Concept Creep Phenomenon is an essential issue in psychology where harm or pathology concepts evolve and expand with age. Haslam & Haidt’sHaidt’s articles explore how these definitions have expanded beyond their original conception. Haslam reveals a broader range of behaviors and experiences to be considered within these psychological structures as he delves into the rationale for this enlargement and its consequences. As stated earlier, the following is a commentary by Haidt that can be seen as an architecture for the reader to read and understand counterarguments and adjustments from Haslam’s argument centering on how ideology can cause concept creep in psychology along with the delicate balance between interpretation through compassion versus definition through precision needed in all psychological concepts. In contrast, this alternative commentary has several countering views criticizing some of the points raised in Haslam’s primary work and enhancing the broader view of how concept creep is ingrained in psychology.
Review of the Primary Article (Haslam, 2016):
Haslam’s (2016) article, Concept Creep: A Valuable Thought on the Concept Creep Process in Psychology, Do the Borders of Damage and Illness Broaden within Psychology. Analysis of developing and progressing psychological ideas in case injury or pathology is primarily focused. Even though these ideas appear to be relatively straightforward, Haslam points out that their applications and interpretations have substantially expanded over the past few years. This development highlights the ever-evolving nature of psychological concepts and the need to analyze and comprehend how these concepts have changed within the realm of psychology.
Haslam’s primary thesis is marked by the profound transformation of psychological concepts, placing them in a process that tends to expand their scope to encompass behaviors and experiences as divergent. This insidious shift, called ‘concept creep,’ is backed up by various thought-through case works and thoroughly made historical analyses. Haslam masterfully illustrates through such deep analyses the shift and oscillations of people’s opinions about harm or pathology within psychological discourse. Consequently, the findings of such a comprehensive investigation lend credence to the viewpoint that the definitions of injury and pathology were far more limited in the past but that they have significantly expanded over time to encompass a wide variety of human emotions and experiences.
Haslam’s arguments articulating the concept creep phenomenon are formed comprehensively by linking historical analysis, detailed case studies, and empirical research findings. Haslam’s integration of the different methodological approaches in such a manner not only fortifies the creep thesis idea but also shows how compelling and invincible this phenomenon can be (Haslam, 2016). So, there is also a historical perspective with illustrative cases and empirical evidence showing how concept creep is still one of the strengths. By this method, Haslam can depict the expansive scope of concept creep, which is not limited to the realm of academia. Not only does it discuss its consequences on the standards that exist in society and the evaluation of mental health, but it also discusses the fact that policies are developed using this, which is a multidimensional concept.
The development of psychological ideas studied by Haslam goes beyond academics in psychology. His reflections prove that the idea of creep is beyond measure and outstanding in an academic debate. Haslam has spelled out clearly how this phenomenon affects societal norms, public policies, and interventions pertinent to mental health. Harm or pathology becomes a bigger and bigger occurrence; while it is not an abstraction, this has important implications when considering flattens and assessment concerns Haslam. It not only changes public opinions and ways of society’s reactions under different behavior conditions. This is the aspect of concept creep popularity because it is a practice in many sectors of society, not only individual thought and behavior but also social ones. Haslam’s work is one of the landmarks on the topic of how broad and deep concept creep in psychology can be. Revealing the path of psychological ideas about injury and pathologically throws light on how these concepts developed over centuries.
Issues Raised in the Commentary Article (Haidt, 2016):
Haidt’s commentary presents two severe challenges to Haslam for his study of concept creep. The first conflict concerns ideology, or, in better terms, the creation of a leftward inclination, which is becoming more and more powerful within the spread of psychological notions (Haidt, 2016). Through this emphasis, Haidt inadvertently questions Haslam’s stance that concept creep is mainly a natural development of understanding human experiences. This ideological approach may argue the opposite effect, that other external considerations such as political and social beliefs can have a sizeable influence in determining how psychological constructs broaden out, questioning the organic nature implied by Haslam.
Furthermore, Haidt’s writing about the relationship between compassion and accuracy in defining harm and pathology modifies Haslam, focusing on the organic evolutionary nature of concepts. Haslam emphasizes that concepts naturally expand to encompass a broader spectrum of human experiences. At the same time, Haidt’s argument stresses how inclusivity and precision are tradeoffs. We also need to be careful as the increasing sizes of such enlargements can pave the way for us to obfuscate the definition and scientific validity of those going wide and, while pausing, question Haslam’s suggestion of a theory that promotes an organic evolution by emphasizing why that would be.
Suggestions for Future Research/Analysis:
Due to the contrast between Haslam and Haidt’ From an empirical point of view, it is essential to be meticulous in understanding how ideological influences impact concept creep. It includes various multidimensional methodologies from academic references and psychological models throughout different periods. Linking this with questionnaires or surveys among scholars and practitioners would also shed light on possible ideological biases, highlighting how they impact changes and the development of psychological constructs. Quantitative methods of identifying correlations between notions of changes and the current socio-political landscape have a promising future in showing how insidious ideology may come out as concept creep. This method also offers empirical validation, but it also illustrates how ideological currents determine the directions that psychological frameworks follow.
Qualitative research by professionals with different ideological stances may also depict the sophisticated harmony between compassion and precision when describing psychological notions. With the help of qualitative data analysis methods such as thematic analysis, it is possible to articulate the implications of such patterns and differences in perceptions that illuminate the conceptualization of harm.
It means that interdisciplinary cooperation is precious, as it allows us to gain even more in-depth insight into the nuances of psychology related to concept creep. As a result, interdisciplinary cooperation with sociology, anthropology, and philosophy specialists may lead to several areas of the socio-cultural basis that shape the growth rate for psychological ideas. By applying several disciplinary viewpoints, researchers will reveal complicated relationships between societal norms, cultural alterations, and psychological structure formation, providing a broader perspective and frameworks that would compensate for the tensions produced by ideological forces and toward scientific accuracy. Prestige for subjective richness can be supported by various methodological approaches, such as quantitative analyses to showcase changes over time and qualitative inquiries that reveal the nuances of subjects’ experiences. The interdisciplinary dialogues are the ones that can provide the road map for melding together disparate views so more multiplex and accepting comprehension of how concept creep works inside psychology.
Conclusion
The main article by Haslam and Haidt’s commentary presents divergent views and essential aspects in a general view of psychological concept creep. Haslam talks about the evolution of psychological concepts as they live and develop over time in explaining human experiences. Instead, Haidt constructs subtle cases and discusses the influence of ideology and the balance between compassion and focus on such concepts. It is vital to comprehend the sinister concept of creep in psychology as it may influence how one defines harm and pathology, which are fundamental to successful psychological interventions. To ensure this report will be comprehensive and scientifically sound, it is necessary to point out ideological influences on these ideas while keeping correct definitions of healing principles for the patients. With these opposing views highlighted, it becomes evident that more interdisciplinary studies link the ideological influences to accuracy and set bounds for concept growth in psychological frameworks.
References
Haidt, J. (2016). Why concepts creep to the left. Psychological Inquiry, 27(1), 40-45.
Haslam, N. (2016). Concept creep: Psychology’s expanding concepts of harm and pathology. Psychological Inquiry, 27(1), 1-17.
write