Productive explanation: Evaluating if psychological theories really explain what they claim

What is it about?

The article "Productive Explanation: A Framework for Evaluating Explanations in Psychological Science" by van Dongen et al. introduces a new approach to assessing explanations in psychological research. The authors argue that traditional methods of evaluating whether theories explain phenomena are often unclear and insufficient. They propose a "productive explanation" framework, which requires that a theory explains a phenomenon if and only if a formal model of the theory can produce the statistical pattern representing the phenomenon. The framework involves three key steps: Representing the Phenomenon as a Statistical Pattern: This involves translating empirical observations into statistical patterns that can be quantitatively analyzed. Explicating the Verbal Theory into a Formal Model: The verbal or conceptual theory is translated into a formal, typically mathematical, model that can be rigorously tested. Evaluating the Model's Ability to Produce the Statistical Pattern: The formal model is then used to generate data, and it is evaluated on whether it can reproduce the statistical pattern observed in the empirical data. The authors also outline three major criteria for evaluating the quality of an explanation: Precision: How specifically the model's outputs match the observed data. Robustness: How well the model holds up under various conditions and assumptions. Empirical Relevance: The degree to which the model's outputs are consistent with real-world data. They illustrate their framework with a case study on the regulatory resource theory of ego-depletion, which suggests that self-control is a finite resource that can be depleted. The authors show how their framework can clarify whether this theory genuinely explains the patterns observed in ego-depletion studies. Additionally, the article discusses common failures in psychological explanations, such as "empty formalism" (sophisticated models without theoretical basis) and "illusory explanation" (models that do not actually produce the observed patterns). The authors situate their framework within the broader context of the philosophy of science, comparing it with other theories of scientific explanation and highlighting its potential to improve the clarity and rigor of psychological theories. Ultimately, the authors aim to provide a practical methodology for constructing and evaluating psychological explanations, enhancing the transparency and robustness of psychological science.

Featured Image

Photo by Josh Redd on Unsplash

Photo by Josh Redd on Unsplash

Why is it important?

This paper is important because it clarifies and improves the evaluation of psychological theories. Psychological theories often suffer from vagueness and are difficult to assess. The "productive explanation" framework proposed in the paper offers a clear method to determine if a theory genuinely explains phenomena. By providing a practical methodology, the paper guides researchers in constructing and evaluating their theories, leading to the development of stronger and more accurate psychological explanations. Additionally, the framework helps bridge the gap between verbal theories and empirical data, through the intermediary level of phenomena. Finally, the criteria set for precision, robustness, and empirical relevance encourage the development of theories that offer high-quality explanations.