Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T09:40:27.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Against naïve induction from experimental data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

David Kellen Open the ORCID record for David Kellen [Opens in a new window] ,
Gregory E. Cox ,
Chris Donkin ,
John C. Dunn  and
Richard M. Shiffrin
David Kellen*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA davekellen@gmail.com
Gregory E. Cox
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA gecox@albany.edu
Chris Donkin
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, München, Germany christopher.donkin@gmail.com
John C. Dunn
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia john.dunn@uwa.edu.au
Richard M. Shiffrin
Affiliation:
Psychological and Brain Sciences Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA shiffrin@indiana.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This commentary argues against the indictment of current experimental practices such as piecemeal testing, and the proposed integrated experiment design (IED) approach, which we see as yet another attempt at automating scientific thinking. We identify a number of undesirable features of IED that lead us to believe that its broad application will hinder scientific progress.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e51
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Birnbaum, M. H. (2008). New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review, 115, 463–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G. E., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2017). A dynamic approach to recognition memory. Psychological Review, 124, 795–860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, J. C., & Rao, L. L. (2019). Models of risky choice: A state-trace and signed difference analysis. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 90, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, P. L. (1987). How experiments end. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garcia-Marques, L., & Ferreira, M. B. (2011). Friends and foes of theory construction in psychological science: Vague dichotomies, unified theories of cognition, and the new experimentalism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 192–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotaling, J. M., Donkin, C., Jarvstad, A., & Newell, B. R. (2022). MEM-EX: An exemplar memory model of decisions from experience. Cognitive Psychology, 138, 101517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphreys, M. S., Bain, J. D., & Pike, R. (1989). Different ways to cue a coherent memory system: A theory for episodic, semantic, and procedural tasks. Psychological Review, 96, 208–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jantzen, B. C. (2021). Scientific variables. Philosophies, 6, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellen, D. (2019). A model hierarchy for psychological science. Computational Brain & Behavior, 2, 160–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellen, D., Steiner, M. D., Davis-Stober, C. P., & Pappas, N. R. (2020). Modeling choice paradoxes under risk: From prospect theories to sampling-based accounts. Cognitive Psychology, 118, 101258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Brown, G. D. (2009). No temporal decay in verbal short-term memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 120–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxwell, J. C. (1860/1965). General considerations concerning scientific apparatus. In Niven, W. D. (Ed.), The scientific papers of James Clerk Maxwell (Vol. 2, pp. 505–522). Dover.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1990). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 108–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Awh, E., Brown, G. D., Conway, A., Cowan, N., … Ward, G. (2018). Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 885–958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, J. C., Bourgin, D. D., Agrawal, M., Reichman, D., & Griffiths, T. L. (2021). Using large-scale experiments and machine learning to discover theories of human decision-making. Science (New York, N.Y.), 372, 1209–1214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proulx, T., & Morey, R. D. (2021). Beyond statistical ritual: Theory in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 671–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roediger, H. L. (2008). Relativity of remembering: Why the laws of memory vanished. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 225–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roediger, H. L. III, & Blaxton, T. A. (1987). Retrieval modes produce dissociations in memory for surface information. In Gorfein, D. S. & Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.), Memory and learning: The Ebbinghaus Centennial conference (pp. 349–379). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Seamon, J. G., Williams, P. C., Crowley, M. J., Kim, I. J., Langer, S. A., Orne, P. J., & Wishengrad, D. L. (1995). The mere exposure effect is based on implicit memory: Effects of stimulus type, encoding conditions, and number of exposures on recognition and affect judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 711–721.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., Börner, K., & Stigler, S. M. (2018). Scientific progress despite irreproducibility: A seeming paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, 2632–2639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shiffrin, R. M., & Nobel, P. A. (1997). The art of model development and testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29, 6–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singmann, H., Kellen, D., Cox, G. E., Chandramouli, S. H., Davis-Stober, C. P., Dunn, J. C., … Shiffrin, R. M. (2023). Statistics in the service of science: Don't let the tail wag the dog. Computational Brain & Behavior, 6, 64–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trendler, G. (2009). Measurement theory, psychology and the revolution that cannot happen. Theory & Psychology, 19, 579–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, B. M. (2019). Toward a common representational framework for adaptation. Psychological Review, 126, 660–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergauwe, E., & Cowan, N. (2015). Working memory units are all in your head: Factors that influence whether features or objects are the favored units. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1404–1416.Google ScholarPubMed