Research has shown that undergraduate courses in psychology often fail to make students accept the discipline as a science. It may be that explicit instruction is not sufficient to modify students’ conceptualization of psychology as something other than science. The goal of this study was to examine introductory psychology students’ conceptualizations of psychology and science. Five hundred and seventy participants completed a free association task for disciplines that included psychology and other sciences. They also provided ratings for these disciplines on relevant dimensions (e.g., important and scientific) and were asked “Is psychology a science?” Students tended to agree that psychology was a science but rated it to be less scientific than the natural sciences. Moreover, the free association results suggested that psychology was semantically distant from the other sciences. Thus, successful pedagogy will need to focus on conceptual change if students are to accept psychology as a science.
BowmanL. L.WaiteB. M. (2003). Volunteering in research: Student satisfaction and educational benefits. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3002_03
3.
ChalmersA. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? (4thed.). University of Queensland Press.
4.
ClelandC. L. (2002). Integrating recent advances in neuroscience into undergraduate neuroscience and physiology courses. Advances in Physiology Education, 26(4), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00044.2002
5.
CoyneJ. A. (2015). Faith versus fact: Why science and religion are incompatible. Penguin Random House.
6.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. SAGE.
7.
HopkinsE. J.WeisbergD. S.TaylorJ. C. V. (2016). The seductive allure is a reductive allure: People prefer scientific explanations that contain logically irrelevant reductive information. Cognition, 155(2016), 67–76.
8.
ImpeyC.BuxnerS.AntonellisJ.JohnsonE.KingC. (2011). A twenty-year survey of science literacy among college undergraduates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(4), 31–37.
9.
JandaL. H.EnglandK.LovejoyD.DruryK. (1998). Attitudes toward psychology relative to other disciplines. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29(2), 140–143.
KeilF. C.LockhartK. L.SchlegelE. (2010). A bump on a bump? Emerging intuitions concerning the relative difficulty of the sciences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(1), 1–15. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1037/a0018319
12.
KowalskiP.TaylorA. K. (2009). The effect of refuting misconceptions in the introductory psychology class. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280902959986
13.
KrullD. S.SilveraD. H. (2013). The stereotyping of science: Superficial details influence perceptions of what is scientific. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1660–1667.
LilienfeldS. O. (2012). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist, 67, 111–129.
NelsonD. L.McEvoyC. L. (2000). What is free association and what does it measure?Memory & Cognition, 28(6), 887–899.
20.
NelsonD. L.McEvoyC. L.SchreiberT. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/
21.
NelsonD. L.McEvoyC. L.SchreiberT. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402–407.
PettyR. E.TormalaZ. L.BriñolP.JarvisW. B. G. (2006). Implicit ambivalence from attitude change: An exploration of the PAST model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 21–41.
24.
PinkerS. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. Viking.
25.
Qualtrics Research Suite. (2013). Qualtrics and all other Qualtrics product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA. Qualtrics.
26.
RhodesE. R.RodriguezF.ShahP. (2014). Explaining the alluring influence of neuroscience information on scientific reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1432-144.
RosellM.BeckD. M.LutherK. E.GoedertK. M.ShoreW. J.AndersonD. D. (2005). The pedagogical value of experimental participation paired with course content. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 95–99. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3202_3
29.
SatelS. L.LilienfeldS. O. (2013). Brainwashed: The seductive appeal of mindless neuroscience. Basic Books.
30.
SchwartzS. J.LilienfeldS. O.MecaA.SauvignéK. C. (2016). The role of neuroscience within psychology: A call for inclusiveness over exclusiveness. American Psychologist, 71(1), 52–70. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1037/a0039678
StanovichK. E. (2004). The robot’s rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. University of Chicago Press.
33.
StanovichK. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. Yale University Press.
34.
StanovichK. E. (2019). How to think straight about psychology (11th ed.). Pearson Education.
35.
TaylorA.KowalskiP. (2004). Naïve psychological science: The prevalence, strength, and sources of misconceptions. Psychological Record, 54, 15–25.
36.
ThiemanT.ClaryE.OlsonA.DaunerR.RingE. (2009). Introducing students to psychological research: General psychology as a laboratory course. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280902959994
WeisbergD. S.KeilF. C.GoodsteinJ.RawsonE.GrayJ. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470–477.
39.
WeisbergD. S.TaylorJ. C. V.HopkinsE. J. (2015). Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(5), 429–441.
