Psychology's standing within a hypothesized hierarchy of the sciences was assessed in a 2-part analysis. First, an internally consistent composite measure was constructed from 7 primary indicators of scientific status (theories-to-laws ratio, consultation rate, obsolescence rate, graph prominence, early impact rate, peer evaluation consensus, and citation concentration). Second, this composite measure was validated through 5 secondary indicators (lecture disfluency, citation immediacy, anticipation frequency, age at receipt of Nobel Prize, and rated disciplinary hardness). Analyses showed that the measures reflected a single dimension on which 5 disciplines could be reliably ranked in the following order: physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and sociology. Significantly, psychology placed much closer to biology than to sociology, forming a pair of life sciences clearly separated from the other sciences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AsharH., & ShapiroJ. Z. (1990). Are retrenchment decisions rational? The role of information in times of budgetary stress. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 123–141.
2.
BarkowJ. H., CosmidesL., & ToobyJ. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
BestL. A., SmithL. D., & StubbsD. A. (2001). Graph use in psychology and other sciences. Behavioral Processes, 54, 155–165.
4.
BrunerJ. S., & AllportG. W. (1940). Fifty years of change in American psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 37, 757–776.
5.
ClevelandW. S. (1984). Graphs in scientific publications. American Statistician, 38, 261–269.
6.
CoanR. W. (1968). Dimensions of psychological theory. American Psychologist, 23, 715–722.
7.
ColeS. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences?American Journal of Sociology, 89, 111–139.
8.
ComteA. (1855). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte (MartineauH.,). New York: Blanchard. (Original work published 1842)
9.
FrimanP. C., AllenK. D., KerwinM. L. E., & LarzelereR. (1993). Changes in modern psychology: A citation analysis of the Kuhnian displacement thesis. American Psychologist, 48, 658–664.
10.
HagstromW. O. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39, 1–18.
11.
HedgesL. V. (1987). How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science?American Psychologist, 42, 443–455.
12.
KimbleG. A. (1984). Psychology's two cultures. American Psychologist, 39, 833–839.
13.
KochS. (1959–1963). Psychology: A study of a science. (6 vols.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
14.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
McDowellJ. M. (1982). Obsolescence of knowledge and career publication profiles: Some evidence of differences among fields in costs of interrupted careers. American Economic Review, 72, 752–768.
16.
OverR. (1981). Affiliations of psychologists elected to the National Academy of Sciences. American Psychologist, 36, 744–752.
17.
RobinsR. W., GoslingS. D., & CraikK. H. (1999). An empirical analysis of trends in psychology. American Psychologist, 54, 117–128.
18.
RoeckeleinJ. E. (1996). Citation of laws and theories in textbooks across 112 years of psychology. Psychological Reports, 79, 979–998.
19.
RoeckeleinJ. E. (1997). Psychology among the sciences: Comparisons of numbers of theories and laws cited in textbooks. Psychological Reports, 80, 131–141.
20.
RosenthalR. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychology?American Psychologist, 45, 775–777.
21.
SchachterS., ChristenfeldN., RavinaB., & BilousF. (1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 362–367.
22.
SimontonD. K. (2000). Methodological and theoretical orientation and the long-term disciplinary impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 4, 1–13.
23.
SimontonD. K. (2002). Great psychologists and their times: Scientific insights into psychology's history. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
24.
SmithL. D., BestL. A., StubbsD. A., ArchibaldA. B., & Roberson-NayR. (in press). Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. American Psychologist.
25.
SmithL. D., BestL. A., StubbsD. A., JohnstonJ., & ArchibaldA. B. (2000). Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences. Social Studies of Science, 30, 73–94.
26.
SnyderC. R., & LopezS. J. (2002). The handbook of positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
StephanP. E., & LevinS. G. (1993). Age and the Nobel Prize revisited. Scientometrics, 28, 387–399.
28.
SulsJ., & FletcherB. (1983). Social comparison in the social and physical sciences: An archival study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 575–580.
29.
ThagardP. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
