Theory Construction Methodology: A Practical Framework for Building Theories in Psychology

Abstract

This article aims to improve theory formation in psychology by developing a practical methodology for constructing explanatory theories: theory construction methodology (TCM). TCM is a sequence of five steps. First, the theorist identifies a domain of empirical phenomena that becomes the target of explanation. Second, the theorist constructs a prototheory, a set of theoretical principles that putatively explain these phenomena. Third, the prototheory is used to construct a formal model, a set of model equations that encode explanatory principles. Fourth, the theorist investigates the explanatory adequacy of the model by formalizing its empirical phenomena and assessing whether it indeed reproduces these phenomena. Fifth, the theorist studies the overall adequacy of the theory by evaluating whether the identified phenomena are indeed reproduced faithfully and whether the explanatory principles are sufficiently parsimonious and substantively plausible. We explain TCM with an example taken from research on intelligence (the mutualism model of intelligence), in which key elements of the method have been successfully implemented. We discuss the place of TCM in the larger scheme of scientific research and propose an outline for a university curriculum that can systematically educate psychologists in the process of theory formation.

The Theory Crisis in Psychology: How to Move Forward

“…If we then want to explain the phenomena, we need theories that describe how they come about. 2 This framework is well established and has been applied to psychological science (Borsboom et al, 2021;Haig, 2013). However, the relationships between theories and phenomena are usually discussed only as "one-way traffic": A theory is formulated to explain phenomena, and therefore it should be possible to derive or predict the relevant phenomena from the theory.…”

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).…”

“…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). For example, several researchers have outlined stepby-step methodologies for transitioning between verbal theories, formal models and the evaluation of data in systematic and principled ways that involve iterative cycles (Borsboom et al, 2021;Guest & Martin, 2021).…”

“…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). For example, several researchers have outlined stepby-step methodologies for transitioning between verbal theories, formal models and the evaluation of data in systematic and principled ways that involve iterative cycles (Borsboom et al, 2021;Guest & Martin, 2021). These frameworks add value by providing researchers with the tools to structure the process of theory development and make more explicit links between theory and data.…”

“…Such synthesis can be across multiple levels of description, such as those put forward in developmental science (e.g., Morton, 2004), or multiple studies, such as large-scale aggregation of information across neuroimaging datasets (e.g., Neurosynth.org, the ENIGMA Consortium: http://enigma.ini.usc.edu/, and many others). In addition, rather than take a bespoke or ad hoc approach to the scientific process, which is left implicit and unjustified in most cases, we may want to embrace proposals for a more systematic approach to the theory and method cycle in psychology (e.g., Borsboom et al, 2021;Guest & Martin, 2021;Haig, 2014). Engaging directly with such approaches will help to enforce modesty in our expectations of what individual pieces of work can provide, as well as what any one tool/approach can possibly provide.…”