Productive explanation: A framework for evaluating explanations in psychological science.

IF 5.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological review Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1037/rev0000479
Noah van Dongen, Riet van Bork, Adam Finnemann, Jonas M B Haslbeck, Han L J van der Maas, Donald J Robinaugh, Jill de Ron, Jan Sprenger, Denny Borsboom
{"title":"Productive explanation: A framework for evaluating explanations in psychological science.","authors":"Noah van Dongen, Riet van Bork, Adam Finnemann, Jonas M B Haslbeck, Han L J van der Maas, Donald J Robinaugh, Jill de Ron, Jan Sprenger, Denny Borsboom","doi":"10.1037/rev0000479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The explanation of psychological phenomena is a central aim of psychological science. However, the nature of explanation and the processes by which we evaluate whether a theory explains a phenomenon are often unclear. Consequently, it is often unknown whether a given psychological theory indeed explains a phenomenon. We address this shortcoming by proposing a productive account of explanation: a theory explains a phenomenon to some degree if and only if a formal model of the theory produces the statistical pattern representing the phenomenon. Using this account, we outline a workable methodology of explanation: (a) explicating a verbal theory into a formal model, (b) representing phenomena as statistical patterns in data, and (c) assessing whether the formal model produces these statistical patterns. In addition, we provide three major criteria for evaluating the goodness of an explanation (precision, robustness, and empirical relevance), and examine some cases of explanatory breakdowns. Finally, we situate our framework within existing theories of explanation from philosophy of science and discuss how our approach contributes to constructing and developing better psychological theories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000479","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The explanation of psychological phenomena is a central aim of psychological science. However, the nature of explanation and the processes by which we evaluate whether a theory explains a phenomenon are often unclear. Consequently, it is often unknown whether a given psychological theory indeed explains a phenomenon. We address this shortcoming by proposing a productive account of explanation: a theory explains a phenomenon to some degree if and only if a formal model of the theory produces the statistical pattern representing the phenomenon. Using this account, we outline a workable methodology of explanation: (a) explicating a verbal theory into a formal model, (b) representing phenomena as statistical patterns in data, and (c) assessing whether the formal model produces these statistical patterns. In addition, we provide three major criteria for evaluating the goodness of an explanation (precision, robustness, and empirical relevance), and examine some cases of explanatory breakdowns. Finally, we situate our framework within existing theories of explanation from philosophy of science and discuss how our approach contributes to constructing and developing better psychological theories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
富有成效的解释:评估心理科学解释的框架。
解释心理现象是心理科学的核心目标。然而,解释的本质以及我们评估某一理论是否解释了某一现象的过程往往并不明确。因此,我们往往不知道某一心理学理论是否真的解释了某一现象。针对这一缺陷,我们提出了一种富有成效的解释方法:当且仅当一种理论的形式模型产生了代表现象的统计模式时,该理论才能在一定程度上解释现象。利用这一观点,我们概述了一种可行的解释方法:(a) 将口头理论解释为正式模型,(b) 将现象表示为数据中的统计模式,(c) 评估正式模型是否产生了这些统计模式。此外,我们还提供了评价解释好坏的三个主要标准(精确性、稳健性和经验相关性),并研究了一些解释失效的案例。最后,我们将我们的框架置于现有的科学哲学解释理论之中,并讨论我们的方法如何有助于构建和发展更好的心理学理论。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
相关文献
Montelukast-Based Premedication Regimen for Recurrent Cetuximab Infusion-Related Reactions.
IF 4 3区 医学JCO oncology practicePub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI: 10.1200/OP.20.00103
Amy M Sion, Lyndsey Milburn, John M Kaczmar
Optimizing chair time in infusion centers using intravenous cetirizine premedication for the prevention of hypersensitivity infusion reactions.
IF 45.3 1区 医学Journal of Clinical OncologyPub Date : 2021-05-20 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_SUPPL.E13508
J. Peguero, A. Ayad, Stacia Young-Wesenberg, Teresa Yang, Janine D North, N. Joseph‐Ridge
Albuterol-based premedication therapy for the prevention of cetuximab infusion-related reactions
IF 45.3 1区 医学Journal of Clinical OncologyPub Date : 2008-05-20 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2008.26.15_suppl.17040
F. Tra, M. Fesen, M. Pianalto, R. Nisly
来源期刊
Psychological review
Psychological review 医学-心理学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychological Review publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to any area of scientific psychology, including systematic evaluation of alternative theories.
期刊最新文献
Beliefs about perception shape perceptual inference: An ideal observer model of detection. Nurture and nonshared environment in cognitive development. Cognitive and neural mechanisms of linguistic influence on perception. Differences in learning across the lifespan emerge via resource-rational computations. True and false recognition in MINERVA2: Integrating fuzzy-trace theory and computational memory modeling.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1