Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39712923›Full record

ArticleJournal for person-oriented research2024

Further Critical Reflections on the Notion of a "Population Psychology".

James T Lamiell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal for person-oriented research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

James T LamiellPsychology Department, Georgetown University, Washington D.C., USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present article extends critical considerations that I offered in an earlier article challenging the proposition by Lundh that population-level research should be regarded as a branch of psychological science. It is again acknowledged that population-level research can track the incidence of psychological phenomena, i.e., sensations, perceptions, judgments, cognitions, emotions, behaviors, etc., within and across various subgroups of individuals, and this, I argue, is what warrants the designation of such research as "psycho-demographic." Such research can complement, but should not be considered part of, psychological science. It is explained that this view does not require strict adherence to a mechanistic understanding of causation in the domain of psychological phenomena. Finally, it is suggested that drawing and maintaining a clear distinction between psycho-demography and psychological science will help to correct the long-prevalent but false notion that the knowledge produced by population-level research is interpretable as knowledge about individuals.

Indexed as

causationmechanism psychologyperson psychologypopulation psychologypsycho-demography

Identifiers

PMID39712923
PMCPMC11660320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.