Inaccurate or Misleading Psychological and Psychiatric Terms to Avoid:
The scientific method. Many science textbooks, including those in psychology, present science as a monolithic “method.” 1/24
The scientific method. Many science textbooks, including those in psychology, present science as a monolithic “method.” 1/24
Most often, they describe this method as a hypothetical-deductive recipe, in which scientists begin with an overarching theory, deduce hypotheses (predictions) from that theory, test these hypotheses, and examine the fit between data and theory. 2/24
If the data are inconsistent with the theory, the theory is modified or abandoned. It’s a nice story, but it rarely works this way (McComas, 1996). Although science sometimes operates by straightforward deduction, serendipity and inductive observations offered in service of 3/24
the “context of discovery” also play crucial roles in science. For this reason, the eminent philosopher of science Popper (1983) quipped that, “As a rule, I begin my lectures on Scientific Method by telling my students that the scientific method does not exist…” (p. 5). 4/24
Contrary to what most scientists themselves appear to believe, science is not a method; it is an approach to knowledge (Stanovich, 2012).
Specifically, it is an approach that strives to better approximate the state of nature by reducing errors in inferences. 5/24
Specifically, it is an approach that strives to better approximate the state of nature by reducing errors in inferences. 5/24
Alternatively, one can conceptualize science as a toolbox of finely honed tools designed to minimize mistakes, especially confirmation bias – the ubiquitous propensity to seek out and selectively interpret evidence consistent with our hypotheses and to deny, dismiss, 6/24
and distort evidence that does not (Tavris and Aronson, 2007; Lilienfeld, 2010). Not surprisingly, the specific research methods used by psychologists bear scant surface resemblance to those used by chemists, astrophysicists, or molecular biologists. 7/24
Nevertheless, all of these methods share an overarching commitment to reducing errors in inference to determine a more accurate understanding of reality. 8/24
Scientific proof. The concepts of “proof” and “confirmation” are incompatible with science, which by its very nature is provisional and self-correcting (McComas, 1996). Hence, it is understandable why Popper (1959) preferred the term “corroboration” to “confirmation,” 9/24
as all theories can in principle be overturned by new evidence. Nor is the evidence for scientific theories dichotomous; theories virtually always vary in their degree of corroboration. 10/24
As a consequence, no theory in science, including psychological science, should be regarded as strictly proven. Proofs should be confined to the pages of mathematics textbooks and journals (Kanazawa, 2008). 11/24
No difference between groups. Many researchers, after reporting a group difference that does not attain statistical significance, will go on to state that “there was no difference between groups.” Similarly, many authors report a non-significant correlation between 12/24
two variables means that “there was no association between the variables.” But a failure to reject the null hypothesis does not mean that the null hypothesis has been confirmed. Authors are instead advised to write “no significant difference between groups (variables)”. 13/24
Psychiatric control group. This phrase and similar phrases (e.g., “normal control group,” “psychopathological control group”) connote that (a) groups of ostensibly normal individuals who are being compared with (b) groups of individuals with a disorder of interest 14/24
(e.g., schizophrenia, major depression) are true “control” groups. They are not. They are “comparison groups” and should be referred to accordingly. This term may imply that the only difference between the two groups (e.g., a group of patients with anxiety disorder and 15/24
a group of ostensibly normal individuals) is the presence or absence of the disorder of interest. In fact, these two groups almost surely differ on any number of “nuisance” variables, such as personality traits, co-occurring disorders, and family background. 16/24
Influence of gender (or social class, education, ethnicity, depression, extraversion, intelligence, etc.) on X. “Influence” and cognate terms, such as effect, are inherently causal in nature. 17/24
Hence, they should be used extremely judiciously in reference to individual differences, such as personality traits (e.g., extraversion), or group differences (e.g., gender), which cannot be experimentally manipulated. 18/24
This is not to say individual or group differences cannot exert a causal impact on behavior (Funder, 1991), only that research designs that examine these differences are virtually always (with the rare exception of “experiments”) correlation or quasi-experimental. 19/24
Hence, researchers should be explicit that when using such phrases as “the influence of gender,” they are almost always proposing a hypothesis from the data, not drawing a logically justified conclusion from them. 20/24
This inferential limitation notwithstanding, the phrase “the influence of gender” alone appears in over 45,000 manuscripts in the Google Scholar database (e.g., Bertakis et al., 1995). 21/24
“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.” (Confucius, The Analects) 22/24
Source: Lilienfield, S., Sauvigne, K., Lynn, K., Cautin, R, Latzman, R., & Waldman, I. (2015). Fifty psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid: a list of inaccurate, misleading, misused, ambiguous, and logically confused words and phrases. 23/24
Adapted to be Twitter friendly. This thread does not include the whole article. To read the whole article click here. | doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.… 24/24
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
