Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T21:42:42.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Without more theory, psychology will be a headless rider

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2022

Witold M. Hensel Open the ORCID record for Witold M. Hensel [Opens in a new window] ,
Marcin Miłkowski Open the ORCID record for Marcin Miłkowski [Opens in a new window]  and
Przemysław Nowakowski Open the ORCID record for Przemysław Nowakowski [Opens in a new window]
Witold M. Hensel
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy, University of Bialystok, pl. NZS 1, 15-420Białystok, Polandwhensel@poczta.onet.pl
Marcin Miłkowski
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Nowy Świat 72, 00-330Warszawa, Poland. mmilkows@ifispan.edu.pl pnowakowski@ifispan.edu.pl; http://marcinmilkowski.pl/
Przemysław Nowakowski
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Nowy Świat 72, 00-330Warszawa, Poland. mmilkows@ifispan.edu.pl pnowakowski@ifispan.edu.pl; http://marcinmilkowski.pl/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that Yarkoni's proposed solutions to the generalizability crisis are half-measures because he does not recognize that the crisis arises from investigators' underappreciation of the roles of theory in experimental research. Rather than embracing qualitative analysis, the research community should make an effort to develop better theories and work toward consistently incorporating theoretical results into experimental practice.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e20
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. 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

Alogna, V. K., Attaya, M. K., Aucoin, P., Bahník, Š., Birch, S., Birt, A. R., … Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Registered replication report: Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 556–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614545653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. (2020). Middle-range theory: Without it what could anyone do?. THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 35(3), 269–323.https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.21479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensel, W. M. (2020). Double trouble? The communication dimension of the reproducibility crisis in experimental psychology and neuroscience. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 10, 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00317-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, E. (2021). The role of replication studies in theory building. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 844–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kukla, A. (1989). Nonempirical issues in psychology. American Psychologist, 44(5), 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.5.785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, D. G. (1988). Under what conditions can theoretical psychology survive and prosper? Integrating the rational and empirical epistemologies. Psychological Review, 95(4), 559–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miłkowski, M., Hensel, W. M., & Hohol, M. (2018). Replicability or reproducibility? On the replication crisis in computational neuroscience and sharing only relevant detail. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 45(3), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10827-018-0702-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. In Everitt, B. S., & Howell, D. C. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (Vol. 3, pp. 1633–1636). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013192.bsa514.Google Scholar
Shadish, W. R. (1993). Critical multiplism: A research strategy and its attendant tactics. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 60, 13–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for generalized causal inference. Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Weidman, A. C., Steckler, C. M., & Tracy, J. L. (2017). The jingle and jangle of emotion assessment: Imprecise measurement, casual scale usage, and conceptual fuzziness in emotion research. Emotion, 17(2), 267–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed