Psychology or Psychological Science?

Abstract

The question of renaming graduate psychology programs to psychological science is a timely and contentious issue. To better understand why some programs, but not others, are changing names, we surveyed chairpersons (Study 1) and faculty (Study 2) within graduate psychology and psychological science programs. Within psychology programs, a name change was often perceived as unnecessary, nonrepresentative, or intimidating to science-averse students. Within psychological science programs, a name change was often perceived as better conveying the science of psychology to others, a scientific/research focus, or interdisciplinary partnerships. Differences of opinion may be due to psychological science, as compared to psychology, faculty’s greater concern about conveying psychological science to others, clarifying their program’s focus, and partnering with other sciences.

Keywords

science faculty chairpersons psychological science department name

Psychology is unscientific. At least, that is what the public was led to believe in a Los Angeles Times op-ed article titled “Why Psychology Isn’t a Science” (Berezow, 2012). According to the article, psychology lacks the science prerequisites of “clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility, and finally, predictability and testability.” Although we, as psychologists, vehemently disagree with these claims and note that other fields are subject to similar criticisms, to a certain degree psychology may have a scientific image problem. Only one third of psychology studies replicate (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Psychologists have openly admitted to data fraud (e.g., Diederik Stapel; Carey, 2011), and others have published seemingly nonviable phenomena, such as extrasensory perception (Bem, 2011), in top-tier, peer-reviewed journals. Indeed, on January 27, 2011, social psychologist Daryl Bem was interviewed by Stephen Colbert on his Comedy Central television show regarding Bem’s scientific evidence of extrasensory perception. The segment, titled “Time-Traveling Porn,” was a joke with psychological research as the punch line. In light of such publicity, it is not surprising that many psychology professors wish their field was perceived as more scientific than it is currently (Howell, Collisson, & King, 2013).

To highlight the self-correcting, scientific nature of psychology, many teachers and researchers now openly address topics such as replication (e.g., the Many Labs Project; Klein et al., 2015), data fraud (Carey, 2011), psychology’s true scope, and best research practices (Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012). In the current research, we draw attention to another technique that psychology programs are using to highlight the science of psychology. Specifically, many programs have added the term “science” to their name, identifying as programs of psychological science rather than psychology.

Psychology or Psychological Science?

One of the most public discussions regarding the name psychology or psychological science began in 1999. Carol Tavris proposed that the American Psychological Society change its name to the Association for Psychological Science (APS). She argued that psychological science is a more inclusive term and a better reflection of its members’ teaching and research practices. Although Tavris’s suggested name change did not pass an initial vote by APS members, the suggestion to add the term “science” reemerged in 2005. This time, APS treasurer Roberta Klatzky detailed in the Observer reasons for and against the name change prior to the vote. Supportive arguments included (1) greater emphasis on science, (2) clearer distinction from the American Psychological Association (APA), (3) more international inclusiveness, and (4) stronger association with its scientific journals. Opposing arguments included (1) potential for confusion, (2) perceived conflict between science and practice, and (3) the claim that “those that need to proclaim they are scientific, aren’t” (Klatzky, 2005). More than 60% of APS members voted in favor of the change; the American Psychological Society became the APS.

In a similar fashion, many graduate psychology programs have added the term “science” to their name. Such programs include Purdue University, Dartmouth University, Indiana University, Ball State University, Northern Kentucky University, Kansas State University, Vanderbilt University, Boston University, Johns Hopkins University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Missouri, to name just a few (Jaffe, 2011). An analysis of department names listed within APS’s 2011 membership directory revealed that “Department of Psychological Science” is the second most common department name (N = 154). Of the 38 different department names listed by APS members, 15 departments included the term science (e.g., psychology and brian science, behavioral science, psychology and neuroscience, cognitive science). The same phenomena can be found among graduate psychology programs listed in the APA’s reference list of Graduate Study in Psychology. In 2014, 19 programs included the term psychological science—an increase from 14 such programs in 2009.

It appears that a discussion of “psychology or psychological science” is a timely, important, and potentially contentious issue for our field. To encourage open dialogue on this topic, let us humbly and evenhandedly represent the basic arguments from both sides. For those in favor of psychological science, a name change may be a creative strategy to convey psychology’s scientific nature—especially in light of recent and public claims to the contrary (e.g., Berezow, 2012). Indeed, it is possible that a name change may create a closer connection with unquestionably scientific fields, such as physics or chemistry. It is also possible that a name change may distinguish modern psychology from the less scientific, Freudian theories of years past. However, for those in favor of psychology, a name change is seen as unnecessary. Psychology is already defined as the scientific study of human thought and behavior. Any misperceptions about the science of psychology are believed to stem from ignorance, motivated reasoning, or misinformation—not the name of psychology. In sum, adding the term “science” may be viewed as reactionary, cavalier, or unnecessary for the emergently scientific and comparatively young field of psychology.

Given the points of each side and the emergence of psychological science graduate programs, it is surprising that so little is known about why psychology programs are changing their names. Several anecdotal stories describe the history of specific programs (see Jaffe, 2011). However, no studies have systematically surveyed psychology faculty and chairpersons as to the reasons for remaining psychology or becoming psychological science.

In the current research, we fill this gap in the literature by assessing graduate psychology chairpersons (Study 1) and faculty (Study 2) from programs of psychology and psychological science.¹ In Study 1, we surveyed a sample of chairpersons from psychological science and psychology programs regarding the reasons for, and results of, changing their name. In Study 2, we surveyed a larger and more representative sample of graduate psychology faculty. In both studies, we identified reasons for retaining/changing a graduate psychology program’s name. In an exploratory fashion, we also tested whether the programs differed in their concerns about (1) conveying psychological science to others, (2) clarifying a program’s focus, (3) partnering with other sciences, or (4) being congruent with national organizations (e.g., APS).

Study 1: Assessment of Chairpersons

Method

Participants

Chairpersons of psychological science departments

To identify the contact information for chairpersons currently overseeing departments of psychological science, we first identified a total of 19 psychological science programs within the APA’s 2014 reference list of graduate programs.² To obtain a larger sample of chairpersons, we performed a Google search using key words, “department of psychological science” and “college OR university.” We then recorded the results listed until we reached what we deemed to be a sufficiently large number of psychological science programs (i.e., 75 programs). We mistakenly did not limit our search results to graduate psychology programs, which may have resulted in a sample of graduate and undergraduate programs.³ We then reviewed each program’s website to identify the current chairperson and his or her e-mail address. Of the 75 chairpersons identified, 22 elected to participate (29% response rate).⁴ Five chairpersons provided only partial demographic information. Thirteen chairpersons were men, eight were women, and two did not provide their gender. All chairpersons identified as Caucasian. Ages ranged from 48 to 63 years (M _age = 53.83, S _age = 4.44).

Chairpersons of psychology departments

To identify the contact information for chairpersons currently overseeing departments of psychology, we randomly selected 20 psychology programs from the APA’s 2014 reference list of graduate programs to mirror the subset of chairs included in the psychological science department sample. We then conducted another Google search, using key words “department of psychology” and “college OR university” until we reached what we deemed to be a sufficiently large number of psychology programs (i.e., 75 programs). Again, we did not limit our chairperson results to graduate psychology programs. Of the 75 chairpersons identified, 26 elected to participate (35% response rate). Sixteen of the chairpersons were men, 10 were women. Twenty-four chairpersons identified as Caucasian, one as Asian. One chose not to identify an ethnicity. Ages ranged from 40 to 74 years (M _age = 55.48, S _age = 10.03). For confidentiality purposes, no chairpersons in either sample disclosed their university affiliation.

Materials and Procedure

Methodology for Chairpersons of Psychological Science Departments

Twenty randomly selected chairpersons of psychological science departments were provided a link to an institutional review board (IRB) approved, online survey hosted via Qualtrics survey software (2017 Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Seven participants agreed to answer five open-ended questions about adding the term science to their department name. The questions included (1) Why did your department decide to use the term psychological science rather than psychology in its name? (2) What led up to or motivated your department to rename itself? (3) What response has there been to your department’s name change? (4) Do you regret your decision to name your department using the term psychological science? and (5) In your opinion, should other psychology departments rename their departments using the term psychological science?

To content analyze their responses, the first and second author read each chairpersons’ responses independently and identified underlying themes regarding reasons for and results of the name change. Because no similar content analysis had been conducted, the first and second author created unique themes as needed based on participant responses. The authors then met, discussed any disagreement in themes identified, and created content code categories. Then, each author separately content coded the chairpersons’ responses using the previously established categories (κ = .87). Any remaining disagreements regarding whether a theme was present in a response were discussed and corrected during a final meeting. As seen in Tables 1 and 2, seven categories were created for reasons for renaming (Table 1) and seven categories were created for results of renaming (Table 2).

Table 1.
Content Analysis and Frequency Results From Psychological Science Chairpersons Regarding Reasons for Renaming Their Program.

Reasons for Renaming Frequency of Response^a,b (%) Example Response

To convey psychology’s scientific nature to the public 18 (82%) The term “psychology” is generally open to a wide variety of interpretations among prospective students and faculty, funding agencies, administrators in academia, and members of the public. Psychological sciences is a much more accurate characterization of what we do and where we wish the field would go.

To convey psychology’s scientific nature to students 15 (68%)

To convey psychology’s scientific nature to people within the university 18 (82%)

To convey psychology’s scientific nature to people within the department 4 (18%)

To clarify the scientific/practitioner focus of the department 6 (27%) The department was atypical because its PhD programs did not include clinical, counseling, or school psych. Thus, it was very oriented toward training scientists, not practitioners. Thus, a distinct name would reflect its distinct nature.

Partner with neuroscience and other sciences 3 (14%) Cases nationally where neuroscience split off from psychology to form neuroscience departments […] we wanted to avoid/prevent that.

Influence from organizations (e.g., American Psychological Association, Association for Psychological Science) 3 (14%) An article in psychological science on the issue of department name changes.

Note. Based on 22 chairpersons of Psychological Science Departments.

^aPercentages do not equal 100% because department chairpersons often listed multiple reasons for and consequences of renaming their department. ^bOpen-ended data from the content analysis were included in the table because the participants provided answers to similar questions, albeit in open-ended rather than close-ended format. We felt that including all chairpersons of Psychological Science Departments’ responses provided the most accurate and reflective percentages.

Table 2.
Content Analysis and Frequency Results From Psychological Science Chairpersons Regarding Results of Renaming Their Program.

Results of Renaming Frequency of Response^a,b (%) Example Response

Clearer expectations for students 9 (41%) Weaker psych majors who “hate science and math” might consider a change in major.

Greater satisfaction with department identity 9 (41%) The main benefit at this point it seems is a certain self-satisfaction with our identity.

Greater inclusion among other sciences or STEM 7 (32%) Administration now understands that we are one of the big science departments, with some features more similar to biology, chemistry, and physics than your parents’ view of psychology.

Improved quality of recruitment and training 3 (14%) The broader name has created a shared platform from which a more interesting, diverse, collaborative, and innovative faculty can work to advance our knowledge of brain, behavior, psychology, and neuroscience.

Greater allocation of resources 1 (5%) Administration now never flinches when we require support for state-of-the-art laboratory start-up packages for faculty, teaching labs for students, and so on. They see us as hard scientists who warrant such support.

Too early to detect 5 (23%)

Minor results 5 (23%)

Note. Based on 22 chairpersons of Psychological Science Departments.

^aPercentages do not equal 100% because department chairpersons often listed multiple reasons for and consequences of renaming their department. ^bOpen-ended data from the content analysis were included in the table because the participants provided answers to similar questions, albeit in open-ended rather than close-ended format.

Afterward, the remaining 55 chairpersons of psychological science departments were provided a separate link which asked them to select as many of the reasons for renaming and results of renaming that they experienced. To encourage participation, we asked chairpersons to select the option(s) that applied to their department rather than answering multiple, open-ended questions (like the first subset of chairpersons). Chairpersons could indicate other reasons and results of renaming via an open-ended response item; however, no chairpersons did. Next, they rated the extent to which they were concerned about conveying the science of psychology, using a 1 (not at all concerned) to 7 (extremely concerned) scale. The scale consisted of 7 items; each item reflected one of the reasons for renaming identified previously. An example item is, “I am concerned about conveying psychology’s scientific nature to students.” Finally, they completed basic demographic information (age, gender, and ethnicity).

Methodology for Chairpersons of Psychology Departments

The chairpersons of psychology departments were provided a link to a separate, IRB approved, online survey hosted via Qualtrics survey software. Chairpersons were asked, “Have you ever considered including the term ‘science’ as part of your name (e.g., becoming a department of psychological science)?” If participants had considered a name change, they were asked an open-ended question regarding why they considered but did not change their name. If participants had never considered a name change, they were asked an open-ended question regarding why the change had not been considered. Then, they rated the extent to which they were concerned about conveying the science of psychology. This scale was identical to the one described previously.

Results

For chairpersons of psychological science programs, we rank ordered the frequency of reasons for, and results of, renaming. As seen in Tables 1 and 2, the most common reasons for renaming include conveying psychology’s scientific nature to members of the public, students, and people within their own university (e.g., administration). The most common results of renaming include clearer expectations for students, greater satisfaction with departmental identity, and more inclusion among other sciences and STEM fields.

We also content analyzed the open-ended responses from chairpersons of psychology programs. Twelve chairpersons had considered, but chose not, to rename their program. Five chairpersons said their program is currently considering a name change but had not come to a final decision. Of the remaining chairs, the reasons listed were 4-fold. First, three chairs mentioned bureaucratic obstacles that restricted a name change. Second, two chairs mentioned that the name “psychological science” may scare potential students away if they are science averse. Third, two chairs mentioned that they preferred to align themselves with the more common, and historic, name of psychology. Fourth, one chair mentioned that “real sciences” do not need to include the term science in their name.

Fourteen chairpersons of psychology departments had never considered a name change. Seven of whom stated that psychology is already defined as the scientific study of human thought and behavior. They said adding the term “science” was unnecessary. Two chairs did not provide any open-ended response. The remaining five chairs stated they had not discussed a name change; although, they plan to discuss the idea with faculty within their programs.

In an exploratory fashion, we also compared the degree to which chairpersons of psychological science versus psychology programs differ in their scientific concerns. As seen in Table 3, chairpersons of psychological science programs are significantly more concerned about conveying the science of psychology to members of the public than chairpersons of psychology programs. Chairpersons from either program did not significantly differ in their concerns about distinguishing a scientific versus practitioner focus, partnering with other sciences, nor being congruent with national organizations.

Table 3.
Chairpersons’ Concern About the Science of Psychology as a Function of Department.

Items of Concern Department of Psychological Science Department of Psychology t (df)^b Cohen’s d

M (SD)^a M (SD)

Conveying science to public 6.07 (1.10) 5.11 (1.68) 2.19* (38.26) .71

Conveying science to students 6.20 (.56) 5.42 (1.90) 1.94 (31.81) .69

Conveying science to my own university 5.67 (0.90) 4.85 (2.05) 1.77 (37.01) .58

Conveying science to my own department 1.73 (1.10) 2.12 (1.86) −0.83 (38.00) .27

Clarifying scientific versus practitioner focus 2.73 (1.80) 3.12 (1.87) −0.64 (29.76) .23

Partnering with other sciences 3.87 (1.73) 3.81 (2.23) 0.94 (35.48) .31

Being congruent with national organizations (e.g., Association for Psychological Science) 2.20 (1.70) 2.38 (1.70) −0.34 (29.35) .13

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

^aResults are based on 15 chairpersons of psychological science departments rather than the full sample of 22 chairpersons. This is because the first seven chairpersons of psychological science departments did not rate the extent to which they were concerned about the science of psychology; instead, they answered open-ended questions regarding their reasons for renaming, which later became the items of concern shown above. All 26 chairpersons of psychology departments are included. ^bGiven the unequal sample sizes, homogeneity of variance was violated. Therefore, all t values and degrees of freedom reported do not assume equal variances.

p < .05.

Discussion

Chairpersons clearly differed in their reasons for remaining psychology or becoming psychological science. For instance, chairpersons from psychological science programs often referenced, and were generally more concerned about, conveying the scientific nature of psychology to members of the public. Chairpersons from psychology programs remained psychology for a variety of reasons. Many had never considered or felt the need to change. Other chairs remained psychology for logistical or historical reasons.

Although Study 1 begins to shed light on the choice to identify as either psychology or psychological science, it has several limitations worth discussing. First, participants were limited to chairpersons. That is, faculty members—who may have greater insight into a department’s history and name—were excluded. Furthermore, the sample may have included chairpersons from undergraduate programs, rather than graduate programs exclusively. The sample size was also relatively small. To address these limitations, Study 2 seeks to replicate the previous findings with a larger, more representative sample of graduate psychology faculty members.

Study 2: Assessment of Faculty

Method

Participants

Graduate psychology faculty members were recruited via e-mail from addresses collected from their departmental websites. To qualify for recruitment, an institution had to have a psychology or psychological science department as well as e-mail contact available. Approximately 75 potential universities were identified via a Google search; e-mails were sent to 2,551 members of eligible programs. One hundred and twenty-five faculty members completed the survey (5% response rate). One hundred of whom were from psychology programs, 25 were from psychological science programs. Ages ranged from 27 to 84 years (M _age = 54.46, S _age = 12.73). See Table 4 for more demographic information.

Table 4.
Demographic Characteristics of Faculty Members.

Demographic Characteristic^a Frequency (%)

Gender^b

Men 77 (62%)

Women 37 (30%)

Ethnicity^c

White 102 (82%)

Black 9 (7%)

Asian 2 (2%)

Hispanic 2 (2%)

Other 15 (12%)

History as chair^d

Currently chair 6 (5%)

Formerly chair 16 (13%)

Never been chair 100 (80%)

Position^e

Adjunct 5 (4%)

Research associate 1 (1%)

Assistant professor 7 (6%)

Associate professor 33 (26%)

Full professor 63 (50%)

Emeritus professor 8 (6%)

Carnegie classification^f

Research 1: Highest research productivity 99 (79%)

Research 2: Higher research productivity 18 (14%)

Research 3: Moderate research productivity 4 (3%)

Master's 1: Master’s colleges and universities 1 (1%)

^aOne hundred and twenty-five faculty members completed the survey. ^bEleven faculty chose not to identify a gender. ^cThree faculty did not identify an ethnicity. ^dThree faculty members chose not to answer their history as chair. ^eEight faculty members chose not answer their position. ^fThree faculty members chose not to identify their institution.

Materials and Procedure

Faculty were provided the link to an online, IRB-approved, survey via e-mail. Faculty read that the survey’s aim was to better understand why some psychology programs have (or have not) chosen to add the term “science” to their name (i.e., becoming a program of psychological science rather than psychology). Faculty first indicated whether their program name included the term “science.” If faculty were from a psychological science program, they were asked to list the main reason(s) why their program changed its name. If faculty were from a psychology program, they were asked to list the reason(s) why their program chose to keep the name psychology. If faculty did not know the reason(s), they were instructed to write, “I do not know.” After completing the open-ended question, all faculty then rated the extent to which they were concerned about conveying the science of psychology, using a 1 (not at all concerned) to 7 (extremely concerned) scale. This scale was identical to the one used in Study 1. An example item is “I am concerned about conveying psychology’s scientific nature to the public.” Finally, faculty completed basic demographic information (age, gender, and ethnicity).

Results and Discussion

Open-ended responses were content coded by six undergraduate members of a research team and the first author (κ > .63). As seen in Table 5, the responses from psychological science programs fit the previous content code categories in Study 1. Because the responses from psychology programs varied more than Study 1, the research team and first author created unique themes as needed, based on participant responses. The team and first author then met, discussed any disagreement in themes identified, and created content code categories. Then, each author separately content coded the chairpersons’ responses using the previously established categories. Any remaining disagreements regarding whether a theme was present in a response were discussed and corrected during a final meeting (see Table 6).

Table 5.
Most Frequently Listed Reasons Among Faculty Regarding Their Decision to Add “Science” to Their Name.

Reasons for Renaming Frequency of Response^a (%)

To convey psychology’s scientific nature to the general public 8 (32%)

To convey psychology’s scientific nature to students 1 (4%)

To convey psychology’s scientific nature to people within the university 4 (16%)

To convey psychology’s scientific nature to people within the department 2 (8%)

To clarify the scientific/practitioner focus of the department 8 (32%)

Partner with neuroscience and other sciences 6 (24%)

Influence from organizations (e.g. American Psychological Association and Association for Psychological Science) 3 (12%)

Note. Based on 25 faculty from departments who have added the term “science” to their program name.

^aPercentages do not equal 100% because department chairpersons often listed multiple reasons for and consequences of renaming their department.

Table 6.
Most Frequently Listed Reasons Among Faculty Regarding Their Decision to Retain the Name Psychology.

Reasons for Retaining Name Frequency of Response^a,b (%) Example Response

Viewed as unnecessary 12 (29%) Psychology is already a science. Is chemistry considering a name change to chemical science? No

Failed to pass departmental vote 9 (21%) There was a department vote but it failed to pass

Topic has never been discussed 7 (17%) We actually haven’t discussed that as a group

Unknown 6 (14%) I do not know

“Psychological science” is not representative of department 5 (12%) Some of our members strongly identify as doing art and not science

Violates historical continuity 5 (12%) Historical reasons—perpetuating the name

Logistical obstacles 5 (12%) Too much required bureaucracy (e.g., proposal and administrative approval)

Potential to “scare off” students 3 (7%) Other names would frighten off potential students

Currently under discussion 3 (7%) We decided to revisit the issue after our new chair transitioned in

^aAlthough 100 faculty were from psychology departments, only 42 answered the open-ended question regarding reason to keep their current department name. Therefore, percentages are based on the number of faculty who answered. ^bPercentages do not equal 100% because faculty often listed multiple reasons for keeping their current department name.

For faculty within psychological science programs, the most frequently listed reasons for changing their name were (1) to convey psychology’s scientific nature to the general public, (2) to clarify the scientific (research) emphasis of their department, and (3) to better partner with neuroscience. For faculty within psychology departments, the name change often failed to pass departmental vote or was not discussed because (1) it was viewed as unnecessary, (2) not representative of the department, and (3) violates historical continuity.

In an exploratory fashion, we also compared graduate faculty members’ concerns as a function of their department name. As seen in Table 7, faculty from psychological science programs, as compared to psychology programs, were significantly more concerned about (1) conveying the science of psychology to the public, students, their own university, and members of their own department; (2) clarifying the science versus practitioner focus of their department; and (3) partnering with other sciences. Psychology and psychological science departments did not differ in their concern about being congruent with national organizations (e.g., APS).

Table 7.
Faculty Members’ Concern About the Science of Psychology as a Function of Department.

Items of Concern Department of Psychological Science Department of Psychology t (df)^a Cohen’s d

M (SD) M (SD)

Conveying science to public 5.33 (1.79) 4.20 (2.11) 2.43 (119) 0.45

Conveying science to students 5.58 (2.02) 4.48 (2.20) 2.23* (119) 0.41

Conveying science to my own university 5.17 (2.10) 3.99 (2.14) 2.42* (119) 0.44

Conveying science to my own department 3.38 (2.39) 1.94 (1.45) 3.72 (27.49) 1.42

Clarifying scientific versus practitioner focus 4.17 (2.33) 2.67 (1.96) 3.23 (119) 0.59

Partnering with other sciences 4.33 (2.46) 3.07 (2.11) 2.53* (119) 0.46

Being congruent with national organizations (e.g., Association for Psychological Science) 2.13 (1.75) 1.66 (1.31) 1.45 (29.71) 0.53

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

^aThe homogeneity of variance was violated for 2 items—conveying science to my own department and being congruent with national organizations.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

General Discussion

Should psychology programs identify as psychology or psychological science? This question is not new. It was asked by Carol Tavris and other members of APS in 1999. It was asked by psychologists (e.g., Jaffe, 2011) across the country as early as 1990 (when Dartmouth College became a psychological science program). It may have already been asked by the provosts, deans, or faculty at your own institution. Instead, the novelty of the current research is in regard to its systematic approach to discovering why this questions is asked. Specifically, we sought to better understand why some programs, but not others, are changing their names. We surveyed chairpersons (Study 1) and faculty members (Study 2) from both graduate psychology and psychological science programs. Our results revealed that within psychology programs, a name change was often perceived as unnecessary, nonrepresentative of the program’s focus, or intimidating to science-averse students. Within psychological science programs, a name change was often perceived as better able to convey the science of psychology to others, their own program’s scientific/research focus, or interdisciplinary partnerships (most commonly with neuroscience).

Throughout the data collection process, chairpersons and faculty provided spirited feedback. Many faculty members were grateful for our effort to synthesize and, as a result, validate the concerns that they, and other programs, were weighing in their decision. Many faculty members articulated their positions with great forethought. Some even provided additional readings that supported or, in some instances, refuted their program’s decision. Importantly, many faculty members also expressed great concern, and contention within their departments, about the growing trend to replace psychology with psychological science. Namely, they questioned its necessity—claiming that unquestionably scientific (STEM) fields, such as chemistry or biology, do not need to rebrand themselves as chemical or biological science (Simonton, 2006). Why should psychology need to rebrand itself?

To be clear, the aim of this article is not to argue in favor of one name versus another. Instead, our aim was to synthesize and evenhandedly present the arguments from both psychology and psychological science programs. We also provide supportive evidence suggesting that the disagreement between psychology and psychological science may stem from differing concerns about psychology’s reputation as a science. Indeed, we questioned the degree to which faculty were concerned about (1) conveying psychological science to others (i.e., general public, students, administration, and colleagues), (2) clarifying their program’s focus, and (3) partnering with other sciences. Faculty members within psychological science, as compared to psychology, programs reported greater concerns in each of these areas. Chairpersons within psychological science programs also reported greater concern about conveying the science of psychology to others.

We suspect that each program desires to elevate the science of psychology. However, there are differences in each program’s immediate concerns, which may affect their decision to identify as psychology or psychological science. For instance, some programs likely operate within and experience institutional cultures, research emphases, and political climates that either promote or denigrate the science of psychology. Psychology programs in Florida—whose value has been publicly questioned by current and former governors Rick Scott and Jeb Bush—may be more willing to consider a name change that combats public misperception. Future studies may further identify the social and societal dynamics which lead some psychologists to be more concerned than others about psychology’s reputation as a science.

The current research had many strengths. It addressed an important and timely issue. Unlike previous studies, it systematically surveyed chairpersons and faculty from both programs of psychology and psychological science using both qualitative and quantitative methods. However, the current research also had limitations. The response rate of chairpersons and faculty members was low. If respondents from either program were nonrepresentative of other faculty, then the results may be biased and potentially misleading. Future studies may choose to incentivize online responses by paying participants or collect data from faculty in-person during conferences. Furthermore, the current results are primarily limited to graduate faculty. Future studies may choose to survey a more diverse sample of faculty from community colleges and undergraduate only programs. Finally, identifying as psychological science, rather than psychology, is just one strategy to manage other’s scientific impressions of psychology. It is unclear whether this strategy, or other science-oriented strategies (e.g., STEM inclusiveness), effectively corrects people’s misperceptions of psychology.

Reasons for Renaming	Frequency of Response^a,b (%)	Example Response
To convey psychology’s scientific nature to the public	18 (82%)	The term “psychology” is generally open to a wide variety of interpretations among prospective students and faculty, funding agencies, administrators in academia, and members of the public. Psychological sciences is a much more accurate characterization of what we do and where we wish the field would go.
To convey psychology’s scientific nature to students	15 (68%)
To convey psychology’s scientific nature to people within the university	18 (82%)
To convey psychology’s scientific nature to people within the department	4 (18%)
To clarify the scientific/practitioner focus of the department	6 (27%)	The department was atypical because its PhD programs did not include clinical, counseling, or school psych. Thus, it was very oriented toward training scientists, not practitioners. Thus, a distinct name would reflect its distinct nature.
Partner with neuroscience and other sciences	3 (14%)	Cases nationally where neuroscience split off from psychology to form neuroscience departments […] we wanted to avoid/prevent that.
Influence from organizations (e.g., American Psychological Association, Association for Psychological Science)	3 (14%)	An article in psychological science on the issue of department name changes.

Results of Renaming	Frequency of Response^a,b (%)	Example Response
Clearer expectations for students	9 (41%)	Weaker psych majors who “hate science and math” might consider a change in major.
Greater satisfaction with department identity	9 (41%)	The main benefit at this point it seems is a certain self-satisfaction with our identity.
Greater inclusion among other sciences or STEM	7 (32%)	Administration now understands that we are one of the big science departments, with some features more similar to biology, chemistry, and physics than your parents’ view of psychology.
Improved quality of recruitment and training	3 (14%)	The broader name has created a shared platform from which a more interesting, diverse, collaborative, and innovative faculty can work to advance our knowledge of brain, behavior, psychology, and neuroscience.
Greater allocation of resources	1 (5%)	Administration now never flinches when we require support for state-of-the-art laboratory start-up packages for faculty, teaching labs for students, and so on. They see us as hard scientists who warrant such support.
Too early to detect	5 (23%)
Minor results	5 (23%)

Items of Concern	Department of Psychological Science	Department of Psychology	t (df)^b	Cohen’s d
Conveying science to public	6.07 (1.10)	5.11 (1.68)	2.19* (38.26)	.71
Conveying science to students	6.20 (.56)	5.42 (1.90)	1.94 (31.81)	.69
Conveying science to my own university	5.67 (0.90)	4.85 (2.05)	1.77 (37.01)	.58
Conveying science to my own department	1.73 (1.10)	2.12 (1.86)	−0.83 (38.00)	.27
Clarifying scientific versus practitioner focus	2.73 (1.80)	3.12 (1.87)	−0.64 (29.76)	.23
Partnering with other sciences	3.87 (1.73)	3.81 (2.23)	0.94 (35.48)	.31
Being congruent with national organizations (e.g., Association for Psychological Science)	2.20 (1.70)	2.38 (1.70)	−0.34 (29.35)	.13

Demographic Characteristic^a	Frequency (%)
Gender^b
Men	77 (62%)
Women	37 (30%)
Ethnicity^c
White	102 (82%)
Black	9 (7%)
Asian	2 (2%)
Hispanic	2 (2%)
Other	15 (12%)
History as chair^d
Currently chair	6 (5%)
Formerly chair	16 (13%)
Never been chair	100 (80%)
Position^e
Adjunct	5 (4%)
Research associate	1 (1%)
Assistant professor	7 (6%)
Associate professor	33 (26%)
Full professor	63 (50%)
Emeritus professor	8 (6%)
Carnegie classification^f
Research 1: Highest research productivity	99 (79%)
Research 2: Higher research productivity	18 (14%)
Research 3: Moderate research productivity	4 (3%)
Master's 1: Master’s colleges and universities	1 (1%)

Reasons for Renaming	Frequency of Response^a (%)
To convey psychology’s scientific nature to the general public	8 (32%)
To convey psychology’s scientific nature to students	1 (4%)
To convey psychology’s scientific nature to people within the university	4 (16%)
To convey psychology’s scientific nature to people within the department	2 (8%)
To clarify the scientific/practitioner focus of the department	8 (32%)
Partner with neuroscience and other sciences	6 (24%)
Influence from organizations (e.g. American Psychological Association and Association for Psychological Science)	3 (12%)

Reasons for Retaining Name	Frequency of Response^a,b (%)	Example Response
Viewed as unnecessary	12 (29%)	Psychology is already a science. Is chemistry considering a name change to chemical science? No
Failed to pass departmental vote	9 (21%)	There was a department vote but it failed to pass
Topic has never been discussed	7 (17%)	We actually haven’t discussed that as a group
Unknown	6 (14%)	I do not know
“Psychological science” is not representative of department	5 (12%)	Some of our members strongly identify as doing art and not science
Violates historical continuity	5 (12%)	Historical reasons—perpetuating the name
Logistical obstacles	5 (12%)	Too much required bureaucracy (e.g., proposal and administrative approval)
Potential to “scare off” students	3 (7%)	Other names would frighten off potential students
Currently under discussion	3 (7%)	We decided to revisit the issue after our new chair transitioned in

Items of Concern	Department of Psychological Science	Department of Psychology	t (df)^a	Cohen’s d
Conveying science to public	5.33 (1.79)	4.20 (2.11)	2.43* (119)	0.45
Conveying science to students	5.58 (2.02)	4.48 (2.20)	2.23* (119)	0.41
Conveying science to my own university	5.17 (2.10)	3.99 (2.14)	2.42* (119)	0.44
Conveying science to my own department	3.38 (2.39)	1.94 (1.45)	3.72** (27.49)	1.42
Clarifying scientific versus practitioner focus	4.17 (2.33)	2.67 (1.96)	3.23** (119)	0.59
Partnering with other sciences	4.33 (2.46)	3.07 (2.11)	2.53* (119)	0.46
Being congruent with national organizations (e.g., Association for Psychological Science)	2.13 (1.75)	1.66 (1.31)	1.45 (29.71)	0.53

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

We acknowledge and appreciate the content coding efforts of Juliana D’Aoust, Camille Brandon, Angele Doakes, Gabriel Lee, Marlene Martinez, Luciana Ponce De Leon, Crystal Saludes, and Marcela Villegas.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Bem

D. J.

(2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425. doi:10.1037/ a0021524

Berezow

A. B.

(2012, 7). Why psychology isn’t a science. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

Carey

. (2011, 11). Noted Dutch psychologist, Stapel, accused of research fraud. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/health/research/noted-dutch-psychologist-stapel-accused-of-research-fraud.html?_r1/40

Howell

J. L.

Collisson

King

K. M.

(2013). Physics envy: Psychologists’ perceptions of psychology and agreement about core concepts. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 330–334.

Jaffe

(2011, 9). Identity shift. Observer, 24. Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/identity-shift

Klatzky

(2005, 4). The case for changing our name. Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/apsname/

Klein

R. A.

Ratliff

K. A.

Vianello

Adams

R. B.

Bahník

Š.

Bernstein

M. J.

… Nosek

B. A

. (2015, 9 24). Investigating variation in replicability: A “many labs” replication project. Retrieved from osf.io/wx7ck

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716

Pashler

Wagenmakers

E. J.

(2012). Editor's introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–530. doi:10.1177/ 1745691612465253

10.

Simonton

D. K.

(2006). Scientific status of disciplines, individuals, and ideas: Empirical analyses of the potential impact of theory. Review of General Psychology, 10, 98–112.

Items of Concern	Department of Psychological Science	Department of Psychology	t (df)^b	Cohen’s d
Items of Concern	M (SD)^a	M (SD)	t (df)^b	Cohen’s d
Conveying science to public	6.07 (1.10)	5.11 (1.68)	2.19* (38.26)	.71
Conveying science to students	6.20 (.56)	5.42 (1.90)	1.94 (31.81)	.69
Conveying science to my own university	5.67 (0.90)	4.85 (2.05)	1.77 (37.01)	.58
Conveying science to my own department	1.73 (1.10)	2.12 (1.86)	−0.83 (38.00)	.27
Clarifying scientific versus practitioner focus	2.73 (1.80)	3.12 (1.87)	−0.64 (29.76)	.23
Partnering with other sciences	3.87 (1.73)	3.81 (2.23)	0.94 (35.48)	.31
Being congruent with national organizations (e.g., Association for Psychological Science)	2.20 (1.70)	2.38 (1.70)	−0.34 (29.35)	.13