Further critical reflections on the notion of a “population psychology”.

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal for Person-Oriented Research
Published
2024-12-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2024.27103
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.64
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Further critical reflections on the notion of a “population psychology”.

James T. Lamiell
2 citations
Journal for Person-Oriented Research
Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
7.64
article

Further critical reflections on the notion of a “population psychology”.

James T. Lamiell
article en
2 citations

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.

Journal for Person-Oriented ResearchVol. 10(2)
Georgetown University (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
7.64
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.