ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2020
Staying with Questions and Resisting Quick Answers: Commentary on Zagaria, Andò, and Zennaro.
Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward a Cultural Evolutionary Psychology: Why the Evolutionary Approach does not Imply Reductionism or Determinism.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2021Article
- From Clay Feet to New Psychology: Starting the Move.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In their target article, Zagaria et al. (Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 2020) highlight the fragmented state of mainstream Psychology. Their diagnosis begins with an analysis of how core psychological terms are treated in introductory textbooks. To remedy the state of affairs, they propose using evolutionary psychology to unify Psychology. In the present commentary, I join the authors' critical stance, while also raising several questions: (1) Can we adopt an evolutionary meta-theory and still demand that our core concepts have fixed meaning? (2) Can evolutionary theory apply to the normative dimension of the sociocultural domain? (3) Can evolutionary theory account for the critique of psychological science? These questions, I believe, point out several gaps in the target article that require further attention. I argue that unless we identify the essential differences between mainstream psychology and contrarian psychology, we repeat the mistakes of mainstream psychology under a new guise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32451958What 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.