Productive Explanation: A Framework for Evaluating Explanations in Psychological Science

Noah van Dongen*, Riet van Bork, Adam Finnemann, Jonas M. B. Haslbeck, Han L. J. van der Maas, Donald J. Robinaugh, Jill de Ron, Jan Sprenger, Denny Borsboom

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

The explanation of psychological phenomena is a central aim of psychological science. However, the nature of explanation and the processes by which we evaluate whether a theory explains a phenomenon are often unclear. Consequently, it is often unknown whether a given psychological theory indeed explains a phenomenon. We address this shortcoming by proposing a productive account of explanation: a theory explains a phenomenon to some degree if and only if a formal model of the theory produces the statistical pattern representing the phenomenon. Using this account, we outline a workable methodology of explanation: (a) explicating a verbal theory into a formal model, (b) representing phenomena as statistical patterns in data, and (c) assessing whether the formal model produces these statistical patterns. In addition, we provide three major criteria for evaluating the goodness of an explanation (precision, robustness, and empirical relevance), and examine some cases of explanatory breakdowns. Finally, we situate our framework within existing theories of explanation from philosophy of science and discuss how our approach contributes to constructing and developing better psychological theories.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)311-329
Number of pages20
JournalPsychological Review
Volume132
Issue number2
Early online date18 Jul 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2025

Keywords

  • scientific explanation
  • models and theories
  • theories and phenomena
  • theory appraisal
  • quality of explanations
  • COMPLEX DYNAMICS
  • THINKING
  • LOGIC
  • POWER
  • MODEL

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Productive Explanation: A Framework for Evaluating Explanations in Psychological Science'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this