an idea of its content.
• Your name : Place your full name below the title.
• Institutional affiliation : This usually refers to your university or college.
• Course number and name : Include the course for which the essay is being written.
• Instructor’s name : Write the name of your instructor.
• Due date : Indicate the date when the essay is due.

The Abstract

The abstract is a brief summary of your essay, typically around 150-250 words. It should provide a snapshot of the main points and findings. Key elements include:

• Research topic : Briefly describe what your essay is about.
• Research questions : Outline the main questions your essay addresses.
• Methodology : Summarize the methods used to gather information or conduct research.
• Results : Highlight the key findings.
• Conclusion : Provide a concise conclusion or the implications of your findings.

The Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for your essay, providing context and outlining the main points. It should include:

• Hook : Start with an interesting fact, quote, or anecdote to grab the reader’s attention.
• Background information : Provide necessary context or background information on your topic.
• Thesis statement : Clearly state the main argument or purpose of your essay.
• Overview of structure : Briefly outline the structure of your essay to give the reader a roadmap.

The Main Body

The main body is the core of your essay, where you present your arguments, evidence, and analysis. It should be well-organized and divided into sections with subheadings if necessary. Each section should include:

• Topic sentences : Start each paragraph with a clear topic sentence that introduces the main idea.
• Evidence : Provide evidence to support your arguments, such as data, quotes, or studies.
• Analysis : Analyze the evidence and explain how it supports your thesis.
• Transitions : Use transitions to ensure a smooth flow between paragraphs and sections.

The Reference Section

The reference section is crucial for giving credit to the sources you used and for allowing readers to locate the sources themselves. It should follow APA format and include:

• Alphabetical order : List all sources alphabetically by the author’s last name.
• Proper citation format : Follow APA guidelines for formatting each type of source (books, articles, websites, etc.).
• Hanging indent : Ensure that each reference entry has a hanging indent.

By following these guidelines, you can ensure that your psychology essay is well-structured, informative, and adheres to APA format.

Using Research in Your Psychology Essay

To strengthen the arguments in your psychology essay, it’s essential to incorporate relevant research studies that provide credibility and depth to your analysis. Utilizing research studies not only enhances the validity of your points but also demonstrates a deeper understanding of the topic at hand.

When integrating research into your essay, remember to include citations for each study referenced to give proper credit and allow readers to explore the sources further.

It is also important to evaluate the research studies you include to assess their validity, reliability, and any ethical considerations involved. This helps you determine the trustworthiness of the findings and whether they align with your argument.

Be sure to discuss any ethical concerns, such as participant deception or potential harm, and showcase a thoughtful approach to utilizing research in your essay.

Analyzing the Research Critically

When writing a psychology essay, using high-quality research sources and analyzing them critically is crucial. This not only strengthens your arguments but also ensures the credibility and reliability of your work. Here are some guidelines to help you critically analyze sources and use them appropriately:

Evaluating the Credibility of Sources

• Authorship : Check the credentials of the author. Are they an expert in the field? Do they have relevant qualifications or affiliations with reputable institutions?
• Publication Source : Determine where the research was published. Peer-reviewed journals, academic books, and respected organizations are considered reliable sources.
• Date of Publication : Ensure the research is current and up-to-date. In psychology, recent studies are often more relevant as they reflect the latest findings and theories.
• Citations and References : Look at how often the source is cited by other scholars. A frequently cited source is generally more credible.

Assessing the Quality of the Research

• Research Design and Methodology : Evaluate the research design. Is it appropriate for the study’s aims? Consider the sample size, controls, and methods used.
• Data Analysis : Check how the data was analyzed. Are the statistical methods sound and appropriate? Were the results interpreted correctly?
• Bias and Limitations : Identify any potential biases or limitations in the study. Authors should acknowledge these in their discussion.

Synthesizing Information from Multiple Sources

• Comparing Findings : Compare findings from different sources to identify patterns, trends, or discrepancies. This can help you understand the broader context and the range of perspectives on your topic.
• Integrating Evidence : Integrate evidence from various sources to build a comprehensive argument. Use multiple pieces of evidence to support each point or counterpoint in your essay.

Citing Sources Appropriately

• In-Text Citations : Follow APA guidelines for in-text citations. Include the author’s last name and the year of publication (e.g., Smith, 2020).
• Direct Quotes and Paraphrasing : When directly quoting, use quotation marks and provide a page number. For paraphrasing, ensure you rephrase the original text significantly and still provide an in-text citation.
• Reference List : Include a complete reference list at the end of your essay, formatted according to APA guidelines.

Using Sources to Support Your Argument

• Relevance : Ensure each source directly relates to your thesis or the specific point you are discussing. Irrelevant information can distract from your argument.
• Strength of Evidence : Use the strongest and most persuasive evidence available. Prioritize high-quality, peer-reviewed studies over less reliable sources.
• Balance : Present a balanced view by including evidence that supports and opposes your thesis. Acknowledging counterarguments demonstrates thorough research and critical thinking.

By critically analyzing research sources and using them appropriately, you can enhance the quality and credibility of your psychology essay. This approach ensures that your arguments are well-supported, your analysis is thorough, and your work adheres to academic standards.

Putting the Finishing Touches on Your Psychology Essay

Once you have a basic grasp of the topic and have written a rough draft of your psychology essay, the next step is to polish it up and ensure it is ready to turn in. To perfect your essay structure, consider the following:

• Make sure your topic is well-defined: Make sure your essay topic is specific and focused to provide a clear direction for your writing.
• Check that you are highlighting a main point in each paragraph: Commence each paragraph with a topic sentence that encapsulates the main idea you’ll discuss.
• Revise and refine your first draft: Take the time to review and refine your initial draft, guaranteeing that each section flows logically into the next and that your arguments are well-supported. ( Tip: Ask a friend of classmate to read through it to catch any typos or errors you might have missed. )
• Check your APA format : Use the APA publication manual to double-check that all your sources are cited and referenced correctly.

Creating an amazing psychology essay requires a compelling introduction, evidence-based arguments, a strong thesis statement, critical analysis, and a well-structured essay.

By incorporating research from peer-reviewed journals, evaluating studies for validity and reliability, and considering differing viewpoints and ethical considerations, you can craft a powerful and insightful piece that showcases your understanding of the topic.

With attention to detail and logical flow, your psychology essay will captivate and inform your readers effectively.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding

International students

• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Undergraduate Study
• Student life overview
• Why Cambridge
• Accommodation
• Sport and societies
• Courses overview
• Choosing a course
• How you will learn
• Careers and graduate prospects
• Subject A-Z
• Colleges overview
• What is a College?
• Choosing a College
• College contacts
• Area links scheme
• Finance overview
• Tuition fees
• Living costs
• Financial support
• Music awards
• Applying overview
• Application timeline
• Before you apply
• After you apply
• AI and undergraduate applications
• International overview
• Chat with our students
• Why Cambridge?
• What can I study?
• Entry requirements
• Tuition fees and costs
• International visits and events
• Visas and immigration
• Year abroad
• Get in touch!
• Open Days and Events overview
• Upcoming events
• Cambridge Open Days
• Virtual Tour
• Think Cambridge
• Applicant Webinar Series
• Subject Masterclasses
• Teachers and advisers' events
• HE fairs and exhibitions
• Find out more overview
• Sign up to our Newsletter
• Widening participation

Parents and supporters

Teachers and advisers

• Getting here
• Why Cambridge overview
• Study facilities and libraries
• Cambridge explained
• Support overview
• College welfare

Disabled students

Mature students

• Counselling
• Care leavers overview
• Realise student snapshot
• Travel Fund
• Young carers
• Student parents and childcare
• Estranged students
• Area links scheme overview
• East Midlands overview
• Leicester City
• Leicestershire
• Lincolnshire
• Northamptonshire
• Nottinghamshire
• East of England overview
• Bedfordshire
• Cambridgeshire
• Hertfordshire
• Peterborough
• Southend-on-Sea
• Greater London overview
• Barking and Dagenham
• City of London
• City of Westminster
• Hammersmith and Fulham
• Kensington and Chelsea
• Tower Hamlets
• Waltham Forest
• North East overview
• Middlesbrough
• North Tyneside
• Northumberland
• Redcar and Cleveland
• South Tyneside
• Stockton-on-Tees
• North West overview
• Blackburn with Darwen
• Telford and Wrekin
• Northern Ireland
• South East overview
• Bracknell Forest
• Milton Keynes
• Oxfordshire
• Southampton
• Isle of Wight
• Buckinghamshire
• West Berkshire
• South West overview
• Bath and North East Somerset
• Bournemouth
• Gloucestershire
• North Somerset
• South Gloucestershire
• Wales overview
• North Wales
• Mid and South Wales
• West Midlands overview
• Herefordshire
• Staffordshire
• Warwickshire
• Wolverhampton
• Worcestershire
• Yorkshire and Humber overview
• East Yorkshire
• Huddersfield and Kirklees
• Kingston-upon-Hull
• North East Lincolnshire
• North Lincolnshire
• North Yorkshire
• Isle of Man
• Living costs overview
• Study costs
• Financial support overview
• Cambridge financial support
• Government financial support
• Family contribution
• Outreach Scholarships overview
• Stormzy Scholarship
• Formula 1 Scholarship
• Geography Scholarship
• Clare College Area Links Scholarships
• Student Funding and Sharia Law
• Music awards overview
• Choral awards overview
• Instrumental awards overview
• Organ scholarships overview
• College vacancies and course restrictions
• When are the auditions and interviews?
• What do the Organ Trials involve?
• How do I apply?
• Further information
• Choosing high school subjects
• Improve your application
• Entry requirements overview
• Qualifications we accept
• Sixth Term Exam (STEP)
• International entry requirements
• Application statistics
• Mature student applications
• Second undergraduate degrees
• UCAS application
• Admission tests overview
• Clinical aptitude test (UCAT)
• Law test (LNAT)
• Engineering and Science test (ESAT)
• Mathematics test (TMUA)
• College admission assessments
• My Cambridge Application overview
• Providing a transcript
• Disruption to your studies
• Written work and portfolios
• Cambridge interviews overview
• Prepare for an interview
• Application decisions overview
• Admissions Policy
• Unspent criminal convictions
• Contextual data
• Outcome of your application overview
• Terms of Admission
• Admissions complaints
• After you get your exam results overview
• Information for new students
• Applying for reconsideration overview
• Reconsideration eligibility criteria
• Tuition fees and costs overview
• International financial support
• International visits and events overview
• International webinar series
• Cambridge Open Days overview
• Open Days Programme, September 2024 overview
• College sessions
• General support
• Open Days FAQ
• Teachers and advisers' events overview
• Teachers and Advisers' Webinars
• Teachers and Advisers' Conference
• Widening participation overview
• Access and Participation Plans
• Insight Discover
• Insight Explore
• Sutton Trust Summer Schools
• Apply: Cambridge
• Safeguarding
• Parents and supporters overview
• Parents' Newsletter
• Teachers and advisers overview
• How similar are Oxford and Cambridge?
• Helping students prepare
• School/college reference
• Teachers' Newsletter
• Events for Teachers and Advisers
• Inspiring Educator Awards

Psychological and Behavioural Sciences, BA (Hons)

• Student life
• International
• Open Days and Events
• Find out more

Psychological and Behavioural Sciences (PBS) at Cambridge

Psychological and Behavioural Sciences at Cambridge overlaps with disciplines such as anthropology, neuroscience, philosophy and sociology. 

Study cognitive, social, developmental and biological psychology within the broader context of the behavioural sciences.  

Psychological and Behavioural Sciences 

Psychology is very diverse. It overlaps with and contributes to many other disciplines, such as: 

• anthropology 
• archaeology 
• neuroscience 
• philosophy 

This course gives you the opportunity to study cognitive, social, developmental and biological psychology within the broader context of the behavioural sciences. 

The course covers, for example: 

• statistics and data-science
• cognitive psychology 
• psychopathology 
• brain mechanisms 
• family relationships and influences 
• personality 
• group social behaviour 

A wide range of options enable you to study the topics that interest you most in greater depth.

Teaching and facilities

You’ll be taught by lecturers and researchers of international excellence. Subject societies and seminar programmes offer regular talks from guest speakers too.

Facilities 

Our Department of Psychology is home to:  

• the Department Library and specialist collections held in other departments’ libraries with 50,000 books and more than 150 periodicals combined  
• Specialist laboratories and computing facilities 

You'll also have access to the impressive Cambridge University Library, one of the world’s oldest university libraries.

Course costs

When you go to university, you’ll need to consider two main costs – your tuition fees and your living costs (sometimes referred to as maintenance costs).

Your living costs will include costs related to your studies that are not covered by your tuition fees. There are some general study costs that will apply for all students – you can find details of these costs here .

Other additional course costs for Psychological and Behavioural Sciences are detailed below. If you have any queries about resources/materials, please contact the Department.

• University approved scientific calculator - estimated cost £25

Becoming an accredited psychologist

This course is accredited by the British Psychological Society (BPS).

This means that if you successfully graduate with at least second class Honours you’ll get the ‘graduate recognition’ you need to pursue a career in psychology.

Your future career  

Many of our graduates continue with further study and research.  

As a graduate you’ll be eligible for admission to professional courses in clinical, educational, forensic or applied psychology.  

Recent graduates have gone on to positions in: 

• psychology and related fields 
• careers in social, community and charity work, research and teaching 

Our course also gives you skills and knowledge to be successful in other sectors, including: 

• management 
• the Civil Service 

Some of our graduates have gone on to work in destinations as varied as: 

• Edelman, a global communications firm 
• Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service 
• the Cabinet Office 
• Arsenal Football Club 

Teaching is provided through lectures, classes or seminars, and small-group supervisions. Some papers include a practical element, which takes place in laboratories.  

You can typically expect 2 lectures a week for each paper. You also have one or two supervisions each week to discuss your work and develop your reasoning and ideas.

Assessment 

Assessment is through a range of laboratory reports, short answer and essay based written examinations and oral examinations.  

You won't usually be able to resit any of your exams. 

Year 1 (Part IA) 

You take a total of 4 papers. 3 papers are compulsory:  

• Introduction to Experimental Psychology: From Brain to Cognition 
• Social Psychology, Applied Psychology and Individual Differences  
• From Subjective Questions to Objective Science  

You choose one more paper from a selection of around 9 options. The optional papers available each year may change, but subjects usually include: 

• biological and social anthropology 
• evolution and behaviour 
• mathematical biology 

Year 2 (Part IB) 

You will get specialised training in Development Psychology and Behavioural and Cognitive Neuroscience.  

You will also continue to develop research skills for your third year project.  

You take a total of 4 papers. 2 papers are compulsory:  

• Behavioural and Cognitive Neuroscience 
• Developmental Psychology 

You choose 2 more papers from a broad range. The subjects may change from year to year but typically include papers in: 

• biological anthropology 
• history and philosophy of science 
• neurobiology 
• criminology 

Year 3 (Part II)  

You complete a research dissertation of 7,000 words on a psychology topic of your choice.  

You also choose a further 3 papers from a selection available. The subjects may change from year to year but typically include the following topics: 

• social and developmental psychology 
• cognitive and experimental psychology 
• behavioural and cognitive neuroscience 
• other selected subjects from those offered in year 2. 

For further information about this course and the papers you can take see the Psychological and Behavioural Sciences website .

Changing course

It’s really important to think carefully about which course you want to study before you apply. 

In rare cases, it may be possible to change course once you’ve joined the University. You will usually have to get agreement from your College and the relevant departments. It’s not guaranteed that your course change will be approved.

You might also have to:

• take part in an interview
• complete an admissions test
• produce some written work
• achieve a particular grade in your current studies
• do some catch-up work
• start your new course from the beginning 

For more information visit the Psychological and Behavioural Sciences website .

You can also apply to change to:

• Management Studies at the Judge Business School

You can't apply to this course until you're at Cambridge. You would usually apply when you have completed 1 year or more of your original Cambridge course.

You should contact your College’s Admissions Office if you’re thinking of changing your course. They will be able to give you advice and explain how changing courses works.

Minimum offer level

A level: A*A*A IB: 41-42 points, with 776 at Higher Level Other qualifications : Check which other qualifications we accept .

Subject requirements

To apply to any of our Colleges for Psychological and Behavioural Sciences, you will need A levels/IB Higher Levels (or the equivalent) in: 

• Mathematics OR Biology 

Colleges will usually require you to achieve A*/7 in Mathematics and/or Biology. 

What PBS students have studied

Around a third of PBS students (who had studied A levels and started at Cambridge in 2018, 2019 and 2023) achieved at least A*A*A*.

Most of these students took Psychology (81%).

25% of students took both Biology and Mathematics. Please note that Biology or Mathematics to A level/IB Higher Level is now a requirement.

The majority of students who studied IB achieved at least 43 points overall and/or grades 776 at Higher Level.

Check our advice on choosing your high school subjects . You should also check if there are any required subjects for your course when you apply.

Admission assessment

There is an admission assessment at some Colleges for this course. You do not need to register in advance.

Check the College admission assessments page for more information. 

Submitting written work

Applicants to some Colleges are required to submit written work prior to interview. 

The following Colleges require one piece of written work:

• Lucy Cavendish

The following Colleges require two pieces of written work:

• Corpus Christi
• Murray Edwards
• St Edmund's

Offers above the minimum requirement

The minimum offer level and subject requirements outline the minimum you'll usually need to achieve to get an offer from Cambridge.

In some cases, you'll get a higher or more challenging offer. Colleges set higher offer requirements for a range of reasons. If you'd like to find out more about why we do this, check the information about offers above the minimum requirement  on the entry requirements page.

Some Colleges usually make offers above the minimum offer level. Find out more on our qualifications page .

All undergraduate admissions decisions are the responsibility of the Cambridge Colleges. Please contact the relevant  College admissions office  if you have any queries.

Discover your department or faculty

• Visit the Department of Psychology website - The Department of Psychology website has more information about this course, facilities, people and research.

Explore the Colleges

• Find out how the Colleges work - A College is where you’ll live, eat and socialise. It’s also where you’ll have teaching in a small group, known as supervisions
• How to choose a Cambridge College that's right for you - If you think you know which course you’d like to study, it’s time to choose a College.

Visit us on an open day

• Book an open day - Get a feel for the city and the University.
• Find an event - We offer a range of events where you can find out more about Cambridge, Colleges, and your course. Many of our events have hybrid options so you can join us virtually.

Find out to apply

• Find out how to apply and how our admissions processes work - Our admissions process is slightly different to other universities. We’ve put together a handy guide to tell you everything you need to know about applying to study at Cambridge.
• Improve your application - Supercurricular activities are a great way to engage with your chosen subject outside of school or college.

Discover Uni data

Contextual information.

Discover Uni allows you to compare information about individual courses at different higher education institutions.  This can be a useful method of considering your options and what course may suit you best.

However, please note that superficially similar courses often have very different structures and objectives, and that the teaching, support and learning environment that best suits you can only be determined by identifying your own interests, needs, expectations and goals, and comparing them with detailed institution- and course-specific information.

We recommend that you look thoroughly at the course and University information contained on these webpages and consider coming to visit us on an Open Day , rather than relying solely on statistical comparison.

You may find the following notes helpful when considering information presented by Discover Uni.

• Discover Uni relies on superficially similar courses being coded in the same way. Whilst this works on one level, it may lead to some anomalies. For example, Music courses and Music Technology courses can have exactly the same code despite being very different programmes with quite distinct educational and career outcomes. Any course which combines several disciplines (as many courses at Cambridge do) tends to be compared nationally with courses in just one of those disciplines, and in such cases the Discover Uni comparison may not be an accurate or fair reflection of the reality of either. For example, you may find that when considering a degree which embraces a range of disciplines such as biology, physics, chemistry and geology (for instance, Natural Sciences at Cambridge), the comparison provided is with courses at other institutions that primarily focus on just one (or a smaller combination) of those subjects.You may therefore find that not all elements of the Cambridge degree are represented in the Discover Uni data.
• Some contextual data linked from other surveys, such as the National Student Survey (NSS) or the Destination of Leavers in Higher Education (DLHE), may not be available or may be aggregated across several courses or several years due to small sample sizes.  When using the data to inform your course choice, it is important to ensure you understand how it has been processed prior to its presentation. Discover Uni offers some explanatory information about how the contextual data is collated, and how it may be used, which you can view here: https://discoveruni.gov.uk/about-our-data/ .
• Discover Uni draws on national data to provide average salaries and employment/continuation data.  Whilst starting salaries can be a useful measure, they do not give any sense of career trajectory or take account of the voluntary/low paid work that many graduates undertake initially in order to gain valuable experience necessary/advantageous for later career progression. Discover Uni is currently piloting use of the Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) data to demonstrate possible career progression; it is important to note that this is experimental and its use may be modified as it embeds.

The above list is not exhaustive and there may be other important factors that are relevant to the choices that you are making, but we hope that this will be a useful starting point to help you delve deeper than the face value of the Discover Uni data.

Key information

All Colleges, except Peterhouse

Cambridge Admissions Office

• Cambridge Admissions Office Student Services Centre New Museums Site Cambridge CB2 3PT
• Events: [email protected]
• General admissions: [email protected]
• Students chat

About this site

Our website

Privacy policy

Participant data and booking policies

Information for

Care leavers and estranged students

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

The Uni Guide has a fresh new look

• Teacher training
• Bangor University
• Birmingham City University
• Sheffield Hallam University
• University of Aberdeen
• University of East Anglia
• University of Hull
• University of Kent
• University of Reading
• Clearing and results day
• Preparing for university
• Ucas application
• Student finance
• Student accommodation
• Choosing a course
• A-level results day: what to expect
• A guide to Btec results day
• How Ucas Hub works on results day
• What to say in a Clearing phone call
• 10 tips to help you with Ucas Clearing
• A guide to Clearing 2024
• Which university is right for you?
• What you need to know about getting a university scholarship, grant or bursary
• How to decide on a university course
• Is a higher or degree apprenticeship right for you?
• Universities

By Nik Taylor (Editor, The Uni Guide) | 21 September 2023 | 10 min read

Writing a psychology personal statement: expert advice from universities 

 Get tips from the top to help you nail your psychology personal statement 

Share this page

Email & print.

Research the course and make it clear that you understand what it’s all about

• Read more:  how to write an excellent personal statement in ten steps

Keep it focused on you 

… but make sure you understand what the course is all about and keep it academic.

• Read more:  how to write your university application

Answer the question of why you want to study psychology 

• Read more:  teacher secrets for writing a great personal statement

Show the range of your interest

• Read more:  personal statement FAQs

Highlight any relevant work experience

• Read more:  the ten biggest mistakes to avoid when writing your personal statement

And work experience outside the healthcare sector could still be relevant, too

• Read more:  universities reveal all about personal statements

Reflect on your relevant experience

• Read more:  universities explain how to end your personal statement with a bang

Avoid cliches

• Read more:  how to write your personal statement when you have nothing interesting to say

Let it all flow out in your first draft

• Read more:  how long does it take for universities to reply to your application? 

Don’t worry if you don’t know exactly where you want your career to take you yet

And a few final tips from universities…, you may want to look at these..., how to write an excellent personal statement in 10 steps.

Help and advice on putting your application together

Personal statement FAQs

We've gone through some of the most commonly asked personal statement questions and put all the answers in one place

Personal statement secrets – universities reveal all

Want to know how to craft an amazing personal statement? Take some advice from the experts...

Related to this article

Search the uni guide, find further advice or search for information on a course or university.

• Search Advice
• Search courses &/or universities

The Uni Guide and The Student Room are both part of The Student Room Group.

Promoted universities

• Durham University
• Lancaster University
• University of Glasgow
• University of the Arts London
• University of Southampton
• Swansea University
• Aston University, Birmingham
• Ulster University
• Cardiff University
• University of Essex

Browse expert advice

• Oxbridge applications
• Personal statements
• University open days
• Ucas deadline 2024 countdown
• A-level choices
• GCSE choices and university
• Making firm and insurance choices
• Student life
• Advice for parents

About this site

• Cookie policy
• List of universities and colleges
• Privacy notice
• Terms and conditions
• Where we get our info

Who we work with

• Your account settings

Ad privacy settings

Popular tools and features

• A-level Explorer
• Course search

Connect with us

• Find My Rep

You are here

How to Write Brilliant Psychology Essays

• Paul Dickerson - University of Roehampton, UK
• Description

“This book is one I wish I had bought at the start of my Psychology degree.” – Five-star review Essay writing is a key part of the Psychology degree and knowing how to write effective and compelling academic essays is key to success.  Whether it's understanding how to implement feedback you receive on essays, how to stop procrastinating or what makes an effective introduction, this book covers it all. Drawing on insights derived from teaching thousands of students over a 25-year period How to Write Brilliant Psychology Essays provides the keys that will unlock your writing potential.

Ace your Assignment  provide practical tips to help succeed

Exercises  help try the theory out in practice

Take away  points highlight the key learnings from each chapter

Online resources  provide even more help and guidance.

Supplements

Paul Dickerson, Emma McDonald and Christian van Nieuwerburgh discuss  study skills, wellbeing and employability  and explore   how university lecturers and student welfare teams can better  support Psychology students  through their university journey.

Students enjoyed this text - they found it easy to read and the author's dry sense of humour appealed to many. Not just for psychologists!

A really useful guide for students, breaking down the components of what constitutes a good essay and written from a subject-specific view - highly recommend

I have recommended this to my first year tutorial groups as it provides them with everything they need to know about producing an excellent psychology essay.

Preview this book

For instructors.

Please select a format:

Select a Purchasing Option

Order from:.

• VitalSource
• Amazon Kindle
• Google Play

Related Products