No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Phenomena complexity, disciplinary consensus, and experimental versus correlational research in psychological science
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2024
Abstract
The target article ignores the crucial role of correlational methods in the behavioral and social sciences. Yet such methods are often mandated by the greater complexity of the phenomena investigated. This necessity is especially conspicuous in psychological research where its position in the hierarchy of the sciences implies the need for both experimental and correlational investigations, each featuring distinct assets.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Benjafield, J. G. (2020). Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences. Scientometrics, 125, 1965–1982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03671-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, S. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 89, 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1086/227835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comte, A. (1839–1842/1855). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte (H. Martineau, Trans.). New York: Blanchard. (Original work published 1839–1842).Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE 5(4), e10068. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanelli, D., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66938. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066938CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Cooley, E. H., & Butner, J. E. (2021). The impact of complexity on methods and findings in psychological science. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 580111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Johnston, W. A. (2019). Redefining science: The impact of complexity on theory development in social and behavioral research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 672–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619848688CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Psychology's status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology, 8, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2015). Psychology as a science within Comte's hypothesized hierarchy: Empirical investigations and conceptual implications. Review of General Psychology, 19, 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, D. A., Johnston, J., & Archibald, A. B. (2000). Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences. Social Studies of Science, 30, 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631200030001003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soto, C. J. (2019). How replicable are links between personality traits and consequential life outcomes? The Life Outcomes of Personality Replication Project. Psychological Science, 30, 711–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619831612CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Sherman, J. W. (2009). The practice of psychological science: Searching for Cronbach's two streams in social-personality psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1206–1225. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Youyou, W., Yang, Y., & Uzzi, B. (2023). A discipline-wide investigation of the replicability of psychology papers over the past two decades. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120(6), e2208863120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2208863120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Target article
Beyond playing 20 questions with nature: Integrative experiment design in the social and behavioral sciences
Related commentaries (31)
Against naïve induction from experimental data
Are language–cognition interactions bigger than a breadbox? Integrative modeling and design space thinking temper simplistic questions about causally dense phenomena
Assume a can opener
Beyond integrative experiment design: Systematic experimentation guided by causal discovery AI
Commensurability engineering is first and foremost a theoretical exercise
Confidence in research findings depends on theory
Consensus meetings will outperform integrative experiments
Dimensional versus conceptual incommensurability in the social and behavioral sciences
Discovering the unknown unknowns of research cartography with high-throughput natural description
Diversity of contributions is not efficient but is essential for science
Don't let perfect be the enemy of better: In defense of unparameterized megastudies
Eliminativist induction cannot be a solution to psychology's crisis
Experiment commensurability does not necessitate research consolidation
Explore your experimental designs and theories before you exploit them!
Getting lost in an infinite design space is no solution
Individual differences do matter
Integrative design for thought-experiments
Integrative experiments require a shared theoretical and methodological basis
Is generalization decay a fundamental law of psychology?
Measurement validity and the integrative approach
Neuroadaptive Bayesian optimisation can allow integrative design spaces at the individual level in the social and behavioural sciences… and beyond
Phenomena complexity, disciplinary consensus, and experimental versus correlational research in psychological science
Representative design: A realistic alternative to (systematic) integrative design
Sampling complex social and behavioral phenomena
Some problems with zooming out as scientific reform
Test many theories in many ways
The elephant's other legs: What some sciences actually do
The future of experimental design: Integrative, but is the sample diverse enough?
The miss of the framework
The social sciences needs more than integrative experimental designs: We need better theories
There are no shortcuts to theory
Author response
Replies to commentaries on beyond playing 20 questions with nature