Abstract:Abstract Psychology holds an exceptional position among the sciences. Yet even after 140 years as an independent discipline, psychology is still struggling with its most basic foundations. Its key phenomena, mind and behaviour, are poorly defined (and their definition instead often delegated to neuroscience or philosophy) while specific terms and constructs proliferate. A unified theoretical framework has not been developed and its categorisation as a ‘soft science’ ascribes to psychology a lower level of scientificity. The article traces these problems to the peculiarities of psychology’s study phenomena, their interrelations with and centrality to everyday knowledge and language (which may explain the proliferation and unclarity of terms and concepts), as well as to their complex relations with other study phenomena. It shows that adequate explorations of such diverse kinds of phenomena and their interrelations with the most elusive of all—immediate experience—inherently require a plurality of epistemologies, paradigms, theories, methodologies and methods that complement those developed for the natural sciences. Their systematic integration within just one discipline, made necessary by these phenomena’s joint emergence in the single individual as the basic unit of analysis, makes psychology in fact the hardest science of all. But Galtonian nomothetic methodology has turned much of today’s psychology into a science of populations rather than individuals, showing that blind adherence to natural-science principles has not advanced but impeded the development of psychology as a science. Finally, the article introduces paradigmatic frameworks that can provide solid foundations for conceptual integration and new developments.

Toward a Psychology of Ideas Rather Than Demographics: Commentary on Hommel (2024)

Dealing With Diversity in Psychology: Science or Ideology?

Dealing With Diversity in Psychology: Science and Ideology

Diversity Is Diverse: Social Justice Reparations and Science

An Ethics and Social-Justice Approach to Collecting and Using Demographic Data for Psychological Researchers

Liberal Bias on Psychology: A Comment on Bartels (2023)

The Myth of the Need for Diversity Among Subjects in Theory-Testing Research: Comments on "Racial Inequality in Psychological Research" by Roberts et al. (2020)

Pushing Back Against the Microaggression Pushback in Academic Psychology: Reflections on a Concept-Creep Paradox

Pride-and-Prejudice Perspectives of Marginalization Can Advance Science and Society

From Psychological Science to the Psychological Humanities: Building a General Theory of Subjectivity

Confronting scientific racism in psychology: Lessons from evolutionary biology and genetics.

Psychology needs more diversity at the level of Editor-in-Chief

Emotion and Politics: Noncognitive Psychological Biases in Public Opinion

Editor bias and diversifying psychology: Commentary on Sharpe (2024).

Ideological Connections: An Integrated Humanistic-Social Psychological Approach to Examining the Relationship Between Controversial Opposing Opinions

Psychology’s Status as a Science: Peculiarities and Intrinsic Challenges. Moving Beyond its Current Deadlock Towards Conceptual Integration

Racial Inequality in Psychological Research: Trends of the Past and Recommendations for the Future

WEIRD–Confucian comparisons: Ongoing cultural biases in psychology’s evidence base and some recommendations for improving global representation.

From Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory

Approaching psychology’s current crises by exploring the vagueness of psychological concepts: Recommendations for advancing the discipline.

Culture, Influence, and the “I-ness” of Me: Commentary on Papers by Susan Bodnar, Gary B. Walls, and Steven Botticelli