Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Why we need a ‘psychology of science’

Nature Human Behaviour volume 8, pages 4–5 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Science is a human enterprise and if we want to improve it, we must understand its human aspects. Unlike philosophy and sociology, and despite previous attempts to develop one, psychology has no dedicated approach to studying the scientific world. We need a ‘psychology of science’ — a dedicated subdiscipline that takes this perspective and understands that many of the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific world depend on how its members work and live together. Here, I propose that the psychology of science be redefined as covering all metascientific approaches that use the empirical methods, perspectives or conceptual frameworks of psychology, to understand or support the way in which science is done.

Metascience is a broad term that encompasses all scientific efforts that are aimed at understanding and improving science itself. Metascience, however, is not a discipline; it lacks disciplinarity and institutionalization, such as dedicated journals, departments or doctoral programmes. This constrains its development and limits the efforts of researchers to occasional metascience projects instead of systematic research programmes. As a subdiscipline of psychology, the psychology of science should fit within the existing divisions of its discipline (as do the philosophy, sociology and history of science). Psychologists of science would participate in metascience through systematic research programmes that explore and support how science is done using psychological expertise.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The ecosystem of the psychology of science.

References

  1. Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ. Chicago Press, 1962).

  2. Merton, R. K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Univ. Chicago Press, 1973).

  3. Gholson, B. Psychology of Science: Contributions to Metascience (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989).

  4. Feist, G. J. J. Psychol. Sci. Technol. 1, 2–5 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Feist, G. J. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 10, 92–97 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E. Handbook of the Psychology of Science (Springer, 2012).

  7. Proctor, R. W. & Capaldi, E. J. Psychology of Science: Implicit and Explicit Processes (Oxford Univ., 2012).

  8. Feist, G. J. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20, 330–334 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Moshontz, H. et al. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 501–515 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ruzycki, S. M. & Ahmed, S. B. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 910–912 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ELTE, Eotvos Lorand University, Institute of Psychology, Budapest, Hungary

    Balazs Aczel

Authors
  1. Balazs Aczel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Balazs Aczel.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Robert Proctor and Erin Buchanan for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aczel, B. Why we need a ‘psychology of science’. Nat Hum Behav 8, 4–5 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01786-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01786-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing