One of the most salient measures that a psychologist can take is to base all of his work, and particularly his or her conclusions or findings, in the methodology befitting of true psychological and scientific processes. This means utilizing empirical evidence and evidence-based practices to substantiate findings before publicizing any sorts of claims surrounding their implications. This sort of testing (which author Scott Lillenfeld wrote the public believes is missing from psychology) (No author, 2012) is the key distinguishing factor between any science and a pseudoscience, and psychologists should actively pursue this type of testing before anything regarding to a particular study or treatment is revealed to the public. The worst thing a contemporary or even future psychologist can do to aid the derisive viewpoint of psychology that is largely conceived of by the public is to forsake scientific methodology and publish treatments or findings before...

Many actual psychologists and pseudo-psychologists are guilty of this sort of behavior, which is responsible for the low valuation of this discipline as a science. There is a degree of subtlety to this type of behavior, which can actually include giving public commentary about phenomena or findings that the speaker has not confirmed by such research. To that end, psychologists can actually help this problematic view of psychology by issuing approbation or disapprobation about topics of which they are not certain.