Hostname: page-component-8678677fb7-rgs65 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-02T22:12:33.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory-Testing in Psychology and Physics: A Methodological Paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Paul E. Meehl
Paul E. Meehl*
Affiliation:
Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Because physical theories typically predict numerical values, an improvement in experimental precision reduces the tolerance range and hence increases corroborability. In most psychological research, improved power of a statistical design leads to a prior probability approaching ½ of finding a significant difference in the theoretically predicted direction. Hence the corroboration yielded by “success” is very weak, and becomes weaker with increased precision. “Statistical significance” plays a logical role in psychology precisely the reverse of its role in physics. This problem is worsened by certain unhealthy tendencies prevalent among psychologists, such as a premium placed on experimental “cuteness” and a free reliance upon ad hoc explanations to avoid refutation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 1967 , pp. 103 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1

I wish to express my indebtedness to Dr. David T. Lykken, conversations with whom have played a major role in stimulating my thinking along these lines, and whose views and examples have no doubt influenced the form of the argument in this paper. For an application of these and allied considerations to a specific example of poor research in psychology, see [7].

References

REFERENCES

[1] Bakan, David, “The test of significance in psychological research,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 66 (1966), pp. 423–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[2] Bolles, Robert C., “The difference between statistical hypotheses and scientific hypotheses,” Psychological Reports, Vol. 11 (1962), pp. 639–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Bunge, Mario (ed.), The critical approach to science and philosophy: essays in honor of Karl R. Popper, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1964.Google Scholar
[4] Cohen, Jacob, “The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review,” Journal of abnormal and social Psychology, Vol. 65 (1962), pp. 145–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[5] Hays, William L., Statistics for psychologists, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963.Google Scholar
[6] Kaiser, Henry F., “Directional statistical decisions,” Psychological Review, Vol. 67 (1960), pp. 160–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[7] Lykken, David T., “Statistical significance in psychiatric research,” Reports from the Research Laboratories of the Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota. Report No. PR-66-9, Minneapolis: December 30, 1966.Google Scholar
[8] Nunnally, Jum C., “The place of statistics in psychology,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 20 (1960), pp. 641–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Popper, Karl R., The logic of scientific discovery, New York: Basic Books, 1959.Google Scholar
[10] Popper, Karl R., Conjectures and refutations, New York: Basic Books, 1962.Google Scholar
[11] Rozeboom, William W., “The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 67 (1960), pp. 416–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar