Psychology Among the Sciences: Comparisons of Numbers of Theories and Laws Cited in Textbooks

Roeckelein, Jon E.

doi:10.2466/pr0.80.1.131-141

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

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

“…The seven measures satisfying these stipulations are listed below (Simonton, 2004) 1. Roeckelein (1997) tabulated the number of theories and the number of laws mentioned in introductory textbooks in physics, chemistry, psychology, anthropology, and sociology (see his Table 2, p. 137). He then used these counts to calculate the ratio of theories to laws, the higher the ratio the more "soft" is the discipline.…”

Section: Measurement: the Composite Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That said, correlations involving all five sciences must be .81 or higher to be significant at the .05 level (one-tailed probability), if such a statement can even be said to have any meaning. Theories-to-laws ratio a Roeckelein (1997) .99 5 Consultation rate a Suls & Fletcher (1983) .99 4 (B) b Graph prominence Cleveland (1984) .96 5 Peer evaluation consensus a Cole (1983) .92 4 (B) b Early impact rate Cole (1983) .89 4 (B) b Citation concentration Cole (1983) .87 4 (B) b Obsolescence rate McDowell (1982) .69 5…”

Section: Validation: the Corroborating Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychology as a Science within Comte's Hypothesized Hierarchy: Empirical Investigations and Conceptual Implications

Simonton

2015

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auguste Comte suggested that the main sciences could be grouped into a hierarchical ordering that reflected their objective characteristics (viz., generality, dependence, and complexity). In particular, the empirical sciences could be placed in the following order: astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology. Although his idea was initially discredited in the sociology of science, subsequent research indicates that the conjecture has considerable empirical merit. Significantly, that research inserts psychology between biology and sociology, with significantly more proximity with biology. After replicating the earlier findings using new measures, the metatheoretical basis for the hierarchical arrangement is then examined. The article closes with suggestions for further empirical and theoretical research on psychology's placement in the hierarchical arrangement.

show abstract

“…More important, a recent investigation demonstrated that the suggested hierarchy has empirical justification (Simonton, 2004; see also Simonton, 2002). In particular, the four test domains of physics, chemistry, psychology, and sociology were assessed on the following seven indicators of scientific status: (a) citation concentration to specific research articles (Cole, 1983), (b) early impact rate for scientists under 35 (Cole, 1983), (c) peer evaluation consensus (Cole, 1983), (d) obsolescence rate (McDowell, 1982), (e) graph prominence (Cleveland, 1984), (f) consultation rate (a negative indicator; Suls & Fletcher, 1983), and (g) the theories-to-laws ratio (also a negative indicator; Roeckelein, 1997).…”

Section: Disciplinary Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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

Psychology Among the Sciences: Comparisons of Numbers of Theories and Laws Cited in Textbooks

Cited by 5 publications

References 7 publications

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

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

Psychology as a Science within Comte's Hypothesized Hierarchy: Empirical Investigations and Conceptual Implications

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About