Scientific realism and the issue of variability in behavior

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to present a critical analysis of current research practices in the study of behavior from the point of view of scientific realism. Although the so-called “replication crisis” observed in the psychological and health sciences has led to various proposals for improving research quality, most of those proposals take the standard linear input–output approach for granted, where behavioral variability is seen as the result of uncontrolled random variables hiding the true input–output relations. Aggregate data and the computation of sample statistics are used to estimate population parameters, the true reality behind appearances. In this paper, I offer a different interpretation: variability is a fact of behavior necessary for successful performance, not the result of some unknown variables randomly affecting individual outputs. Research models that take individual behavior with all of its complexity as the real thing, can help us overcome the limitations of the standard approach to research. As an illustration, I also describe two approaches to behavioral investigations that do not rely on standard statistical analysis for producing genuine knowledge: perceptual control theory and observation-oriented modeling.

Against the reduction of teleology to sophisticated causal explanation

“…It is widely accepted that the aim of science is to provide an account of what is going on behind the phenomena we experience (Kosso, 1992). According to Arocha (2021), this is also the aim of scientific psychology (p. 377).…”

“…These perspectives not only represent divergent approaches to meeting the challenges presented by the replication crisis but, more importantly, they are underpinned by different understandings of psychology as a scientific discipline. A brief description of the two frameworks can help us to evaluate the originality of Arocha's (2021) contribution to addressing the crisis and reform of psychology.…”

“…Bearing this distinction in mind, let us move on to Arocha's (2021) proposal. Its noteworthy virtue is its explicit call for a much-needed perspectival shift within psychology research: from the viewpoint of the experimenter (i.e., variability in behavior as "noise" to be minimized) to that of the individual (i.e., variability as an adaptive feature of behavior).…”

“…Its noteworthy virtue is its explicit call for a much-needed perspectival shift within psychology research: from the viewpoint of the experimenter (i.e., variability in behavior as "noise" to be minimized) to that of the individual (i.e., variability as an adaptive feature of behavior). Arocha (2021) clearly acknowledges that the "random appearance of behavior is a function of the methods of data collection and analysis, not of the nature of behavior" (p. 380). Hence, Arocha recognizes the crucial difference between humans and inanimate objects (p. 382) and thus aspires to reviving the teleological tradition within psychological research.…”

“…Finally, Arocha (2021) calls for a research model that conceptualizes "most behavior as nonprobabilistic" (p. 384). As illustrated above, invoking deterministic explanations of human behavior implies that the author is likely still operating within a causalistic and mechanistic framework of reference.…”