IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v3y2019i3d10.1038_s41562-018-0522-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A problem in theory

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Muthukrishna

    (London School of Economics and Political Science)

  • Joseph Henrich

    (Harvard University
    Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR))

Abstract

The replication crisis facing the psychological sciences is widely regarded as rooted in methodological or statistical shortcomings. We argue that a large part of the problem is the lack of a cumulative theoretical framework or frameworks. Without an overarching theoretical framework that generates hypotheses across diverse domains, empirical programs spawn and grow from personal intuitions and culturally biased folk theories. By providing ways to develop clear predictions, including through the use of formal modelling, theoretical frameworks set expectations that determine whether a new finding is confirmatory, nicely integrating with existing lines of research, or surprising, and therefore requiring further replication and scrutiny. Such frameworks also prioritize certain research foci, motivate the use diverse empirical approaches and, often, provide a natural means to integrate across the sciences. Thus, overarching theoretical frameworks pave the way toward a more general theory of human behaviour. We illustrate one such a theoretical framework: dual inheritance theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Muthukrishna & Joseph Henrich, 2019. "A problem in theory," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 221-229, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:3:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1038_s41562-018-0522-1
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0522-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Deborah Strumsky & Jose Lobo & Charlotta Mellander, 2021. "As different as night and day: Scaling analysis of Swedish urban areas and regional labor markets," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(2), pages 231-247, February.
    2. Hallgeir Sjåstad, 2019. "Short-sighted greed? Focusing on the future promotes reputation-based generosity," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(2), pages 199-213, March.
    3. Joep Cornelissen & Mariëtte Kaandorp, 2023. "Towards Stronger Causal Claims in Management Research: Causal Triangulation Instead of Causal Identification," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 834-860, June.
    4. Falk, Carl F. & Muthukrishna, Michael, 2021. "Parsimony in model selection: tools for assessing fit propensity," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110856, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Fišar, Miloš & Cingl, Lubomír & Reggiani, Tommaso & Kundtová Klocová, Eva & Kundt, Radek & Krátký, Jan & Kostolanská, Katarína & Bencúrová, Petra & Pešková, Marie Kudličková & Marečková, Klára, 2023. "Ovulatory shift, hormonal changes, and no effects on incentivized decision-making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    6. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2021. "Reproducibility and replicability crisis: How management compares to psychology and economics – A systematic review of literature," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 577-594.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:199-213 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Leah H. Palm-Forster & Paul J. Ferraro & Nicholas Janusch & Christian A. Vossler & Kent D. Messer, 2019. "Behavioral and Experimental Agri-Environmental Research: Methodological Challenges, Literature Gaps, and Recommendations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 719-742, July.
    9. Michael Niedeggen & Rudolf Kerschreiter & Katharina Schuck, 2019. "Loss of control as a violation of expectations: Testing the predictions of a common inconsistency compensation approach in an inclusionary cyberball game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, September.
    10. Adam Maxwell Sparks & Daniel M T Fessler & Colin Holbrook, 2019. "Elevation, an emotion for prosocial contagion, is experienced more strongly by those with greater expectations of the cooperativeness of others," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-29, December.
    11. Nosek, Brian A. & Errington, Timothy M., 2019. "What is replication?," MetaArXiv u4g6t, Center for Open Science.
    12. Semken, Christoph & Rossell, David, 2020. "Bayesian Specification Curve Analysis," OSF Preprints cahyq, Center for Open Science.
    13. Johnstone, David, 2022. "Accounting research and the significance test crisis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    14. Calder, Bobby J. & He, Sharlene & Sternthal, Brian, 2023. "Using theoretical frameworks in behavioral research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    15. Juana Castro & Stefan Drews & Filippos Exadaktylos & Joël Foramitti & Franziska Klein & Théo Konc & Ivan Savin & Jeroen van den Bergh, 2020. "A review of agent‐based modeling of climate‐energy policy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), July.
    16. Chavez-Yenter, Daniel & Zhao, Jingsong & Ratcliff, Chelsea L. & Kehoe, Kelsey & Blumling, Allison & Peterson, Emily & Klein, William M.P. & Sylvia Chou, Wen-Ying & Kaphingst, Kimberly A., 2021. "Theory utilization in current communication of cancer genetic testing research: Identified gaps and opportunities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:3:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1038_s41562-018-0522-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.