How imprecise language in psychology creates confusion, perpetuates myths, and hinders scientific progress
Imagine visiting a doctor who tells you your headache is caused by "humors" in your blood, or a therapist who explains your anxiety as "demonic possession." These terms were once accepted medical language but were eventually discarded as science advanced. Today, psychology faces a similar reckoning with its own vocabulary—words and phrases that sound scientific but often mislead, confuse, or misrepresent what we actually know about the human mind 1 .
The paper "Fifty psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid" became the most viewed and downloaded article in Frontiers in Psychology the year it was published, indicating widespread interest in conceptual precision 1 .
In 2015, a groundbreaking paper by Scott O. Lilienfeld and his team sent ripples through the psychological community by identifying fifty psychological and psychiatric terms that should be avoided or used with extreme caution 1 . This wasn't merely about political correctness or semantics; it was about scientific accuracy and clear thinking.
"The gap between how scientists and the public understand terms like 'obsessive-compulsive disorder' or 'schizophrenia' has created what Lilienfeld's team identified as a crisis of accurate communication."
This article will explore why certain psychological terms have come under scrutiny, examine the scientific case against them, and reveal how a more precise vocabulary can lead to better science, improved clinical practice, and a public that better understands human behavior.
In psychology, as in all sciences, concepts are the building blocks of knowledge. A concept is a mental entity—a way of making sense of some aspect of the world that allows us to decide if something observed should count as an example of a particular phenomenon 3 . When our terms for these concepts are imprecise, our understanding becomes imprecise as well.
Scientific concepts are supposed to be rigorous and well-defined, but many psychological terms have escaped from laboratories and clinics into popular culture, where they've been transformed, distorted, and sometimes stripped of their original meanings 3 .
Lilienfeld and colleagues didn't simply compile an arbitrary list of disliked terms. They developed a systematic classification of problematic language in psychology, categorizing terms based on the specific problems they present 1 .
Words that imply mechanisms or phenomena that don't actually exist or function as the term suggests.
Example: "Chemical imbalance"
Phrases that add unnecessary words without adding meaning.
Example: "Conscious awareness"
Words that have multiple conflicting meanings.
Example: "Empathy"
Phrases that embody circular reasoning or other logical fallacies.
Example: "Antidepressant" (when not effective)
Words that treat abstract concepts as concrete realities.
Example: "The brain believes"
This classification system provides a framework for understanding not just which terms to avoid, but why they deserve scrutiny—a crucial distinction for developing more precise language habits.
The identification of the fifty problematic terms followed a rigorous methodological process rooted in the principles of scientific skepticism and empirical evaluation 1 .
This process exemplifies the self-correcting nature of science—the field continually examining its own foundations and practices to improve accuracy and validity 7 .
The research revealed that many commonly used terms—some appearing in textbooks, clinical diagnoses, and mainstream media—carry significant conceptual baggage.
These examples illustrate how language can shape theories, research questions, and even clinical interventions in ways that may not align with scientific evidence.
| Category of Problem | Description | Example Terms | Why Problematic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inaccurate/Misleading | Suggest mechanisms or phenomena not supported by evidence | "Chemical imbalance," "Photographic memory" | Create false impressions of scientific understanding |
| Redundant | Add unnecessary words without adding meaning | "Bulimic anorexic," "Conscious awareness" | Clutter scientific discourse without improving precision |
| Ambiguous | Have multiple conflicting meanings | "Empathy," "Personality disorder" | Lead to miscommunication between researchers and clinicians |
| Logically Confused | Contain circular reasoning or logical fallacies | "Antidepressant" (when not effective) | Create false explanations that impede scientific progress |
| Reifying | Treat abstract concepts as concrete things | "The brain believes," "Race" as biological | Mistake constructs for physical realities |
| Aspect of Field | Problem with Current Terms | Benefit of More Precise Language |
|---|---|---|
| Research | Vague terms lead to operational definitions that don't align across studies | Better replication of studies and cumulative knowledge building |
| Clinical Practice | Diagnostic labels that imply specific etiologies not evidence-based | Treatments targeted at actual underlying mechanisms rather than superficial categories |
| Public Understanding | Oversimplified concepts create misconceptions about mental health | More accurate understanding of psychological phenomena and evidence-based treatments |
| Education | Students learn terms that they must later unlearn or qualify | More efficient learning of concepts that don't require significant revision |
Define concepts based on observable, measurable operations. Prevents reification and ensures concepts are testable.
Determines whether claims can be disproven through evidence. Helps identify pseudoscientific terms that cannot be tested.
Examines the logical structure and assumptions of concepts. Reveals circular reasoning and logical fallacies in terms.
Comprehensively assesses evidence related to a concept. Determines whether terms align with cumulative research findings.
Measures agreement between different observers using the same term. Identifies ambiguous terms that different researchers apply inconsistently.
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Provides more precise estimates of phenomena described by psychological terms.
The call to avoid certain psychological terms isn't about policing language or creating unnecessary restrictions. Rather, it's about fostering more precise, accurate scientific communication 1 .
This process aligns with how all sciences evolve—refining language and concepts as knowledge accumulates, similar to how physics progressed from "phlogiston" to modern thermodynamic concepts 3 .
The implications of this linguistic refinement extend far beyond academic debates. More precise psychological language can:
As the extensive interest in Lilienfeld's paper demonstrated, there's strong appetite for this kind of conceptual clarity both within and beyond the psychological community 1 .
The project of refining psychological terminology remains ongoing. As the field evolves and new research emerges, our language must continue to adapt. The fifty terms identified for avoidance don't represent a complete list but rather illustrate an important principle: scientific progress requires not just new discoveries but also critical examination of the conceptual tools we use to describe those discoveries.
This effort toward more precise language represents psychology's maturation as a science—a field willing to critically examine its own foundations and practices. By being more thoughtful about the words we use to describe human behavior, thought, and emotion, we honor the complexity of our subject matter and move closer to genuine understanding.
This article was inspired by the research of Scott O. Lilienfeld and colleagues, whose 2015 paper "Fifty psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid: a list of inaccurate, misleading, misused, ambiguous, and logically confused words and phrases" became the most viewed article in Frontiers in Psychology that year 1 .