How to Translate a Verbal Theory Into a Formal Model

Abstract

Abstract. Turning verbal theories into formal models is an essential business of a mature science. Here I elaborate on taxonomies of models, provide ten lessons for translating a verbal theory into a formal model, and discuss the specific challenges involved in collaborations between modelers and non-modelers. It’s a start.

Ten steps toward a better personality science - how quality may be rewarded more in research evaluation

“…Step 6: Formalization of theoretical ideas. We strongly encourage personality researchers to outline their theoretical models in a more formalized (i.e., mathematical or formallogical) manner, in line with recent suggestions by many other psychologists (e.g., Borsboom et al, 2020, February 29;Glöckner & Betsch, 2011;Oberauer & Lewandowski, 2019;Smaldino, 2019Smaldino, , 2020van Rooij & Blokpoel, 2020, July 6;West et al, 2019). This simply means that all input and output variables of a theory are unambiguously measurable (see Step 3), and connected to one another by mathematical or formal-logical (e.g., if -then, AND, OR) operations (Glöckner & Betsch, 2011, Popper, 1934/ 2002, van Rooij & Blokpoel, 2020.…”

“…But that may easily be changed, by better training, and by more intensive research collaboration with mathematicians and modelling experts in particular (Meehl, 1990b). A wealth of helpful resources has recently become available to foster theory formalization (Devezer, Navarro, Vandekerckhove & Buzbas, 2020;Gray, 2017;Robinaugh, Haslbeck, Ryan, Fried & Waldorp, 2020;Smaldino, 2020;van Rooij & Baggio, 2020;van Rooij & Blokpoel, 2020, West et al, 2019).…”

A Call for Greater Modesty in Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience

“…What follows from this re-positioning of expectations is a pressure to take a step back and try to see how one piece of work may fit into the bigger picture that we may want to understand. Indeed, although much of the reform agenda has focussed on revision to statistical practices (e.g., Cumming, 2012;Gigerenzer, 2018;Lakens et al, 2018), of particular relevance here are recent calls by theoreticians and computational modellers for major improvements to building and specifying theories in psychology (Borsboom et al, 2021;Fried, 2020;Gervais, 2021;Guest & Martin, 2021;Haig, 2014;Muthukrishna & Henrich, 2019;Navarro, 2019Navarro, , 2021Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019;Robinaugh et al, 2021;Smaldino, 2017Smaldino, , 2020van Rooij & Baggio, 2021). The logic is that to build a well-made house, you need to work from a clearly specified blueprint (Gray, 2017).…”

“…One example approach to theory development involves building computational models. Computational models require that relationships between parts of a system are explicitly specified, thus avoiding a sole reliance on narrative descriptions of theories, which are less precise and are harder to interpret, test and falsify (Hintzman, 1991;Reichle, 2020;Smaldino, 2017Smaldino, , 2020. Likewise, firmer claims may be licensed if researchers follow a more systematic approach to the scientific method that spans the whole the-ory-data cycle, as it can help guide predictions and interpretations (Bassett & Gazzaniga, 2011;Borsboom et al, 2021;Guest & Martin, 2021;Haig, 2014;Robinaugh et al, 2021).…”

Theories and Models: What They Are, What They Are for, and What They Are About

“…In contrast to theories, models-as highlighted by Smaldino (this issue)-illustrate with precision the mechanisms that might govern the processes that lead to a phenomenon by decomposing processes into relevant parts, properties of these parts, relations between the parts, and temporal dynamics of their change (cf. Smaldino, 2020). Smaldino describes models using the metaphor of geographical maps that are useful because they are simplified: models ignore much of reality to be useful, in the same way, a map of Rome ignores much of reality to help us navigate Rome, a point we will return to in detail later.…”