Variables in Psychology: A Critique of Quantitative Psychology

Abstract

Mind is hidden from direct observation; it can be studied only by observing behavior. Variables encode information about behaviors. There is no one-to-one correspondence between behaviors and mental events underlying the behaviors, however. In order to understand mind it would be necessary to understand exactly what information is represented in variables. This aim cannot be reached after variables are already encoded. Therefore, statistical data analysis can be very misleading in studies aimed at understanding mind that underlies behavior. In this article different kinds of information that can be represented in variables are described. It is shown how informational ambiguity of variables leads to problems of theoretically meaningful interpretation of the results of statistical data analysis procedures in terms of hidden mental processes. Reasons are provided why presence of dependence between variables does not imply causal relationship between events represented by variables and absence of dependence between variables cannot rule out the causal dependence of events represented by variables. It is concluded that variable-psychology has a very limited range of application for the development of a theory of mind-psychology.

From observations of individual behaviour to social representations of personality: Developmental pathways, attribution biases, and limitations of questionnaire methods

“…Externality differentiates behavioural phenomena from psychological phenomena, which are also bound to the present, but are phenomena entirely internal to the individual. Psychological phenomena can be directly perceived only in oneself through introspection (Wundt, 1904), but not in other individuals (Locke, 1689;Toomela, 2008Toomela, , 2011. In other individuals, people can directly perceive only behaviours and outer appearances.…”

Conceiving “personality”: Psychologist’s challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals

“…(Another related debate about betweenindividual versus within-individual methodologies is explored in Uher 2014c in this trilogy.) Much of the quantitative-qualitative debate is centred on concepts of quantity and measurement, experimental manipulation for identifying the magnitude of relations between events (e.g., additive structures), operationalism, kinds of measurement scales and issues of validity, reliability and measurement error, amongst others (for a recent debate, see e.g., Michell 1997Michell , 2003Michell , 2011Rosenbaum & Valsiner 2011;Saint-Mont 2012;Toomela 2008Toomela , 2011Trendler 2009). The basic issues in this debate are focused on the inferences that can be made about the phenomena under study given that the empirical structures that can be obtained from them do or do not match particular mathematical properties or statistical theories (Saint-Mont 2012).…”

“…In set-theoretic terms, this means that individuals are asked to quantify interrelations between elements, although the elements themselves are unknown, which violates basic requirements for scientific quantification (Uher 2013). Therefore, quantitative methods of data generation and data analysis are not suited to explore psychical phenomena in and of themselves (for details also see Uher 2014b, c in this trilogy; also e.g., Levine 2003;Loftus 1996;Schrödinger 1958;Toomela 2008Toomela , 2011Weber 1949). …”

“…One and the same event can never be perceived by multiple individuals (Kant 1786;Locke 1689). This precludes direct comparisons between individuals and substantially complicates reaching intersubjective consensus on the demarcation, conversion and encoding of events (see below; Levine 2003;Schrödinger 1958;Toomela 2008;Uher 2013Uher , 2014b …”

Developing “Personality” Taxonomies: Metatheoretical and Methodological Rationales Underlying Selection Approaches, Methods of Data Generation and Reduction Principles

“…This precludes scientific quantifications of single psychical events (e.g., an emotional event), of individual patterns and of individual-specific patterns in psychical phenomena in and of themselves (e.g., an individual's emotionality) as often enquired about by "personality" questionnaires (as explained in part I below and in Uher 2014a and 2014c in this trilogy; cf. Levine 2003;Loftus 1996;Schrödinger 1958;Toomela 2008Toomela , 2011Weber 1949).…”