Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32297037›Full record

ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2020

Psychology: a Giant with Feet of Clay.

Andrea Zagaria, Agata Ando', Alessandro Zennaro

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Temperaments as Basic Bias.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. A close look at sociality in DSM criteria.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Cleaning Up or Throwing out the Psychological Insight with the Bath Water.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2022
    Article
  11. Musings about Metaphors and Models: the Need to Put Psychology Together Again.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2022
    Article
  12. The Clay of Evolution: Megalomania in (Evolutionary) Psychology.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Inching Toward a Unified Metatheory for Psychology.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. The Game of Science and Puzzles of Paradigm.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2021
    Article
  20. Psychology Today: Still in Denial, Still Outdated.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andrea ZagariaDepartment of Psychology, University of Turin, 10124, Turin, Italy. zagaria.andrea@gmail.com.
Agata Ando'Department of Psychology, University of Turin, 10124, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0879-133X
Alessandro ZennaroDepartment of Psychology, University of Turin, 10124, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2774-307X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the current study has been to highlight the theoretical precariousness of Psychology. The theoretical precariousness has been evidenced through a review of psychological "core-constructs" whose definitions were thoroughly searched in 11 popular introductory textbooks of psychology edited between 2012 and 2019 and in an APA dictionary of Psychology (VandeBos 2015). This analysis has shown unsatisfactory or discordant definitions of psychological "core-constructs". A further epistemological comparison between psychology and three "harder" sciences (i.e., physics, chemistry and biology) seemed to support the "soft" nature of psychology: a minor consensus in its "core" and a minor capacity to accumulate knowledge when compared to the former "harder" sciences (Fanelli in PLoS One, 5, e10068, 2010; Fanelli and Glänzel in PLoS One, 8, e66938, 2013). This comparison also seemed to support the "pre-paradigmatic" condition of psychology, in which conflicts between rival schools of thought hamper the development of a real unified paradigm (Kuhn 1970). To enter a paradigmatic stage, we propose here evolutionary psychology as the most compelling approach, thanks to its empirical support and theoretical consistency. However, since the skepticism about "grand unifying theories" is well disposed (Badcock in Review of General Psychology, 16, 10-23, 2012), we suggest that evolutionary psychology must be intended as a pluralistic approach rather than a monolithic one, and that its main strength is its capacity to resolve the nature-nurture dialectics.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionKnowledgePsychologyCultural DiversityHumansEvolutionary psychologyIntroductory textbooksPhilosophy of scienceTheoretical definitionsTheoretical psychology

Identifiers

PMID32297037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.