Abstract

The language psychologists and other mental health professionals utilize impacts the formation of public perceptions concerning the practice of psychology. Psychologists from Warren, Calkins, Dunlap, Gardiner, and Ruckmich to Lilienfeld et al. have raised concerns about the clarity and use of problematic psychological terms. This study measured 309 mental health professionals’ (1) recognition and use of 50 psychological terms identified as problematic by Lilienfeld et al., and (2) explored the jangle fallacy by providing potentially synonymous word-pairs for participants to rate for synonymity. Results of Part I indicated that 34 out of the 50 terms were not recognized as problematic by a significant majority of participants. Participants disagreed about whether or not six terms were problematic, and the remaining 10 terms were rated by a majority to be problematic. Results of Part II indicated a disagreement between participants regarding the synonymity of four word-pairs, and agreement regarding the synonymity (or lack thereof) of the remaining 16 word-pairs. These findings support the suggestion by Lilienfeld and colleagues that greater attention is needed in regard to problematic psychological terminology, including synonymous or jangling terminology.

摘要

语言心理学家和其他心理健康专业人员利用影响公众对心理学实践看法的形成。从 Warren、Calkins、Dunlap、Gardiner、Ruckmich 到 Lilienfeld 等心理学家。对有问题的心理学术语的清晰度和使用提出了担忧。这项研究测量了 309 名心理健康专业人员 (1) 对 Lilienfeld 等人认为有问题的 50 个心理术语的认知和使用情况，(2) 通过为参与者提供潜在的同义词对来评估同义性，探讨了 jangle 谬误。第一部分的结果表明，绝大多数参与者认为 50 个术语中的 34 个不存在问题。参与者对于六个术语是否有问题存在分歧，其余 10 个术语被多数人认为存在问题。第二部分的结果表明，参与者对 4 个单词对的同义性存在分歧，而对其余 16 个单词对的同义性（或缺乏同义性）达成一致。这些发现支持了 Lilienfeld 及其同事的建议，即需要更多地关注有问题的心理学术语，包括同义术语或刺耳术语。