Troubles with Theoretical Virtues: Resisting Theoretical Utility Arguments in Metaphysics

In this paper we examine theoretical utility arguments in metaphysics. While philosophers claim a procedural continuity with science when using such arguments, we argue that examining famous instances from the history of science expose their fundamental flaws. We find that arguments from theoretical utility invoke considerations that are not truth conducive and that justifications for claims that a theory possesses theoretical virtues often assume the truth of the theory such virtues are supposed to support. We conclude that theoretical utility arguments provide no epistemic grounds for metaphysical inquiry.     

Commentaries on “Beyond statistical significance: Five principles for the new era of data analysis and reporting”

Three commentaries below provide different perspectives on data analysis and reporting. They generally focus on how the quality of the measures and manipulations determines the value of the analysis. Norbert Schwarz and Fritz Strack's comment is less on the right statistic and more on “sloppy reasoning, gaps between theoretical concepts and their operationalizations, and blissful ignorance of the situated nature of human thinking, feeling, and doing contribute more to the limited reproducibility of empirical findings than the choice of a particular test statistic.” They propose that particular effects are contextual and inappropriately labeled as true or false. Instead, our job is to focus on general constructs that make sense of the diversity of human experience and psychological reactions. Too often studies replicating psychological effects in the noisy and confounded conditions of the marketplace result in statistical uncertainty of garbage in, garbage out. Researchers instead need to look toward tests of specific interactions, which can clarify the influencing factors based on theoretical considerations. The second comment is by Andrew Gelman, an outstanding psychological statistician. He proposes that “once the data have been collected, the most important decisions have already been done.” He then provides four recommendations that enable the statistics to work appropriately. The first requirement of an effective study is to be sure that the measures address the construct of interest. Similar to the position of Schwarz and Strack, it is important to articulate the relevance of a statistically significant finding. The second recommendation seeks to curb large number of studies with inflated effect sizes built from narrow studies and unwarranted optimism. The third recommendation is to simulate data from a model and consider the distribution of possible results. That is often done to test a new analysis method, but it can be even more important in marketplace studies where novel characteristics of the sample and experimental conditions are included in the analysis. Finally, he recommends that one consider likely analyses needed before getting the data. Such foresight would encourage, for example, thinking about the kind of data needed to defend the equality of the control demographics against the treatment. The final commentary is by Stijn van Osselaer. He agrees that p-values reflect the detailed methods from a given study but do not focus on the problem of generalizability. Like Gelman, he sees designs focused on effect sizes may have generated too many studies that do not replicate. He contrasts broad explorations with narrowly defined existence tests that provide evidence that an effect exists somewhere but are mute on other contexts where they may apply. For theoretical problems relevant to applications, it is important to identify moderators through broad sampling across population characteristics, stimuli, and situations. He proposes that consumer psychologists should not try to do everything in one paper, but to build practically relevant, applicable knowledge across multiple articles. Different articles, authors, and research methods play various roles, with each article focusing on important stages in the process from generating hypotheses, providing existence proofs, and exploring their broad applicability. That pragmatic approach can integrate theoretical silos that seek to resolve complex human problems and has promise as a criterion for relevant publications.     

Organisational interventions to improve employees' health and wellbeing: A realist synthesis

Although organisational interventions have shown promising results in improving employees' health and wellbeing, reviews of the effectiveness of such interventions conclude results are inconsistent. Realist synthesis is considered an appropriate method of literature review to improve the consistency of empirical evidence by developing generalisable statements of ‘what works for whom in which circumstances’. In this article, to identify and synthesise existing evidence from the empirical studies of organisational interventions, we conducted a realist synthesis according to the RAMESES publication standards. We reviewed 28 articles. Six realist programme theories were developed that explain how different mechanisms of organisational interventions may bring about different outcomes in different contexts. These realist programme theories are based on the process mechanisms of implementation adherence, communication, employees' participation, senior management support, middle management support and external consultants/researchers support. This realist synthesis enhances the understanding of how organisational interventions may improve employees' health and wellbeing, in which contexts, and for which group of employees. As such, it makes an important potential contribution to designing, implementing and evaluating future organisational interventions.     

The Martin Buber-Carl Jung disputations: protecting the sacred in the battle for the boundaries of analytical psychology

The Martin Buber-C.G.Jung disputations rather than the Freud-Jung split or Samuels's post-Jungian categories is considered the more significant paradigm for understanding the conflicts erupting within the Jungian community surrounding clinical practice and candidate training. Looking through the lens of the Freud-Jung split keeps the conflicts focused on the theoretical and technical differences concerning such concepts as object-relations, transference-countertransference, neutrality, clinical boundaries. The Buber-Jung disputations move the discussion into a different and more foundational arena, namely the vertical and horizontal psychological considerations of the experience of the Sacred and how that dimension is supported or thwarted in clinical practice and candidate training by the respective allegiances of the 'warriors' in the 'Holy Wars'. Experiencing the texture of the Buber-Jung disputations as well as grappling with their content suggests that a more dialogical approach to actual clinical material may be a more fruitful way to understand the work of analysis and the business of candidate training.     

后现代心理学思想的基本观点

在后现代文化思潮的冲击下,一些从事后现代心理学思想研究的心理学工作者。扬弃了科学主义心理学家的原则方场和研究范式,超越了其理论误区和视界局限。由于他们的方法论基础大相径庭．所以在心理学的专业知识、研究对象、探究方法、临床应用、科学定位等诸多方面,二者存在着明显的分歧。     

Grounded Theory in Genetic Counseling Research

The practice of genetic counseling is in need of evidence-based theoretical frameworks. Although strategies used in genetic counseling are increasingly evidence-based, the field of genetic counseling does not have a generally accepted theoretical basis for development of therapeutic interventions. We know very little about (1) what actually happens in genetic counseling and (2) the impact it has on clients and their families. A number of researchers have used a variety of approaches in an attempt to introduce some theoretical basis for genetic counseling research and practice. Other workers have used experience in their clinical practice to write theoretically about the kinds of processes that might be going on in and around genetic counseling. However, there are few studies to date, which have attempted to build theory modeling the psychosocial processes that take place in and around the genetic counseling clinic using empirical data. This paper describes a methodology (grounded theory) that is designed specifically to build theory about psychosocial processes from a strong evidence base, and explains how it can contribute to the development of practice in genetic counseling.     

Contributors to this issue

James Astor
Christian Gaillard
Verena Kast
Thomas B. Kirsch
Greg Mogenson
Hester McFarland Solomon
Barbara D. Stephens
Anita von Raffay
Jan Wiener     

应激对记忆影响的脑科学研究及其教育启示

大量脑科学的研究揭示,应激对与海马相关的陈述性记忆的调节主要通过应激激素,尤其是糖皮质激素的分泌而发生作用,而影响的方向取决于一些调节变量,包括糖皮质激素升高的水平以及记忆的不同阶段等。研究发现基底外侧杏仁核是糖皮质激素对记忆不同阶段产生差异性影响的关键部位。因此,在教育过程中,既要科学地认识应激对记忆的消极影响,又要有效利用应激对记忆产生的调节作用,来提高学生的学习效率。     

承诺续扩现象及其心理机制

承诺续扩是指决策者在面对失败的结果时,仍然决定向先前的行动持续投入资源的现象。目前,自我申辩理论、前景理论和决策困境理论是承诺续扩解释机制中较有影响的三种理论。以往的相关实证研究所发现的影响承诺续扩的因素可以归为计划因素、心理因素、个体差异因素以及情境因素等四类。今后的研究有必要关注各解释机制的整合、相关变量之间关系体系的构建和因果路径的确定以及承诺续扩对决策者心理与行为可能造成的影响等问题