Analysis of Variance in the Service of Interactionism

Wahłsten, Douglas

doi:10.1159/000022655

Cited by 17 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wahlsten (1990Wahlsten ( , 2000 reaches a similar conclusion in his methodological discussions of the biometric tradition; the analysis of difference mechanisms offered here provides a metaphysical foundation for that methodological contribution.…”

supporting

confidence: 58%

Difference mechanisms: explaining variation with mechanisms

Tabery

2009

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Philosophers of science have developed an account of causal-mechanical explanation that captures regularity, but this account neglects variation. In this article I amend the philosophy of mechanisms to capture variation. The task is to explicate the relationship between regular causal mechanisms responsible for individual development and causes of variation responsible for variation in populations. As it turns out, disputes over this relationship have rested at the heart of the nature-nurture debate. Thus, an explication of the relationship between regular causal mechanisms and causes of variation and between individual development and variation offers both the necessary amendment to the philosophy of mechanisms and the resources to mediate the dispute.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 58%

Difference mechanisms: explaining variation with mechanisms

Tabery

2009

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…whether the effects of different factors are additive or nonadditive (i.e. interactive) (Wahlsten 2002). It has been suggested that multifactorial design to test the effects of an experimental manipulation of the environment and their interactions may be performed without substantial extra costs in terms of number of animals needed (Festing 2006; Festing & Altman 2002; Shaw et al 2002).…”

Section: Strategies To Determine the Generalizability Of Results Frommentioning

confidence: 99%

The standardization–generalization dilemma: a way out

Staay

Arndt

Nordquist

2010

Genes Brain and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, a debate has emerged on the use and necessity of standardization in experimental testing using animal subjects. The difficulties encountered when trying to reconcile standardization and generalization largely underlie this debate. The more specific the testing procedures are, the less one can generalize to more naturalistic situations, including to human clinical populations. If the goal of a study is to generalize to a larger population, there may be a higher risk attached to false-positive than false-negative results; thus the balance sways toward generalization. Heterogenization of housing conditions and of genetic makeup of experimental animals has been suggested as a possible method to increase the generalizability of results. It is important to remain cognizant, however, of situations in which false negatives can be counterproductive or even dangerous, such as when the goal is to elucidate a physiological mechanism, when expected effect sizes are small, in toxicological studies and in drug safety testing. In such cases, experiments based on standardization may provide more useful information. We pose that it is essential that the goal of the specific experiment conducted is clearly defined and that the decision to balance between standardization and generalization must be made based on the specific needs to meet the intended goal. In this light, we discuss a multi-tiered approach to animal experimentation, in which standardization and generalizability are each given precedence during different phases of a project, depending upon the goal of the experiment.

show abstract

“…One possible explanation is that behavioral genetic methods have a systematic tendency to underestimate interaction effects, as Douglas Wahlsten has alleged (Wahlsten, 2000, see also chapter 5 this volume). One possible explanation is that behavioral genetic methods have a systematic tendency to underestimate interaction effects, as Douglas Wahlsten has alleged (Wahlsten, 2000, see also chapter 5 this volume).…”

Section: Two Conceptions Of Gene-environment Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%