A new discipline emerges: The psychology of science

You've heard of the history of science, the philosophy of science, maybe even the sociology of science. But how about the psychology of science? In a new article in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, San Jose State University psychologist Gregory J. Feist argues that a field has been quietly taking shape over the past decade, and it holds great promise for both psychology and science.

" is a cognitive act by definition: It involves personality, creativity, ," says Feist—everything about individual . So what is the psychology of science? "Simply put," he writes, it is "the scientific study of scientific thought and behavior." The psychology of science isn't just about scientists, though. It's about how children make organized sense of the world, what comprises scientific talent and interest—or growing disinterest—and even people's embrace of pseudoscience.

Reviewing about two dozen articles, Feist mentions work in many psychological subspecialties. Neuroscientists have observed the brain correlations of scientific reasoning, discovering, for instance, that people pay more attention to data that concur with their own personal theories. Developmental psychologists have found that infants can craft theories of the way the world works. They've also looked at the ages at which small children begin to distinguish theories from evidence.

In its focus on such processes as problem-solving, memory, and creativity, cognitive psychology may be the most mature of the specialties in its relationship to the doing of science. Feist's own work in this area offers some intriguing findings. In meta-analyses of studies of scientific interest and creativity, he has teased out a contradiction: People who are highly interested in science are higher than others in "conscientiousness" (that is, such traits as caution and fastidiousness) and lower in "openness" to experience. Meanwhile, scientific is associated with low conscientiousness and high openness.

Feist believes that a new psychology of science is good for science, which has become more and more important to society, culture, and the economy. Educators need to understand the ways children and adolescents acquire the requisites of scientific inquiry, he says, "and we want to encourage kids who have that talent to go that way."

But the new sub-discipline is also good for psychology. "Like other disciplines, psychology is fracturing into smaller and smaller areas that are isolated from each other," he says. "The psychology of science is one of the few recent disciplines that bucks that trend. We're saying: 'Let's look at the whole person in all the basic psychological areas—cognition, development, neuroscience—and integrate it in one phenomenon.' That's an approach which is unusual these days."

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Life lessons: Where psychology stands on living well

Jul 22, 2009

Unfortunately for us, there is no formula for fulfillment or guide to life satisfaction; however, humans have turned to philosophy, religion and science time and again for answers to our existential questions. We may have ...

Will psych majors make the big bucks?

Jun 08, 2011

A new crop of college graduates have just landed on the job market. Right now they're probably just hoping to get any job, if at all. However, for psychology majors, the salary outlook in both the short and long term is particularly ...

Social ecology: Lost and found in psychological science

Aug 05, 2010

including political systems, economic systems, and even climate and geography—can affect our thinking and behavior, a field of study known as socioecological psychology. In a report in Perspectives on Psychological Sc ...

Recommended for you

What sign language teaches us about the brain

23 hours ago

The world's leading humanoid robot, ASIMO, has recently learnt sign language. The news of this breakthrough came just as I completed Level 1 of British Sign Language (I dare say it took me longer to master signing ...

Why do men prefer nice women?

Jul 25, 2014

People's emotional reactions and desires in initial romantic encounters determine the fate of a potential relationship. Responsiveness may be one of those initial "sparks" necessary to fuel sexual desire and land a second ...

Study reveals how to be socially successful

Jul 25, 2014

Romantic, personal and professional relationships are fraught with danger, but a University of Queensland researcher has found the secret to interacting successfully with others in such settings.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
and who wants to guess that it will help guide them to make the right choices?
Isaacsname
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
I think you can have balance between caution and creativity.

Somebody who's deeply interested in science, like a layman, and somebody who actually practices science by doing research, experimentation and undergoing peer review, are two entirely different people. Innovators in any scientific field take great risk, in a variety of ways, so doesn't throwing caution to the wind usually result in advances ? I would think that the more knowledge you have of a subject, the less risk you see in trying new things ( creativity )
Callippo
not rated yet Oct 19, 2011
The science is supposed to be a objective cognitive process, independent to the subjective opinion of people involved. If some psychologists want to study the psychology of science, they just want to study the subjective traits of human behavior, which are interfering the objective cognitive process, like the religion. In another words, for understanding of the psychology of science, you can start the study of psychology of religion.

During my activities at many public forums, I usually met with reactions, which weren't based on any objective arguments, i.e. they were all based on religion in any form. The concept of religion is much wider, then the people are probably willing to believe. The religion is simply irrational, belief based attitude: it doesn't matter if you believe in something or in the negation of it. For example, when you're refusing the cold fusion or aether concept without arguments, then your attitude is not skeptical - but a religious one.
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2011
Reductionism is about reducing uncertainty,.. simply,. I think most people are afraid to constantly re-examine their beliefs because they think it would mean they were wrong, nobody likes to admit to that, especially somebody with sacrosanct belief in a deity. Personally, I love to know when I'm wrong about something, It's just another way to learn.

The truth of the matter is that ANY belief is based on an incomplete frame of knowledge, it is a comfortably-held position that realistically should be discarded in lieu of new material. I consider myself agnostic about a topic until I really start to dig into the meat and potatoes of it. Skepticism gets in the way of exploration, most people won't examine alternate views because of it.

The more we dissect a topic for discussion, the more divergent views we get, religion, cosmology, philosophy, science, all the same in that respect.

hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2011
"Educators need to understand the ways children and adolescents acquire the requisites of scientific inquiry - authors"

No.
You need to remember how you learned. I suggest you start in the womb, or at least from birth.

No excuse. Don't tell me you don't remember the most important spectrum of your life spans. The span where nothing was a 'challenge'. Where nothing was a failure. Where 'all' you did was 'learn' - effortlessly. Remember. How.
And put the 'psychology' of 'science' to shame for learning otherwise.