Psychologists’ endorsement of empirically unsupported statements in psychology: Noch Einmal

Abstract

In this study, 103 South African psychologists were asked to rate the extent to which they believed a set of empirically incorrect statements were true or untrue. Of the 50 statements, 14 (28%) received a moderate level of endorsement as being factually correct and 8 (16%) received a high level of endorsement as being factually correct. Significant differences in the percentages of items endorsed were found between master’s- and doctoral-level psychologists for five statements. Significant differences in the percentages of items endorsed between clinical and counselling psychologists were found for three statements. These findings are explained by noting that there is no consensus among psychologists about whether psychology is a strictly scientific discipline and whether it gives rise to scientific facts about human behaviour. Relatedly, it is possible that South African psychology curricula are not sufficiently focused on the empirical and scientific evidence that informs psychological knowledge. Also, psychology as taught in undergraduate programmes is characterised by a diversity of theory. Consequently, no consensus on theoretical understandings of human behaviour appears to be in sight. Finally, popular and folk understandings of psychology overlap to some extent with empirical psychology, but what makes intuitive sense may not be empirically accurate. Some suggestions are offered for the curricula psychology of departments at South African universities.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.