Overview:
The authors, Kenneth MacCorquodale and Paul E. Meehl, delve into the complexities of theoretical constructs in psychology. They argue that the prevailing usage of “intervening variables” and “hypothetical constructs” as interchangeable terms is problematic and leads to confusion. Their main goal is to establish a clear distinction between these two types of constructs.
Main Parts:
- Introduction: The authors highlight the ongoing discussion surrounding intervening variables and their logical status in behaviorist theory, contrasting the viewpoints of Hull, Tolman, and Skinner. They also address the hesitancy among some psychologists to move beyond directly observable data.
- Defining the Distinction: The paper begins by introducing a simple distinction between constructs that involve hypothesizing an unobserved entity or process and those that do not. This distinction is further explored through examples from physics, where “resistance” is a direct operational concept, while “electron” is a hypothesized entity.
- Analyzing the Distinction: The authors discuss various analyses of the distinction between abstractive and hypothetical concepts, including Feigl’s “analytic” versus “existential” hypotheses and Benjamin’s “abstractive” versus “hypothetical” methods.
- Examining Hull’s Equations: The article uses Hull’s equations for habit strength as an example to illustrate the difference between intervening variables and hypothetical constructs. They argue that Hull’s intervening variables are simply convenient groupings of terms in empirically fitted equations, while hypothetical constructs require additional existence propositions that go beyond the observed data.
- Comparing Tolman and Hull: The authors compare Tolman’s concept of intervening variables with Hull’s. They argue that Tolman’s intervening variables are purely abstractive and do not involve any hypothesizing about unobservable processes, while Hull’s often do.
- The Importance of Distinction: They emphasize that the distinction between intervening variables and hypothetical constructs is crucial for understanding the nature and validity of theoretical constructs in psychology.
- Linguistic Conventions: The paper proposes two linguistic conventions to clarify the distinction: restricting the term “intervening variable” to concepts that meet Tolman’s original definition and using “hypothetical construct” for those that do not.
- The Validity of Constructs: They argue that intervening variables are valid only insofar as the empirical facts they summarize are true, while hypothetical constructs have a more complex cognitive and factual reference that requires them to be held to a higher standard.
- Future Developments and Scientific Integration: The authors discuss the potential future integration of psychology with other sciences, emphasizing that the distinction between intervening variables and hypothetical constructs will be crucial for this process.
- Conclusion: The article concludes by reiterating the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between intervening variables and hypothetical constructs in theoretical psychology.
View on Life: The authors represent a view of science that emphasizes empirical data and seeks to avoid unnecessary speculation about unobservable entities or processes. They believe that theoretical constructs should be grounded in observable evidence and that hypothetical constructs should be held to a higher standard of scrutiny.
Scenarios: The authors don’t provide specific scenarios, but they use several examples to illustrate their arguments, such as:
- Hull’s equations for habit strength: This example demonstrates how intervening variables can be simply derived from empirical laws.
- The gas law and kinetic theory: This example shows how hypothetical constructs require additional existence propositions that go beyond the observed data.
Challenges:
- The challenge of defining and distinguishing between intervening variables and hypothetical constructs.
- The challenge of justifying the use of hypothetical constructs in scientific theory.
Conflict: The authors highlight the conflict between those who prioritize empirical data and those who are willing to entertain hypothetical constructs to explain phenomena. This conflict is illustrated by the different viewpoints of Skinner, Tolman, and Hull.
Plot: The article unfolds as a reasoned argument, building upon examples and analyses to ultimately present a clear distinction between intervening variables and hypothetical constructs. The authors guide the reader through their reasoning, culminating in their proposed linguistic conventions.
Point of View: The authors present their argument from a primarily objective and scientific point of view, though they do acknowledge the value of hypothetical constructs in some situations.
How It’s Written: The text is written in a clear and straightforward style, using logical reasoning and detailed examples to support its arguments. The authors employ a formal, academic tone, with a focus on precise terminology and logical argumentation. An example of this style is the detailed breakdown of Hull’s equations and the subsequent analysis of their meaning.
Tone: The tone is serious and analytical, reflecting a commitment to clarity and precision in scientific discourse. The authors express a desire to eliminate confusion and establish a more rigorous framework for understanding theoretical constructs in psychology.
Life Choices: The authors don’t directly discuss life choices, but their emphasis on empirical evidence and the need to justify hypothetical constructs suggests a preference for making decisions based on solid evidence rather than speculation or personal beliefs.
Lessons:
- The importance of clear definitions and distinctions in scientific discourse.
- The need for careful consideration and justification of hypothetical constructs.
- The value of grounding theoretical constructs in observable evidence.
- The benefits of rigorous analysis and critical thinking in scientific research.
Characters:
- Kenneth MacCorquodale and Paul E. Meehl: The authors of the article, they are clearly experts in the field of psychology and have a strong interest in theoretical constructs.
- Clark L. Hull: A prominent behaviorist known for his theories of learning and his use of intervening variables.
- Edward C. Tolman: A behaviorist known for his cognitive theories and his distinction between intervening variables and hypothetical constructs.
- Burrhus Frederic Skinner: A behaviorist known for his emphasis on observable behavior and his rejection of internal mental states.
Themes:
- The Nature of Scientific Knowledge: The article explores the relationship between observable data and theoretical constructs, raising questions about the nature and validity of scientific knowledge.
- The Importance of Rigorous Definitions: The authors emphasize the need for precise and clear definitions of theoretical concepts in order to ensure meaningful scientific communication and research.
- The Value of Critical Thinking: The paper encourages readers to critically evaluate theoretical constructs and to carefully consider the evidence supporting them.
Principles:
- Scientific knowledge should be grounded in empirical observation and rigorous analysis.
- Hypothetical constructs should be justified and supported by strong evidence.
- Definitions and terminology should be clear and consistent to ensure accurate communication.
Intentions:
- The authors intend to clarify the distinction between intervening variables and hypothetical constructs in psychology.
- They aim to encourage a more rigorous approach to the use of theoretical constructs in scientific research.
Unique Vocabulary:
- Intervening variable: A theoretical construct that summarizes empirical relationships.
- Hypothetical construct: A theoretical construct that posits unobservable entities or processes.
- Abstractive: A concept that focuses on empirical relationships without hypothesizing unobservable entities or processes.
- Hypothetical: A concept that involves the supposition of unobservable entities or processes.
- Existential: A concept that refers to the existence of entities or processes.
Anecdotes:
- The Perin-Williams study: This study, mentioned by the authors, provides an example of how intervening variables can be derived from empirical data.
- The development of Hull’s conditioning hypotheses: The authors mention Hull’s series of papers on conditioning as an example of how hypothetical constructs can be used in scientific research.
Ideas:
- The idea that theoretical constructs in psychology should be carefully distinguished and defined.
- The idea that hypothetical constructs require more justification than intervening variables.
- The idea that scientific progress is often driven by the interaction between empirical observation and theoretical constructs.
Facts and Findings:
- The authors do not cite any specific facts or findings in their paper. They focus on the philosophical and methodological aspects of theoretical constructs in psychology.
Points of View:
- The paper is written from a primarily objective and scientific point of view.
- The authors acknowledge the existence of different viewpoints on the use of theoretical constructs in psychology, but they ultimately advocate for a more rigorous and evidence-based approach.
Perspective:
- The authors present a perspective that emphasizes the importance of empirical data and rigorous analysis in scientific research.
- They argue that hypothetical constructs should be used with caution and should be supported by strong evidence.
- Their perspective reflects a commitment to clarity and precision in scientific discourse.