Explanations Of Psychological Phenomena Research Articles

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

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).

Why pretense poses a problem for 4E cognition (and how to move forward)

Whether a person is pretending, or not, is a function of their beliefs and intentions. This poses a challenge to 4E accounts of pretense, which typically seek to exclude such cognitive states from their explanations of psychological phenomena. Resulting tensions are explored within three recent accounts of imagination and pretense offered by theorists working in the 4E tradition. A path forward is then charted, through considering ways in which explanations can invoke beliefs and intentions while remaining true to 4E precepts. To make real progress in explaining pretense, 4E theorists will need to grow comfortable with the idea that two agents whose outward behaviors and environments are, in the short term, the same, may be guided by quite different beliefs and intentions, in virtue of which only one is pretending. In this way, the scientific project of explaining pretense remains inseparable from the more general project of determining which beliefs and intentions are appropriate to ascribe to which kinds of entities, given which kinds of behaviors.

Descartes on emotions, reason, and the adaptive unconscious: The pioneer behind the caricature.

The 17th-century philosopher René Descartes's radical new understanding of psychological phenomena is usually presented very inaccurately in psychological literature. Two extreme examples are Damasio's (1994) Descartes' Error and Wilson's (2002) Strangers to Ourselves. These two much-cited books contrast the "great" philosopher's naive mistakes with recent research on, respectively, the relation among emotions, reason, and the brain (Damasio) and the adaptive functions of unconscious processes (Wilson). Both authors do that without referring to either Descartes's voluminous works on physiology and psychology or the extensive historical research on his works. This article shows that these distinguished scholars' influential books are historically very misleading. Contrary to what they claim, most of Descartes's many explanations of psychological phenomena are embodied. He was in particular engaged in understanding the relation among emotions, reason, and the brain. According to the models of understanding Descartes put forward in the 1640s, the author argues that Descartes's Vision would have been an appropriate title for Damasio's book. Wilson contrasts throughout his book new insights from recent research on the adaptive unconscious with the familiar caricature of Descartes's views in the psychological literature. The author shows that Descartes, in fact, to a large extent anticipated Wilson's argumentation for the necessity of the adaptive unconscious. He concludes that Descartes should be considered the pioneer behind many of the models of understanding presented in Wilson's book. The author substantiates his conclusions by explicitly contrasting the argumentation and views in Descartes's own writings with Damasio's and Wilson's many incorrect claims. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The seductive allure is a reductive allure: People prefer scientific explanations that contain logically irrelevant reductive information

Previous work has found that people feel significantly more satisfied with explanations of psychological phenomena when those explanations contain neuroscience information—even when this information is entirely irrelevant to the logic of the explanations. This seductive allure effect was first demonstrated by Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, and Gray (2008), and has since been replicated several times (Fernandez-Duque, Evans, Christian, & Hodges, 2015; Minahan & Siedlecki, 2016; Rhodes, Rodriguez, & Shah, 2014; Weisberg, Taylor, & Hopkins, 2015). However, these studies only examined psychological phenomena. The current study thus investigated the generality of this effect and found that it occurs across several scientific disciplines whenever the explanations include reductive information: reference to smaller components or more fundamental processes. These data suggest that people have a general preference for reductive information, even when it is irrelevant to the logic of an explanation.

Stimulus Set for 'The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations'

Explanations of psychological phenomena seem to generate more public interest when they contain neuroscientific information. Even irrelevant neuroscience information in an explanation of a psychological phenomenon may interfere with people's abilities to critically consider the underlying logic of this explanation. We tested this hypothesis by giving naive adults, students in a neuroscience course, and neuroscience experts brief descriptions of psychological phenomena followed by one of four types of explanation, according to a 2 (good explanation vs. bad explanation) × 2 (without neuroscience vs. with neuroscience) design. Crucially, the neuroscience information was irrelevant to the logic of the explanation, as confirmed by the expert subjects. Subjects in all three groups judged good explanations as more satisfying than bad ones. But subjects in the two nonexpert groups additionally judged that explanations with logically irrelevant neuroscience information were more satisfying than explanations without. The neuroscience information had a particularly striking effect on nonexperts' judgments of bad explanations, masking otherwise salient problems in these explanations.

Low Hopes, High Expectations

This article revisits two classical issues in experimental methodology: experimenter bias and demand characteristics. We report a content analysis of the method section of experiments reported in two psychology journals (Psychological Science and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology), focusing on aspects of the procedure associated with these two phenomena, such as mention of the presence of the experimenter, suspicion probing, and handling of deception. We note that such information is very often absent, which prevents observers from gauging the extent to which such factors influence the results. We consider the reasons that may explain this omission, including the automatization of psychology experiments, the evolution of research topics, and, most important, a view of research participants as passive receptacles of stimuli. Using a situated social cognition perspective, we emphasize the importance of integrating the social context of experiments in the explanation of psychological phenomena. We illustrate this argument via a controversy on stereotype-based behavioral priming effects.

Is Phenomenal Consciousness a Complex Structure?

AbstractEvolutionary explanations of psychological phenomena have become widespread. This paper examines a recent attempt by Nichols and Grantham (2000) to circumvent the problem of epiphenomenalism in establishing the selective status of consciousness. Nichols and Grantham (2000) argue that a case can be made for the view that consciousness is an adaptation based on its complexity. I set out this argument and argue that it fails to establish that phenomenal consciousness is a complex system. It is suggested that the goal of establishing consciousness as an adaptation may be better served by rejecting the distinction between access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness.

Neuroscience and the explanation of psychological phenomena

Explanatory problems in the philosophy of neuroscience are not well captured by the division between the radical and the trivial neuron doctrines. The actual problem is, instead, whether mechanistic biological explanations across different levels of description can be extended to account for psychological phenomena. According to cognitive neuroscience, some neural levels of description at least are essential for the explanation of psychological phenomena, whereas, in traditional cognitive science, psychological explanations are completely independent of the neural levels of description. The challenge for cognitive neuroscience is to discover the levels of description appropriate for the neural explanation of psychological phenomena.

Harry Harlow: Lessons on explanations, ideas, and mentorship.

Harry F. Harlow died on December 6, 1981, in Tucson, Arizona. An examination of the process of his professional contributions reveals an intensely antagonistic attitude toward simplistic explanations of psychological phenomena, and a willingness to entertain experimental ideas born in a wide variety of ways. Harlow exemplified these attitudes by designing often disarmingly simple experiments which served as crucial rejoinders to firmly stated explanatory positions. It is also clear that Harlow considered his own constructions as fair game for this style of direct analysis. As a person, Harlow is pictured as a loyal, laissez faire mentor who desired affection but not academic conformity.

A New Theory of Hypnosis Edgar Howarth

Abstract A new theory of hypnosis was suggested on the basis of interaction between the neural representations of the primary and secondary systems. It was suggested that the hypnotizer was able to integrate his own semantic commands into the neural representations as previously conditioned within the brain of the subject from past experience from semantic visual/auditory distal invariants. This was done by input contiguity between the verbal “commands” or “suggestions” from the experimenter accompanying stimulus or input reduction and the later “necessary events.” We realize that our terminology is “new” (or may seem new to some) but the older terminology is largely anthropomorphic, and certainly does not offer explanations of psychological phenomena, such as hypnosis.