The rise and fall of behaviorism: The narrative and the numbers.

Braat, Michiel; Engelen, Jan; Gemert, Ties van; Verhaegh, Sander

doi:10.1037/hop0000146

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A prominent case in psychology is the popular, but questionable, depiction of the demise of behaviorism, and the rise of cognitivism, circa 1960, as a Kuhnian revolution. By contrast, Braat et al’s. (2020) fine-grained sociometric analysis of the “rise and fall” of American behaviorism tells a story of diverse conceptual change.…”

Section: Replication and Scientific Progressmentioning

confidence: 84%

Understanding Replication in a Way That Is True to Science

Haig

2021

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I critically examine a number of widely held beliefs about the nature of replication and its place in science, with particular reference to psychology. In doing so, I present a number of underappreciated understandings of the nature of science more generally. I contend that some contributors to the replication debates overstate the importance of replication in science and mischaracterize the relationship between direct and conceptual replication. I also claim that there has been a failure to appreciate sufficiently the variety of legitimate replication practices that scientists engage in. In this regard, I highlight the tendency to pay insufficient attention to methodological triangulation as an important strategy for justifying empirical claims. I argue, further, that the replication debates tend to overstate the closeness of the relationship between replication and theory construction. Some features of this relationship are spelt out with reference to the hypothetico-deductive and the abductive accounts of scientific method. Additionally, an evaluation of the status of replication in different characterizations of scientific progress is undertaken. I maintain that viewing replication as just one element of the wide array of scientific endeavors leads to the conclusion that it is not as prominent in science as is often claimed.

show abstract

Section: Replication and Scientific Progressmentioning

confidence: 84%

Understanding Replication in a Way That Is True to Science

Haig

2021

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A prominent case in psychology is the popular, but questionable, depiction of the demise of behaviourism, and the rise of cognitivism, circa 1960, as a Kuhnian revolution. By contrast, Braat, Engelen, van Gemert, and Verhaegh's (2020) recent fine-grained sociometric analysis of the "rise and fall" of American behaviorism tells a story of diverse conceptual change.…”

Section: Replication and Scientific Progressmentioning

confidence: 93%

Understanding Replication in a Way That is True to Science

Haig¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I critically examine a number of widely held beliefs about the nature of replication and its place in science, with particular reference to psychology. In doing so, I present a number of underappreciated understandings of the nature of science more generally. I contend that some contributors to the replication debates overstate the importance of replication in science and mischaracterize the relationship between direct and conceptual replication. I also claim that there has been a failure to appreciate sufficiently the variety of legitimate replication practices that scientists engage in. In this regard, I highlight the tendency to pay insufficient attention to methodological triangulation as an important strategy for justifying empirical claims. I argue, further, that the replication debates tend to overstate the closeness of the relationship between replication and theory construction. Some features of this relationship are spelt out with reference to both the hypothetico-deductive and the abductive accounts of scientific method. Additionally, an evaluation of the status of replication in different characterizations of scientific progress is undertaken. I maintain that viewing replication as just one element of the wide array of scientific endeavors leads to the conclusion that it is not as prominent in science as is often claimed.

show abstract

“…See, e.g., Flis & van Eck (2018) who employed this tool to study the structure and development of the schism between 'correlational' and 'experimental' psychology. We explored the use of co-occurrence analyses to study the development of behaviorism and cognitive psychology in Braat et al (2020).…”

Section: Data Collection and Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bibliometric Analysis of the Cognitive Turn in Psychology

Engelen

Verhaegh

Collignon

et al. 2023

Perspectives on Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyzed co-citation patterns in 332.498 articles published in Anglophone psychology journals between 1946 and 1990 to estimate (1) when cognitive psychology first emerged as a clearly delineated subdiscipline, (2) how fast it grew, (3) to what extent it replaced other (e.g., behaviorist) approaches to psychology, (4) to what degree it was more appealing to scholars from a younger generation, and (5) whether it was more interdisciplinary than alternative traditions. We detected a major shift in the structure of co-citation networks between approximately 1955 and 1975 and draw novel conclusions about the developments commonly referred to as ‘the cognitive turn’.

show abstract

The rise and fall of behaviorism: The narrative and the numbers.

Cited by 20 publications

References 51 publications

Understanding Replication in a Way That Is True to Science

Understanding Replication in a Way That Is True to Science

Understanding Replication in a Way That is True to Science

A Bibliometric Analysis of the Cognitive Turn in Psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About