Science, People and Psychology: Where Does Truth Begin?

Is psychology really a science? What does "scientifically proven" mean in psychology? What do we mean by scientific data? In this article we look at the limits of psychological research, the danger of false and sweeping generalisations, and the place of science in understanding people.

Anatomy of a Claim: "Getting Botox Reduces Depression!?"

Yes, you read that right. Recently I saw a post on a psychology page: "Scientifically proven: getting Botox reduces depression!". I don't know what comes to your mind when you hear this, but in me it first raised a big question mark, and then the thought that we need to be aware of how to understand psychology experiments and findings. First, I felt the need to look at the scientific papers behind this claim; I read both the paper cited in the post and other papers on the subject. There are indeed studies on it, especially some by researchers with a medical background. But there are just as many question marks and unclear points. For example, depression was mostly measured with the Beck Depression Inventory. Although it's a widely used tool, it relies on symptom-based scoring. In other words, the inventory also factors changes in mood into its score; if a person's mood is good at the time of measurement, their depression score will come out lower, for instance. Another observation is that the studies weren't based on very large samples, and that broader and more numerous supporting studies are needed. On top of that, it's hard to say that the hypotheses the findings rest on, such as the "facial feedback hypothesis" (which suggests that facial expressions affect emotions), make much sense for treating depression. Also, even though these studies had a placebo group, Botox makes itself noticeable, so people injected with it can easily tell they're in the experimental group and what the study is about, which can affect the results. In addition, the experimenter's intentions can affect the outcome; most of the studies I looked at were not double-blind, the kind of study in which neither the participants nor the researchers giving the tests know its purpose. Considering that such research needs major funding, and that companies selling cosmetic procedures like Botox have considerable power to fund it, I think double-blind studies become all the more important.

Why Are Bite-Sized Facts Harmful?

Because, with an expert's authority, we may be steering people who genuinely need help toward methods we're not very sure of, and exposing them to certain risks. However tempting the idea of solving things quickly may sound, the chance of ending up disappointed shouldn't be ignored. Offering people, as a solution, methods whose reliability hasn't been sufficiently confirmed by large-scale research and health authorities can delay or sabotage getting real help. A person may invest money and hope in these methods and end up worse off.

So Why Is Psychology a Science?

I'm sure my example isn't the only one of its kind; while browsing the internet you've probably all seen headlines more or less like: "According to scientists, if you have this trait, you're this kind of person", "So-and-so people are like this", "Eastern societies are more such-and-such than Western societies", "It's been proven that women are three times more this than men", and so on… the list goes on. So how did we prove these? How did we measure them, how did we generalise them to all of humanity? In this article I'll try to explain the answers to these questions simply.

First of all, in psychology, findings are obtained through experiments. Sometimes, where experiments wouldn't be appropriate, data from questionnaires, forms and observation are used, and the data are analysed statistically. In other words, psychology uses the scientific method and reaches scientific conclusions. But because psychology is a social science, it doesn't offer propositions as clear as two times two is four, or laws that hold everywhere and always like the laws of physics. And every method has its own weaknesses as well as its strengths. Say, for example, you want to measure the effect of one factor on another in a laboratory; then you must control for and rule out, as far as possible, the other variables that might explain the effect. Of course, in doing so you look at things removed from their real context, and in a sense you use a method that may affect their validity. With data from questionnaires and scales, you run into the problem of subjectivity. Even though these scales are developed with the scientific method and tested for validity, you're still using data based on participants' self-reports. The sample the research is done on raises another question: even if you use a method like random sampling, which serves to select people representative of the population you're studying, how precisely can you do this? And say it did represent the whole society: how can you generalise the results to all of humanity when there are so many cultural and social differences? For reasons like these, results must be evaluated and interpreted carefully, with a scientist's care.

An Example: The Historical Bias of IQ Tests

Here I'm reminded of early IQ tests, and of how their results led, in a chain reaction, to false and harmful consequences. Because the questions in these tests were built on the language, cultural experience and education available only to white, middle-class Americans, people from other places and cultures gave answers different from what was expected. This led, for example, to African Americans being labelled "low IQ", giving a "scientific" "proof", that is, a cover, to a racism that was already rampant. The anti-immigration laws, racial segregation in education and sterilisation programmes that followed are the other, inhumane links in the chain. Fortunately, scientists who criticised these tests and exposed their bias later set the record straight (for a deeper read on the subject, take a look at Stephen Jay Gould's book "The Mismeasure of Man").

Inquiry, Not Certainty

In psychology, research doesn't aim to "prove" something; it simply contains an observation about the group it measured, which is put forward as having some generalisability. It suggests meaningful results, and researchers and psychologists in the field can take up these topics, examine them further, develop them, and produce new ideas and theories. Of course, alongside all this experimentation and research there is cumulative knowledge, observation, experience and psychological theory. These too are channels that feed and develop the field. In areas better suited to measurable, physiological tools, such as neuroscience or cognitive and experimental psychology, we can rely more on experiments, for instance, and work in these areas is very valuable. All areas of psychology are necessary and valuable for understanding people, as long as we make these efforts for the sake of curiosity and understanding. In fact there's no single way to understand people; we also need philosophy, sociology, mathematics, literature, art, poetry, common sense and empathy. We also need to live, and to understand ourselves. To understand people humanely, there's no need to rationalise them completely or reduce them to the world of objects. What I mean is that in psychology, curiosity, questioning and the search for meaning are more valuable than certainty. That's why, rather than claims said to be proven, I value following questions that ask 'why and how', and I wholeheartedly recommend the same to you.

Book a session