Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T07:37:25.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some problems with zooming out as scientific reform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

Jessica Hullman Open the ORCID record for Jessica Hullman [Opens in a new window]
Jessica Hullman*
Affiliation:
Computer Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA jhullman@northwestern.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Integrative experimentation will improve on the status quo in empirical behavioral science. However, the results integrative experiments produce will remain conditional on the various assumptions used to produce them. Without a theory of interpretability, it remains unclear how viable it is to address the crud factor without sacrificing explainability.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e49
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

Bryan, C. J., Tipton, E., & Yeager, D. S. (2021). Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 980–989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devezer, B., Navarro, D. J., Vandekerckhove, J., & Ozge Buzbas, E. (2021). The case for formal methodology in scientific reform. Royal Society Open Science, 8(3), 200805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K. (2017). What constitutes strong psychological science? The (neglected) role of diagnosticity and a priori theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66(1), 195–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 221–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1596–1618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steegen, S., Tuerlinckx, F., Gelman, A., & Vanpaemel, W. (2016). Increasing transparency through a multiverse analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 702–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yarkoni, T., & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100–1122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed