Skip to main content
Log in

Staying with Questions and Resisting Quick Answers: Commentary on Zagaria, Andò, and Zennaro

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In their target article, Zagaria et al. (Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 2020) highlight the fragmented state of mainstream Psychology. Their diagnosis begins with an analysis of how core psychological terms are treated in introductory textbooks. To remedy the state of affairs, they propose using evolutionary psychology to unify Psychology. In the present commentary, I join the authors’ critical stance, while also raising several questions: (1) Can we adopt an evolutionary meta-theory and still demand that our core concepts have fixed meaning? (2) Can evolutionary theory apply to the normative dimension of the sociocultural domain? (3) Can evolutionary theory account for the critique of psychological science? These questions, I believe, point out several gaps in the target article that require further attention. I argue that unless we identify the essential differences between mainstream psychology and contrarian psychology, we repeat the mistakes of mainstream psychology under a new guise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport, D. A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on Perception and Action (pp. 395–419). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergner, R. M. (2016). What is behaviour? And why is it not reducible to biological states of affairs? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 36, 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergner, R. M. (2017). What is a person? What is the self? Formulations for a science of psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 37, 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. (2012). Undisciplined beginnings, academic success, and discursive psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 413–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann, S. (2010). Psychology as a moral science: Perspectives on normativity. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, B. A. (Ed.). (2019). The second cognitive revolution: A tribute to Rom Harré. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1996). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. Simon and Schuster.

  • Engelsted, N. (2017). Catching Up with Aristotle: A Journey in Quest of General Psychology. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. (2011). Toward poetic science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45(4), 389–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, A. (2014). Phenomenological philosophy as the basis for a human scientific psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 42(3), 233–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gozli, D. (2017). Behaviour versus performance: the veiled commitment of experimental psychology. Theory & Psychology, 27(6), 741–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gozli, D. (2019). Experimental Psychology and Human Agency. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gozli, D. (2020). Experimental psychology and distortions of common sense. In T. G. Lindstad, E. Stänicke & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Respect for Thought: Jan Smedslund’s Legacy for Psychology. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gozli, D., & Deng, W. (2018). Building blocks of psychology: On remaking the unkept promises of early schools. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (1993). Social being (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, G. (2003). The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology. Review of General Psychology, 7(2), 150–182.

  • Henriques, G. R. (2004). Psychology defined. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(12), 1207–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibberd, F. J., & Gozli, D. G. (2017). Psychology’s fragmentation and neglect of foundational assumptions: An interview with Fiona J. Hibberd. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 366–374.

  • Lindstad, T. G., Stänicke, E., & Valsiner, J. (2020). Respect for Thought: Jan Smedslund’s Legacy for Psychology. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture and synthesize the social sciences. University of Chicago Press.

  • Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 353–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, D. J. (2000). Attentional capture and inattentional blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), 160384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 946–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (2009). The mismatch between current research methods and the nature of psychological phenomena: What researchers must learn from practitioners. Theory & Psychology, 19(6), 778–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smedslund, J. (2016). Why psychology cannot be an empirical science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(2), 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. (2018). Outline of theoretical psychology: Critical investigations. New York: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J. (2012). A guided science: History of psychology in the mirror of its making. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

  • Valsiner, J. (2017). From methodology to methods in human psychology. Cham Springer.

  • Wallis, G. (2020). How to fix education: A handbook for direct action. New York: Warble Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagaria, A., Andò, A., & Zennaro, A. (2020). Psychology: A giant with feet of clay. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09524-5.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davood Gozli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Davood Gozli declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval / Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gozli, D. Staying with Questions and Resisting Quick Answers: Commentary on Zagaria, Andò, and Zennaro. Integr. psych. behav. 54, 572–578 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09542-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09542-3

Keywords

Navigation