ArticleFrontiers in psychology2010
Quantitative methods in psychology: inevitable and useless.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward a Cultural Evolutionary Psychology: Why the Evolutionary Approach does not Imply Reductionism or Determinism.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2021Article
- Studies in the mentality of literates: 2. Conceptual structure, cognitive inhibition and verbal regulation of behavior.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020Article
- Psychology Today: Still in Denial, Still Outdated.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020Article
- Studies in the Mentality of Literates: 1. Conceptual Structure and Aspects of Visual Perception.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020Article
- Studies in the Mentality of Literates: Searching for the Cultural Great Divide at the Individual Level of Analysis.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020Article
- The Use of Research Methods in Psychological Research: A Systematised Review.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2020Review
- Why Behavioral Indicators May Fail to Reveal Mental States: Individual Differences in Arousal-Movement Pattern Relationships.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- What are Higher Psychological Functions?Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2016Review
- Is Personality a System? Stability, Process and Plasticity.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- The Big Five Factor Marker Adjectives Are Not Especially Popular Words. Are They Superior Descriptors?Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Single-Case Research Methods: History and Suitability for a Psychological Science in Need of Alternatives.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Appraisal of research depends upon its conceptualization.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2014Article
- Ideology, affect, semiotics: towards a non-personal theory of personality.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2014Article
- Travel into a fairy land: a critique of modern qualitative and mixed methods psychologies.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2011Article
- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: the case of non-local perception, a classical and bayesian review of evidences.Frontiers in psychology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Science begins with the question, what do I want to know? Science becomes science, however, only when this question is justified and the appropriate methodology is chosen for answering the research question. Research question should precede the other questions; methods should be chosen according to the research question and not vice versa. Modern quantitative psychology has accepted method as primary; research questions are adjusted to the methods. For understanding thinking in modern quantitative psychology, two epistemologies should be distinguished: structural-systemic that is based on Aristotelian thinking, and associative-quantitative that is based on Cartesian-Humean thinking. The first aims at understanding the structure that underlies the studied processes; the second looks for identification of cause-effect relationships between the events with no possible access to the understanding of the structures that underlie the processes. Quantitative methodology in particular as well as mathematical psychology in general, is useless for answering questions about structures and processes that underlie observed behaviors. Nevertheless, quantitative science is almost inevitable in a situation where the systemic-structural basis of behavior is not well understood; all sorts of applied decisions can be made on the basis of quantitative studies. In order to proceed, psychology should study structures; methodologically, constructive experiments should be added to observations and analytic experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.