ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2020
Psychology Today: Still in Denial, Still Outdated.
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. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quo Vadis, Cultural Psychology? Time to Become Psychology. Again.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2025Article
- Toward a Cultural Evolutionary Psychology: Why the Evolutionary Approach does not Imply Reductionism or Determinism.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2021Article
- From Clay Feet to New Psychology: Starting the Move.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020Article
- The Principle of Inversion: Why the Quantitative-Empirical Paradigm Cannot Serve as a Unifying Basis for Psychology as an Academic Discipline.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The questionable state of psychology as a science has been pointed out repeatedly over last hundred years. Sometimes programs to overcome the obvious limitations of psychology have been also proposed. So far, in vain. Zagaria with coauthors (this issue) bring the subject up again. They demonstrate that psychology today is characterized by the incoherence of definitions of core constructs and lack of consensus in the scientific community. The authors also suggest that psychology would do better by adopting a research program of a specific form of evolutionary psychology. In this paper I show, mostly on the basis of my earlier works on the same subject, that shortcomings of psychology today go much deeper than the authors of the target article have discussed. Psychology today is characterized by fundamental epistemological and methodological problems. As the same shortcomings characterize the version of evolutionary psychology advocated by Zagaria and coauthors, it is not the best candidate to ground the future of psychology. I suggest the psychology misses unifying psychology of a specific kind, which basic principles were outlined by Vygotsky almost a century ago.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.