Reflexivity is not a problem for psychology

The field of psychology is typically defined as the science of human behavior. The essence of any science is its method. The scientific method is “systematic, controlled observation or experiment whose results lead to hypotheses, which are found valid or invalid through further work, leading to theories that are reliable because they were arrived at with initial open-mindedness and continual skepticism” (Bauer, 1995). The theories derived this way should be clear in what constructs constitute the phenomena of interest, clearly explicate how the factors involved are related to each other, why the relationships between these factors makes sense, and finally, be explicit with respect to their boundaries (Chen & Klimoski, 2007).

People have theories about their own and other peoples behavior and are – in this way – psychologists too. Their theories may be influenced by their knowledge of current psychological theories and in this way psychology influences its own subject. The mere knowledge of a psychological theory can alter someone’s behavior, especially when the theory is value-laden and says something about which behaviors are preferred.

Psychology and its subject are thus in a feedback loop. Scientists research people, and, when this research leads to fruitful theories, these theories are communicated back to its subject so that they may use the theories to their benefit (Gergen, 1973). People then learn about these theories and may adjust their behavior.

This problem is even made worse by the fact that many psychological experiments are done with freshmen psychology students, for example at the University of Groningen. In 1969, about 88% of subjects in psychological research in the United States were psychology students (Jung, 1969). Psychology students, even freshmen, are well aware of psychological theories and psychological methods. This is what they are taught. Even though most experimenters try to keep the students in the dark concerning the subject of the experiment before the experiment, some students probably become quite aware of the different tricks experimenters use and undoubtedly gain knowledge about the purpose of and the theory underlying the experiment. Such knowledge then influences their decisions and the outcome of the experiment.

Psychology is unlike any other science, troubled by the way it is reflexively bound to its subject matter. It could be argued that this innate reflexivity in psychology makes psychology a less true, naturalistic science. In order for this to be true, this reflexivity should have to be a problem to psychology being a naturalistic science. Some examples of this can be though of.

For example, as argued by Ian Hacking (2006), psychological classifications such as multi-personality disorder have influenced the people diagnosed. As Hacking states, “the target has moved”. When the object of a theory changes, the theory will, by this definition of the scientific method by Bauer, get less reliable.

Is all hope lost?

Theories can even become invalid due to their mere publication. When people learn about a theory, they may try to counter the theory by changing their behavior, thereby rendering the theory useless. However, not all hope is lost for the field of psychology.

The science of psychology is a broad field. This is for example illustrated by the fact that at the university of Groningen all sorts of different psychology master programs are offered to students: work and organizational (applied) psychology, clinical and developmental psychology, brain and behavior (cognitive and neurological psychology), social psychology, human machine communication and behavioral and cognitive neurosciences. For some of these fields, the reflexivity described above is not a problem.

Several examples come to mind. For example, for theories which are actually about changing people, the subject knowledge about the theory is not a concern. Such theories are used in clinical treatment or revalidation and can thus be found in the clinical field of psychology. One such theory can be found within the field of cognitive therapy.

Thus, not all reflexivity is a problem. Furthermore, the reflexivity of psychological theory can only be a problem when the theory is about something that actually can change. As mentioned earlier, psychology is a broad field of science and not all aspects of this field formulate theories about things that can be changed. An example are the neurosciences. For example, many theories have been formulated about how the human visual system works. These theories have been tested, validated or invalidated, revised, and ultimately have led to an increased understanding of the human visual system. However, no theory about the workings of and the relations between the optic nerve, the lateral geniculate nucleus and the superior colliculus can influence how people see things. These things cannot consciously be altered. The human visual system is not a moving target.

Finally, there is the field of classical psychology. This is the field that is most associated by people with the term “psychology”, and also the field of psychology that has the highest risk of having to deal with the problems associated with reflexivity. Its theories are usually about constructs and behaviors that people can change. This requires scientists to be extra careful in formulating their theories. As stated in the introduction, good theories have to be explicit in their boundaries. One should especially be wary of theories that claim to be valid for all people for all time. By clearly stating the boundaries of theories, some of the problems of reflexivity can be alleviated. It may seem like this decreases the value of the theory because the theory has to narrow its scope, but since the theory would be invalidated outside these boundaries anyway the theory does not lose any scientific significance.

Conclusions

The answer to the question whether or not psychology is a less true and naturalistic science because it is reflexively tied to is subject matter, is a mixed bag. On the one hand, there are serious conceptual problems surrounding research of classical psychological constructs. Conclusions of such research (validated theories) often get invalidated because people change their behavior in response to the publication of these theories. This makes psychological theories unreliable in predicting future behavior. However, it is still possible to use psychological theories to predict behavior in the short term, for example when researching current issues. Limiting the boundaries of theories will enable scientists to be more explicit about under which conditions the theory will correctly predict behavior, which will hopefully lead to higher predictability within the boundaries that remain.

On the other hand, psychology is a broad field and not all fields are equally affected by this reflexivity. In the field of clinical psychology reflexivity is encouraged. In the field of neurosciences reflexivity is often not a problem, because the mechanisms researched are fixed in the brain.

Psychology still has a broad application and many possibilities for research remain. However, one has to be careful in selecting its theories boundaries and be aware of the reflexivity issues that can potentially arise.

References

• Bauer, H. H. (1995). The So-called Scientific Method. In: Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method. University of Illinois Press: Urbana, USA.
• Beck, A.T. (1979). Cognitive Therapy of Depression. Guilford Press: New York, USA.
• Buller, D. J. & Hardcastle, V. G. (2000) Evolutionary Psychology, Meet Developmental Neurobiology: Against Promiscuous Modularity. Brain and Mind 1 307 – 325.
• Chen, G. & Klimoski, R. J. (2007). Training and the Development of Human Resources at Work: Is the State of our Science Strong? Human Resource Management Review 17 180 – 190.
• Gale, E. A. M. (2004). The Hawthorne Studies – a Fable for Our Times? QJM 97 (7) 439 – 449.
• Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social Psychology as History. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 26 (2) 309 – 320.
• Hacking, I. (2006). Making Up People. London Review of Books 28 (16), 23 – 26.
• Jung, J. (1969). Current Practices and problems in the Use of College Students for Psychological Research. Canadian Psychologist 10 (3), 280 – 290.
• Pelham, B. W. & Blanton, H. (2003). Conducting Research in Psychology: Measuring the Weight of Smoke (2nd edition). Wadsworth / Thomson Learning: Belmont, USA.
• Smart, R. G. (1966). Subject Selection Bias in Psychological Research. Canadian Psychologist 7 (2) 115 – 121.