Puzzle-solving in Psychology: the Neo-Galtonian vs. Nomothetic Research Focuses

Abstract : We compare the neo-Galtonian and nomothetic approaches of psychological research. While the former focuses on summarized statistics that depict average subjects, the latter focuses on general facts of form 'if conditions then restricted outcomes'. The nomothetic approach does not require quantification as a convenient way of statistical modeling. The nice feature of a general fact is its falsifiability by the observation of a single case. Hence, as a clear sense of scientific error is re-introduced in the research paradigm, we detail two kinds of puzzle-solving: repairing general facts by contraction or by expansion of the initial conditions. This style of research does not require that researchers depend on highly skilled engineers in data analysis, as the very structure of a general fact can be established by scrutinizing a contingency table.
Type de document :
Article dans une revue
New Ideas in Psychology, Elsevier, 2014, 33, pp.46-53. 〈10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.10.002〉
Liste complète des métadonnées

Littérature citée [30 références]  Voir  Masquer  Télécharger

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00877010
Contributeur : Stéphane Vautier <>
Soumis le : lundi 4 novembre 2013 - 08:50:55
Dernière modification le : mardi 16 juin 2015 - 01:11:58
Document(s) archivé(s) le : vendredi 7 avril 2017 - 17:44:11

Fichier

elsarticle-template-5-harv.pdf
Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s)

Identifiants

Collections

Citation

Stéphane Vautier, Emilie Lacot, Michiel Veldhuis. Puzzle-solving in Psychology: the Neo-Galtonian vs. Nomothetic Research Focuses. New Ideas in Psychology, Elsevier, 2014, 33, pp.46-53. 〈10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.10.002〉. 〈halshs-00877010〉

Partager

Métriques

Consultations de
la notice

284

Téléchargements du document

312