50 Differences That Make a Difference: A Compendium of Frequently Confused Term Pairs in Psychology

Abstract

An adequate understanding of specialized terminology is a prerequisite for the mastery of core concepts across all scientific disciplines, including psychological science. In a previous article (Lilienfeld et al., 2015), we presented an annotated list of 50 widely used psychological terms that should generally be avoided, or at best used judiciously and with qualifications in select cases. Herein, we offer a "sequel" by presenting a list of 50 term pairs in psychology and allied fields (e.g., psychiatry, cultural anthropology, and statistics) that are commonly confused in academic writing, popular writing, or both. We draw these terms from multiple domains of psychology, including Sensation, Perception, Learning, and Memory; Social and Cultural Bases of Behavior; Personality Psychology; Psychopathology; and Research Methodology and Statistics. Many of these terms are frequently confused not merely by beginning psychology students but also by advanced psychology students, psychology instructors, and science journalists. Our list of commonly confused psychological term pairs should hopefully be a modest contribution toward enhancing psychological literacy and critical thinking in psychology more broadly.

Systematic review of acute physically active learning and classroom movement breaks on children’s physical activity, cognition, academic performance and classroom behaviour: understanding critical design features

“…While studies consistently demonstrated high inter-rater reliability of ToT measures, their discriminant validity is rarely reported. 51 The method appears to originate from a study that assessed academic performance in children with special educational needs, 52 questioning its relevance to modern classrooms. Prior to future use, ToT assessments require confirmation of construct and discriminant validity.…”

Examining the Relationship Between Victimization, Psychopathy, and the Acceptance of Rape Myths

“…Third, this study utilized a sample of college students to assess psychopathy. Though traits associated with psychopathy are relatively normally disbursed across the population (Lilienfeld et al 2017; Pemment, 2013), the current sample is nonclinical and may not adequately capture all aspects of psychopathy. Finally, findings from this study must be framed within the context and consideration of diversity.…”

“…1The rational for examining psychopathy, as opposed to other dimensionally constructed latent traits, like sociopathy, had to do with the use of a validated non-clinical measure of psychopathy (i.e., Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy; LSRP; Levenson et al, 1995) scale. Although many of the measured dimensions of the LSRP overlap with conceptually relevant aspects of other collective personality constructs, like sociopathy (Lillienfeld et al 2017; Pemment, 2013; Walsh & Wu, 2008), the LSRP is a well validated measure of psychopathy in nonclinical samples that can be administered by nonclinicians (Levenson et al, 1995; Sellbom, 2011). …”

Prediction of child and adolescent outcomes with broadband and narrowband dimensions of internalizing and externalizing behavior using the child and adolescent version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

“…Ordinary least square regression models will be formulated with regard to the prediction of child and adolescent outcomes (outcomes regressed on SDQ subscales). The term "prediction" and cognate terms are used here in a statistical sense and shall not be confused with the concept of predictive validity, which describes the ability of a measure to forecast outcomes in the future [54]. To judge the statistical predictive performance of the different subscales of the SDQ (broadband vs. narrowband), the regression model with the broadband subscale (model 1: outcome regressed on broadband subscale, e.g., internalizing behavior) will be compared to the regression model with both underlying narrowband subscales jointly as predictors in one regression model (e.g., model 2: outcome regressed on emotional symptoms and peer problems).…”