Critical thinking about Psychological Theory - Lecture 23 Flashcards
General outline of the chapter
There are three articles, each one talking about a different topic. I’ll go through each article in order, hopefully the structure will make sense.
- Article 1 (Dennis and Kintsch): Criteria for a good and useful-in-the-real-world theory
- Article 2 (Dienes): Falsifiability of theories (and some stuff on models)
- Article 3 (Marewski and Olsson): Theories, NHST, and models (builds upon stuff in Article 2)
What is the general outline of the different types of hypothesis and their level of reasoning? (Couldn’t phrase the question better, just look at the picture and you’ll understand, I hope… It’s just a general outline of the level of reasoning this chapter is about)
See image 4
General knowledge about theories
What is a Theory?
A statement about how we believe the world to be
–> We organize observations of the world so we can make predictions about what will happen in the future under certain conditions
- Science: purpose is to test theories
- Data: Should bear on a theory
General knowledge about theories
What is a formal and informal theory?
- A formal theory is a set of rules and assumptions that are based very purely on scientific methods and proof of correctness. In other words, they’re theories expressed by mathematical equations (e.g. Theory of relativity, E = mc^2)
- An informal theory is a verbal theory: The statement is expressed in words, language (e.g. Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, most if not all psychological theories)
General knowledge about theories
What is a wrong idea many people have about formal theories?
“Formal theories are only attainable in hard sciences (e.g. Physics, Math) and not in soft sciences (e.g. Psychology)”
(Will explain later why it is wrong)
General knowledge about theories
What is the curret state on psychological theories?
They’re dominated by verbal theories. BUT, computational/mathematical models are becoming more and more popular.
These models enforce precision and consistency in our reasoning which can not be obtained with any other method
Criteria for a good and useful-in-the-real-world theory (Dennis and Kintsch)
What are the 10 criteria for a good and useful theory?
- Descriptive adequacy. Does the theory agree/match with the available data?
- Precision and interpretability: Is the theory described in a precise and clear way?
- Coherence and Consistency: Are there logical flaws in the theory? Does each component of the theory seem to fit with the others into a coherent whole? Is it consistent with theory in other domains (e.g. physics)?
- Prediction and Falsifiability: Is the theory formulated in such a way were tests can falsify it?
- Postdiction and Explanation: Does the theory provide a genuine explanation of existing results?
- Parsimony: Is the theory as simple as possible?
- Originality: Is the theory new or is it essentially a restatement of an existing theory?
- Breadth: Does the theory apply to a broad range of phenomena or is it restricted to a
limited domain? - Usability: Does the theory have applied implications?
- Rationality: Does the theory make claims about the architecture of mind that seem reasonable in light of the environmental contingencies that have shaped our evolutionary history?
Descriptive adequacy
(What is a common debate about data in science)? (No need to remember exactly, not that important)
What’s the right type of data to use for each RQ or domain. This differs across domains
Descriptive adequacy
What’s the most common method we use to compare theories against data to see if they match?
NHST
Ho: no difference
Ha: there’s a difference (in line with our theory)
Testing shows if data are in line with Ha or not
Descriptive adequacy
What are some problems with NHST?
- Maybe the theories have not taken into account the confounding variables, so the data doesn’t really fit the theory if you control for them
- When using NHST you can never truly conclude that there’s no difference between conditions. You can attribute your findings to a lack of pwoer, small sample size, etc. This leads to uncertainty in interpreting results
Descriptive Adequacy
What are the advantages of using formal models of psychological phenomena?
Used to derive how well the theory fits the data (doesn’t rely on NHST). This means that:
- We can say exactly how closely the formal theory approximates the data (DEGREE TO WHICH THE THEORY APPROXIMATES THE DATA, NOT AN ALL-OR-NONE DECISION AS IN NHST)
- Gives info about the nature of the relationship between variables (linear, quadratic etc.. NHST instead would just say the something has an effect on something else, that’s it. Formal theory gives more info about this difference)
(See image 5 for an example of the above)
Precision and Interpretability
What is a common criticism of theories?
They’re described in an inprecise and vague way
- Definition of constructs are rare
- Mechanisms behind the interaction of variables on each other is also rarer
!!! Usually most criticism against theories is because the reader has misunderstood something. If that something is made clear, then there’s no more criticism from the reader !!!
Precision and Interpretability
What questions should we ask ourselves when cosntructing a theory
- (Can I be confident to apply this theory in a related domain?) (Not that important, the next point is the most important one)
- What implicit assumptions am I making, which aren’t shared by the readers
Coherence and Consistency
What is the circularity problem?
If we state that some underlying mechanisms are the cause for performance, but the only way to define the mechanisms is through the performance then our claim loses credibility.
(Examples of circular reasoning are in flashcard 61 as well)
Coherence and Consistency
How do you make sure that your theory is coherent and consistent?
Ask how consistent a theory is with other theories within and outside psychology, and pick the ones that align better with your research
Prediction and Flasifiability
See next side
- Mathematical models are good ways to formally prove any prediction
- Verifying a theory can also help increase our confidence in it (instead of falsification just being the only way to help advance scientific knowledge)
!!! Suprising results are better than unsurprising ones (better evidence for a theory)
Postdiction and explanation
What is the general goal of science?
TO UNDERSTAND, NOT TO PREDICT
Prediction is often, if not always very difficult and unobtainable
- One must understand everything about something
- One must also control all relevant variables (impossible)
Postdiction and explanation
What is postdiction?
Explanation after the fact (prediction: explanation before the fact)
- To postdict we just need understanding of what’s going on, but not control over all relevant variables
- NOTE: Postdiction can be based on formal theoreis as much as predictions
Parsimony
What is the relationship between descriptive adequacy and parsimony?
We want to fulfill both at the same time as much as possible
Parsimony
Example of parismony and descriptive adequacy balance
e.g. we have a cubic model (x^3) vs a linear model
- Look similar to linear and power functions in restricted ranges
- Models the noise better
Data fits the model better. Despite this, when generalizing to new data the model doesn’t do so well.
THEREFORE, IT’S A MATTER OF BALANCE (In this case resort to a x^2 function
Parsimony
What are some tehcniques to achieve a balance of parsimony and descriptive adequacy?
AIC, BIC, ICOMP and more…
(No need to remember the methods, just a note that these methods are also used in multiple regression. This flashcard is more to show the link between the chapters)
Originality
What is true about the originality of many theories?
Theories may look very different, and be different in broader implications, but with respect to a particular set of data two theories might be identical, and predict the data equally well
Breadth
How broad should theories be in general?
As broad as possible, while maintaining descriptive adequacy and the ability for postdiction
Breadth
What is true though about theories in psychology?
We want the opposite from broad theories.
“We want to divide theories into smaller and smaller classes to know more and more about less and less”
Breadth
What are some reasons as to why psychology doesn’t have broad theories?
It’s difficult. This can be due to:
- Complexity of psychological phenomena
- Immaturity of psychology as a science
!!! There’s a big debate on whether psychological theories should continue being small or if we should create bigger, broader, unifying theories
Usability
What are good theories judged on?
If they’re useful in social implications
The best theory contributes to both scientific understanding and fulfills a societal need
(See image 6 for some mroe info)
Rationality
(Explanation of the criterion, because in the beginning it was complex)
The environment has shaped our minds and way of thinking, therefore when we apply a model to a theory it has to match the environment and our way of thinking. E.g. we apply a model to memory and number of items, and our model states that memory decreases as number of items decreases in a power function. Why the power function?
Because power functions are foudn everywhere in nature.
IN OTHER WORDS, OUR WAY OF MODELLING THE MIND HAVE TO BE IN LINE WITH HOW NATURE WORKS.
Falsifiability of theories (and some stuff on models) (Dienes)
What is a Faslifier?
Any potential observation/statement that would contradict a theory (e.g. theory states all Swans are white, a falsifier is seeing a black swan)
- If there are more potential falsifiers for a theory, the theory is considered more falsifiable