Which critique highlights psychology's methodological limitations due to not embracing methods from other disciplines?

• A. Not enough model building (each experiment basically says 'yes' or 'no')
• B. Dustbowl empiricism (not enough theory...no theoretical psychologists)
• C. Methodologically limited (cognitive science is possible because psychology wont innovate to embrace the methods of the other fields)
• D. They underestimate the complexity of language

Answer: (C)

The main idea tested here is that psychology is criticized for being methodologically narrow because it doesn’t borrow and adapt methods from other disciplines, which limits its ability to study complex mental processes. This critique argues that cognitive science shows what can be achieved when psychology integrates approaches from fields like computer science, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, and anthropology, rather than sticking to psychology’s traditional methods. In this view, psychology remains methodologically limited because it resists adopting those cross-disciplinary techniques and tools.

The other options don’t capture this interdisciplinary methodological critique. One focuses on experiments yielding only yes/no results and a lack of model building, which is about experimental design rather than borrowing methods from other domains. Another centers on theory deficiency and a lack of theoretical psychologists, which is about theory development rather than methodological cross-pollination. The last option targets underestimating language complexity, which is a content issue, not a critique of methodological borrowing.