Myths and Misconceptions About Psychology

One such misconception is that knowledge in psychology is just common sense; that psychological research is not necessary to establish something that everyone knows. However, common sense is often contradictory. For example, everyone knows that opposites attract, yet we’ve also been taught that birds of a feather flock together. These contradictory beliefs often exist because there is anecdotal evidence to support both sides. Only controlled research can help us determine under what circumstances one is true and under what circumstances the opposite is true.

In addition, many people do not realize that psychological research has demonstrated that some commonly believed “truisms” are false, such as the belief that “You only use 10 percent of your brain” (Lilienfeld, Lynn, Ruscio, & Beyerstein, 2010). Psychological research has also demonstrated findings that may be counterintuitive. For example, due to the bystander effect, you can expect less help when you are in a large crowd than when there are only a few people present (Darley & Latané, 1968).

The wide variety of subfields within psychology sometimes confuses the public regarding what is and what isn’t included under the broad heading of psychology. Scientific research by psychologists often appears in media reports with citations that lack any version of the word psychology (e.g., behavioral scientist, cognitive neuroscientist, behavioral economist). The public may not realize that descriptors incorporating “behavioral,” “cognitive,” or “neuro” are all branches of psychology. The average person is likely aware that a pediatrician and a cardiovascular surgeon are both doctors. A similar recognition needs to occur for the diverse fields under the umbrella of the profession of psychology in order to help build awareness of the value of psychological science among the public and other important decision makers.

Many people are unaware of or skeptical regarding psychology’s status as a science. Other people believe that because they are social scientists that their results are somehow less scientifically rigorous than the results of other scientists (Ferguson, 2015). Popular media depictions may portray psychologists primarily in clinical or counseling settings, rather than engaged in activities that match stereotypical ideas of what science looks like in practice. In fact, psychologists are scientists trained to systematically study thought and behavior.

The distinctions that are sometimes drawn between social science and natural science, or between “hard science” and “soft science,” relate more to the subject matter being studied than they do to the core of methodological and statistical tools used by all scientists.

Good science requires replication, an issue of importance across sciences ranging from biology (Lighgow, Driscoll, & Phillips, 2017) to computational science (Peng, 2011) to high energy physics (Chen et al., 2019). For example, biomedical research successfully replicates less than 25 percent of the time (Begley & Ioannidis, 2015). In 2015, psychologist Brian Nosek published findings from the Reproducibility Project (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). He and his colleagues reported that in the attempts to replicate 100 published psychological studies, only ⅓ reproduced the original findings. Scientists don’t all agree on the severity of this problem, but psychological scientists are working to resolve the issue (Gilbert, King, Pettigrew, & Wilson, 2016). While this debate continues, it is important to recognize that reproducibility issues are relevant to many domains, such as biomedical science. For example, only 6 out of 53 classic cancer studies have replicated (Ioannidis, 2005). All sciences struggle with these issues because when investigators are at the boundaries of knowledge, uncertainties exist and conclusions are always provisional.

One misconception about the scientific rigor of psychology is that psychological phenomena such as behavior or emotions cannot be quantified and therefore cannot be reliably measured and studied (Berezow, 2012). The perception may be that psychologists use arbitrary scales or do not clearly define a variable before making observations. Some of the variables studied by psychologists can be difficult to measure. For example, how do you measure happiness? However, psychological research always involves unambiguous operational definitions of each variable, which are published along with research results. As in any other scientific field, work is open for rigorous peer review to ensure the validity of the research.

Another common misconception surrounding the field of psychology is the idea that all psychologists are therapists. Although it is true that many psychologists work in fields traditionally related to therapy (e.g., clinical and counseling psychology), the aims and interests of psychological science extend well beyond therapy and issues of mental health. The APA has 54 affiliated divisions representing a wide range of subject areas including experimental psychology and cognitive science, quantitative and qualitative methods, developmental psychology, applied experimental and engineering psychology, psychopharmacology and substance abuse, health psychology, and clinical neuropsychology; less than one fifth of the APA divisions’ specialties directly involve providing some aspect of therapy to clients (APA, 2019). Just as all biological scientists are not physicians, all psychological scientists are not therapists. It is important to note though that all psychologists, even those who work in clinical setting, apply the scientific method to their work, and most clinicians have been trained as scientist-practitioners.

Sigmund Freud looms large over the public’s perception of psychology. Many individuals incorrectly assume that Freud’s theories dominate psychological science. In most psychological research, Freud’s influence is limited and is primarily of historical interest. One recent study showed the principles of psychoanalysis were more likely to be taught in departments other than psychology, often in regard to literary and art criticism (Redmond & Shulman, 2008). In short, the public’s familiarity of Freud’s name and work often lead him to be an easily recalled figure in the field, even though the most contemporary research and practice is cognitive, behavioral and neuroscientific (Spear, 2017).