Psychology as a historical science? Theoretical assumptions, methodological considerations, and potential pitfalls

Abstract

The current condition of (Western) academic psychology can be criticized for various reasons. In the past years, many debates have been centered around the so-called “replication crisis” and the “WEIRD people problem”. However, one aspect which has received relatively little attention is the fact that psychological research is typically limited to currently living individuals, while the psychology of the past remains unexplored. We find that more research in the field of historical psychology is required to capture both the similarities and differences between psychological mechanisms both then and now. We begin by outlining the potential benefits of understanding psychology also as a historical science and explore these benefits using the example of stress. Finally, we consider methodological, ideological, and practical pitfalls, which could endanger the attempt to direct more attention toward cross-temporal variation. Nevertheless, we suggest that historical psychology would contribute to making academic psychology a truly universal endeavor that explores the psychology of all humans.

Gerd Jüttemann’s “historical psychology”: Why it should have succeeded, why it was ignored, and what that means for the future

“…From the 1980s until today, Jüttemann has invested a lot of effort into promoting his vision of historical psychology and the psychogenesis of humankind. Although the general idea that psychology should show more interest in the historicity of the human psyche has been reemphasized in recent publications (Hutmacher & Mayrhofer, 2021, 2022; Muthukrishna et al, 2021), Jüttemann’s own pioneer work has largely been ignored by mainstream psychology. The present paper has tried to understand the reasons for this, in order to draw conclusions for the future of historical psychology.…”

“…In addition, realizing that the human psyche has changed and evolved over time might provide an interesting and inspiring starting point to rethink the structures of our societies: if cross-temporal variability exists, this also means that the current state of things is neither unchangeable nor unavoidable (see also Graeber & Wengrow, 2021). Although these basic ideas have been renewed in recent publications (Hutmacher & Mayrhofer, 2021, 2022; Muthukrishna et al, 2021), they have already been described by various authors over several decades (e.g., Barbu, 1960; Danziger, 2003; Gergen, 1973; Jüttemann, 1986a; Meyerson, 1987; Smith, 2005; van den Berg, 1961).…”

“…These concerns with respect to the cross-cultural validity of psychology have been complemented by concerns regarding the cross-temporal validity. Psychological samples are not only limited and biased because they merely rely on a small fraction of the humans currently living on this planet, but also because they exclusively rely on humans currently living on this planet, while individuals and societies of the past remain largely unexplored (Hutmacher & Mayrhofer, 2021, 2022; Muthukrishna et al, 2021). In other words, if academic psychology were to become truly universal in the sense that it explores the psychology of all humans, it should not only put more effort into exploring cross-cultural, but also historical heterogeneity.…”

“…Importantly, engaging in research on the historicity of the psyche does not have to remain a purely academic and theoretical endeavor, but could also have significant practical benefits (Hutmacher & Mayrhofer, 2022): by tracing current patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving through history, we might come to an improved understanding of the psychological functioning of modern-day individuals as well as the origins of cross-cultural differences (see also Henrich, 2020). In addition, realizing that the human psyche has changed and evolved over time might provide an interesting and inspiring starting point to rethink the structures of our societies: if cross-temporal variability exists, this also means that the current state of things is neither unchangeable nor unavoidable (see also Graeber & Wengrow, 2021).…”

Approaching psychology’s current crises by exploring the vagueness of psychological concepts: Recommendations for advancing the discipline.

“…Simultaneously, others argue that psychology is experiencing a—as we term it— universality crisis : Over the course of the years, it has been demonstrated that even very basic processes of thinking (Nisbett, 2003), feeling (Osgood et al, 1975), and perception (Segall et al, 1966) show considerable cross-cultural variation. Furthermore, typical psychological samples are severely limited regarding their cultural diversity (Apicella et al, 2020; Henrich et al, 2010) and their sensitivity to cross-temporal variation (Hutmacher, 2022; Hutmacher & Mayrhofer, 2021, 2023; Muthukrishna et al, 2021), which makes the scope of psychological findings unclear. A third crisis diagnosis is brought forward by those who claim that psychology faces a theory crisis (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021; Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019) in the sense that many psychological theories are ill-developed and underspecified microtheories (for an early critique, see Meehl, 1978).…”