Is psychology a science?

An issue that has been raised a number of times while I’ve been studying psychology is whether or not it is a science. While psychology is considered to be a scientific subject as it generally uses empirical methods in research, we need to look at what that entails.

‘Empirical methods’ refers to evidence-based practice, in other words information being collected through experiments. It’s what the natural sciences (chemistry, physics and biology) are all about – thinking of a question that needs to be answered, forming an experiment to research that question, and looking at the results.

One area of psychology - the behavioural approach - ticks all of those boxes. It was founded to do just that. Yet, while we’ve learned a lot from behavioural observations it’s often criticised as being too simplistic. Science assumes that once a theory has been proven, it applies universally. This often isn’t the case in psychology which is one of the reasons why it’s so difficult to research; some theories only apply to certain individuals/times/environments, and not as a rule.

Take the bystander effect, which is a theory that states that in emergencies the more people there are around, the less likely you are to help. For example, someone collapses in the middle of the street. If you are the only person in sight it’s extremely likely that you’ll help, however the presence of just one other person makes it much less likely. The more people, the less responsible you feel, assuming that someone else in the crowd will step forward.

The bystander effect is a reliable phenomenon and yet there are hundreds of variables involved that can impact it – one such variable is that if you are an expert in the situation (e.g. a doctor witnessing someone collapse), you will be more likely to help than someone with little medical knowledge despite the number of people around. So, although the bystander effect has been found to be a strong theory, in certain situations it won’t apply which doesn’t easily fit into traditional scientific principles.

Another question we could ask is should psychology want to be considered a science? One of the benefits of being an evidence-based subject is that it gives psychology validity, which is particularly important when researching things like treatments which directly impact people’s lives. On the other hand, when researching the mind and human behaviour it’s often too simplistic to stick to traditionally scientific methods. Sometimes it’s just not possible to use such methods at all, such as studying intelligence, which despite popular attempts (IQ tests) cannot as of yet be clearly measured or explained.

Perhaps it’s just the areas of psychology that can’t be empirically tested that should be looked at in other ways, as I think the basis of scientific study (question – research – hypothesis – test – analyse – report) isn’t a bad model to go by in areas that can be researched. For the areas that can’t, maybe psychology should step away from science as we may never get ‘real’ answers, just plenty of theories to debate over.