Citation of <i>Laws</i> and <i>Theories</i> in Textbooks across 112 Years of Psychology

Roeckelein, Jon E.

doi:10.2466/pr0.1996.79.3.979

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are clearly more established laws in the physical sciences than in the earth sciences, social and behavioral sciences, and biology. Some evidence of these disciplinary differences was provided by studies of the number of laws cited in the textbooks of different fields (Roeckelein, 1996, 1997). The analyses showed that across 10-year time periods there was an association between the frequency of cited laws and scientific discipline, with far more laws cited in physics and chemistry textbooks than in biology, anthropology, and sociology textbooks.…”

Section: The Absence Of Lawsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redefining Science: The Impact of Complexity on Theory Development in Social and Behavioral Research

Sanbonmatsu

Johnston

2019

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disciplinary differences in the development of scientific generalizations and explanations are reviewed in this article. The social and behavioral sciences have identified fewer laws, established fewer “paradigms,” and developed “worse” theories than the physical sciences. We argue that the variability in the theoretical attainments of disciplines is due primarily to differences in the complexity of the topics studied. Accounts suggesting that differences in the maturity of disciplines are responsible for the variability are dismissed. In the study of complex phenomena, there is an extreme trade-off between generality and precision in which basic theories do not make the precise predictions needed for the development of applications and in which applied models are lacking in generality. The examination of proximal determinants and the generation of context-specific mathematical models are essential for prediction and application in complex disciplines. The impossibility of developing exacting theories of complex phenomena suggests that we need to redefine our conceptions of “good” and “bad” theories and “real” and “fake” science.

show abstract

Section: The Absence Of Lawsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redefining Science: The Impact of Complexity on Theory Development in Social and Behavioral Research

Sanbonmatsu

Johnston

2019

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is thus a measure of disciplinary uncertainty about the merits of one's work (based on social comparison theory; Suls & Fletcher, 1983). Finally, the theories-to-laws ratio presumes that higher status disciplines boast an intensive inventory of confirmed laws whereas lower status disciplines have a much greater collection of speculative theories (Roeckelein, 1997; see also Roeckelein, 1996).…”

Section: Disciplinary Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

Varieties of (Scientific) Creativity: A Hierarchical Model of Domain-Specific Disposition, Development, and Achievement

Simonton

2009

Perspect Psychol Sci

185

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT-Prior research supports the inference that scientific disciplines can be ordered into a hierarchy ranging from the "hard" natural sciences to the "soft" social sciences.This ordering corresponds with such objective criteria as disciplinary consensus, knowledge obsolescence rate, anticipation frequency, theories-to-laws ratio, lecture disfluency, and age at recognition. It is then argued that this hierarchy can be extrapolated to encompass the humanities and arts and interpolated within specific domains to accommodate contrasts in subdomains (e.g., revolutionary versus normal science). This expanded and more finely differentiated hierarchy is then shown to have a partial psychological basis in terms of dispositional traits (e.g., psychopathology) and developmental experiences (e.g., family background). This demonstration then leads to three hypotheses about how a creator's domain-specific impact depends on his or her disposition and development: the domain-progressive, domain-typical, and domainregressive creator hypotheses. Studies published thus far lend the most support to the domainregressive creator hypothesis. In particular, major contributors to a domain are more likely to have dispositional traits and developmental experiences most similar to those that prevail in a domain lower in the disciplinary hierarchy. However, some complications to this generalization suggest the need for more research on the proposed hierarchical model.

show abstract

“…This analysis is extraordinarily still used today by many psychologists with either epistemological, educational or political aims and focuses (e.g. Roeckelein, 1996Roeckelein, , 1997Zechmeister & Zechmeister, 2000;Habarth, Hansell & Grove, 2001;Simonton, 2004Simonton, , 2006Costa & Shimp., 2011;Kissee, Isaacson & Miller-Perrin, 2014;Griggs & Christopher, 2016;Whaley, Clay & Broussard, 2017;Whitehead III, Smith & Losonczy-Marshall, 2017;Ferguson, Brown, TorresBrown & Torres, 2018;Warne, Astle & Hill, 2018). The analysis of introductory books has also been implemented by scholars from other sciences, including informatics (McMaster, Rague, Sambasivam, & Wolthuis, 2019), statistics (Ravinder & Misra, 2016;Dunn, Carey, Farrar, Richardson & McDonald, 2017), chemistry (Nelson, Kumar & Ramasamy, 2015), biology (Colosi, 2000;Bednekoff, 2005;Wright, Cardenas, Liang & Newman, 2017) and sociology (Manza & Van Schyndel, 2000;Keith & Ender, 4 Someone could argue for the exclusion of influential sources, both due to their historical importance (e.g.…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%