Constructs in Psychology: Lessons from the Philosophy of Science

Edouard Machery

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2023.2274367

IF: 5.581

2024-01-21

Psychological Inquiry

Abstract:No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). 1 Alternatively, it is some entity that refers to dogs and that is expressed by the word "dog." Nothing hangs on this distinction in the present discussion.

psychology, multidisciplinary

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Questioning Psychological Constructs: Current Issues and Proposed Changes

Paul De Boeck,Jolynn Pek,Katherine Walton,Duane T. Wegener,Brandon M. Turner,Barbara L. Andersen,Theodore P. Beauchaine,Luc Lecavalier,Jay I. Myung,Richard E. Petty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2023.2274429

IF: 5.581

2024-01-21

Psychological Inquiry

Abstract:Constructs are central to psychology. We describe two current trends as responses to dissatisfactions with the abstract nature of constructs and with uncertain and variable research findings: a trend away from constructs toward specific notions and effects, and sharper construct definitions with improved construct measurement. We explain that the issues in psychology reflect the complexity and variable nature of psychological phenomena. Rather than following the trends, we propose a reformulation of the construct notion to accommodate complexity and uncertainty. To provide background, we describe the historical development and epistemology of constructs, and highlight the explanatory and integrative role of constructs. Our reformulation implies that constructs are (1) composite, (2) organized in a hierarchy with overlap, (3) variable, with heterogeneous measurement results. Methods can be and are being developed accordingly. We close with considerations for further debate.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Constructive anthropomorphism: a functional evolutionary approach to the study of human-like cognitive mechanisms in animals

Michal Arbilly,Arnon Lotem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1616

2017-10-25

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract:Anthropomorphism, the attribution of human cognitive processes and emotional states to animals, is commonly viewed as non-scientific and potentially misleading. This is mainly because apparent similarity to humans can usually be explained by alternative, simpler mechanisms in animals, and because there is no explanatory power in analogies to human phenomena when these phenomena are not well understood. Yet, because it is also difficult to preclude real similarity and continuity in the evolution of humans' and animals’ cognitive abilities, it may not be productive to completely ignore our understanding of human behaviour when thinking about animals. Here we propose that in applying a functional approach to the evolution of cognitive mechanisms, human cognition may be used to broaden our theoretical thinking and to generate testable hypotheses. Our goal is not to ‘elevate’ animals, but rather to find the minimal set of mechanistic principles that may explain ‘advanced’ cognitive abilities in humans, and consider under what conditions these mechanisms were likely to enhance fitness and to evolve in animals. We illustrate this approach, from relatively simple emotional states, to more advanced mechanisms, involved in planning and decision-making, episodic memory, metacognition, theory of mind, and consciousness.
Constructivist Set-Theoretic Analysis: An Alternative to Essentialist Social Science

James Mahoney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931231178100

2023-05-25

Philosophy of the Social Sciences

Abstract:Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Ahead of Print. Psychological essentialism is a cognitive bias through which human beings conceive the entities around them as having inner essences and basic natures. Social scientists routinely generate flawed inferences because their methods require the truth of psychological essentialism. This article develops set-theoretic analysis as a scientific-constructivist approach that overcomes the bias of psychological essentialism. With this approach, the "sets" of set-theoretic analysis are mental phenomena that establish boundaries and identify similarities and differences among entities whose natural kind composition is not known. The approach is illustrated through a consideration of research on intelligence, race, and poverty in the United States.

ethics
Philosophical Primatology: Reflections on Theses of Anthropological Difference, the Logic of Anthropomorphism and Anthropodenial, and the Self-other Category Mistake Within the Scope of Cognitive Primate Research

Hannes Wendler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-019-00337-3

2019-12-17

Biological Theory

Abstract:This article investigates the deep-rooted logical structures underlying our thinking about other animals with a particular focus on topics relevant for cognitive primate research. We begin with a philosophical propaedeutic that makes perspicuous how we are to differentiate ontological from epistemological considerations regarding primates, while also accounting for the many perplexities that will undoubtedly be encountered upon applying this difference to concrete phenomena. Following this, we give an account of what is to be understood by the assertion of a thesis of anthropological difference, identifying, inter alia, a property that fulfils the exclusivity, universality, and constitution criteria and demarcates the differentia specifica between humans and other animals. Also, we systematically develop how such theses can be formulated more moderately. Furthermore, we account for different theoretical frameworks, argumentative schemes, and sociological factors whose employment is associated with theses as such. This endeavor is carried out under the guise of anthropomorphism and anthropodenial. Doing so, we show that both are favored by the logic of cognitive primate research. Put briefly, concepts like cladistic parsimony and arguments by analogy favor anthropomorphism whereas concepts like traditional parsimony and Morgan's canon favor anthropodenial. We close by framing these topics in the light of the self-other category mistake that lies in ascribing exclusive self-properties to some other. Lastly, we probe this category mistake for potency and scope of implications and find it to be central to and unavoidably ingrained in our thinking about other animals.
Mind the (Construct-Measurement) Gap

Gordon Hodson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2023.2274389

IF: 5.581

2024-01-21

Psychological Inquiry

Abstract:No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). 1 Others consider dartboard analogies "traditional", dated, and insufficient for discussing measurement today (e.g. Peeters & Harpe, Citation 2020 ). 2 Currently there are debates about the scope and inclusivity/exclusivity of constructs. There is no inherent contradiction between the views espoused here and those in Hodson ( Citation 2021b ), where some researchers were confronted for not being open to more expansive ideas about constructs such as microaggressions. The central message is the same: Researchers should try their best to specify constructs clearly, whether they be limited and localized or expansive, hierarchical, and general. The empirical testing of these constructs using the best available evidence remains the central task of psychological scientists. In other words, constructs should be as specific versus broad as they need to be to capture the phenomenon at hand, with the goal of reducing the gap between theorized constructs and gathered evidence. 3 In the discipline of Psychology we have a tendency to treat theoretical models as sacrosanct and deeply "personal", deeply linked to the developer of the construct. As such, attempts to test and refine theories or constructs are often taken as personal attacks instead of good-faith attempts to better understand and refine the fit between theory and data (see Hodson, Citation 2021a ).

psychology, multidisciplinary
Philosophy of Science Tend to Social Constructivism

安维复

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-6522.2002.06.009

2002-01-01

Abstract:Two ideas are mentioned in this dissertation. On the one hand, Philosophy of science is not a privilege of logical positivism, Humanism is one of research programme of Philosophy of science. On the other hand, the Philosophy of science tend to social constructivism.
Self-Consciousness as a Construction All the Way Down

Massimo Marraffa,Cristina Meini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14030200

2024-03-01

Abstract:Contemporary mind and brain sciences provide theories and data that seem to confirm a hypothesis about human nature that we might formulate as follows. Human life is conditioned by a need that is no less important than elementary biological needs (such as survival and reproduction) or universal forms of social competition: the need to build and, indeed, defend a subjective identity whose solidity and clarity are the foundation of our intra- and inter-personal equilibrium and therefore of psychological well-being and mental health. In this article, distancing ourselves from a neo-Cartesian position still prevalent in the philosophy of mind and approaching instead the outcomes of contemporary cognitive sciences, we sketch the complex interweaving of the cognitive, emotional, and affective elements that are constitutive of subjective identity, with a focus on the role played in self-identity construction by Theory-of-Mind abilities. We will suggest that, at every stage of self-construction, individuals engage in processes of understanding others that have a largely innate basis. In this perspective, a mature self-awareness is somewhat secondary to the knowledge of others, an evolutionarily refined acquisition primarily serving as a defense mechanism.
How Dogs Perceive Humans and How Humans Should Treat Their Pet Dogs: Linking Cognition With Ethics

Judith Benz-Schwarzburg,Susana Monsó,Ludwig Huber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584037

IF: 3.8

2020-12-16

Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract:Humans interact with animals in numerous ways and on numerous levels. We are indeed living in an “animal”s world,’ in the sense that our lives are very much intertwined with the lives of animals. This also means that animals, like those dogs we commonly refer to as our pets, are living in a “human’s world” in the sense that it is us, not them, who, to a large degree, define and manage the interactions we have with them. In this sense, the human-animal relationship is nothing we should romanticize: it comes with clear power relations and thus with a set of responsibilities on the side of those who exercise this power. This holds, despite the fact that we like to think about our dogs as human’s best friend. Dogs have been part of human societies for longer than any other domestic species. Like no other species they exemplify the role of companion animals. Relationships with pet dogs are both very widespread and very intense, often leading to strong attachments between owners or caregivers and animals and to a treatment of these dogs as family members or even children. But how does this relationship look from the dogs’ perspective? How do they perceive the humans they engage with? What responsibilities and duties arise from the kind of mutual understanding, attachment, and the supposedly “special” bonds we form with them? Are there ethical implications, maybe even ethical implications beyond animal welfare? The past decades have seen an upsurge of research from comparative cognition on pet dogs’ cognitive and social skills, especially in comparison with and reference to humans. We will therefore set our discussion about the nature and ethical dimensions of the human–dog relationship against the background of the current empirical knowledge on dog (social) cognition. This allows us to analyze the human–dog relationship by applying an interdisciplinary approach that starts from the perspective of the dog to ultimately inform the perspective of humans. It is our aim to thereby identify ethical dimensions of the human–dog relationship that have been overlooked so far.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Remarks on Parmenides, Plato, and Constructivism

Tom Rockmore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111386294-013

2024-01-01

Abstract:Philosophical theories take shape in the reaction of later thinkers to their contemporaries or predecessors. This paper consists in a series of remarks about the constructivist approach to cognition, with special attention to Parmenides, who arguably invented the philosophical problem of knowledge as we know it; to Plato, whose post-Parmenidean solution to this problem fails; and to epistemic constructivism, also known as constructivism, which points towards a post-Platonic solution to the cognitive problem. I will be arguing that, as Einstein suggests but Kant denies, we cannot know the mind-independent real as it really is.
Folk-Psychological Interpretation of Human vs. Humanoid Robot Behavior: Exploring the Intentional Stance toward Robots

Sam Thellman,Annika Silvervarg,Tom Ziemke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01962

IF: 3.8

2017-11-14

Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract:People rely on shared folk-psychological theories when judging behavior. These theories guide people's social interactions and therefore need to be taken into consideration in the design of robots and other autonomous systems expected to interact socially with people. It is, however, not yet clear to what degree the mechanisms that underlie people's judgments of robot behavior overlap or differ from the case of human or animal behavior. To explore this issue, participants (N = 90) were exposed to images and verbal descriptions of eight different behaviors exhibited either by a person or a humanoid robot. Participants were asked to rate the intentionality, controllability and desirability of the behaviors, and to judge the plausibility of seven different types of explanations derived from a recently proposed psychological model of lay causal explanation of human behavior. Results indicate: substantially similar judgments of human and robot behavior, both in terms of (1a) ascriptions of intentionality/controllability/desirability and in terms of (1b) plausibility judgments of behavior explanations; (2a) high level of agreement in judgments of robot behavior - (2b) slightly lower but still largely similar to agreement over human behaviors; (3) systematic differences in judgments concerning the plausibility of goals and dispositions as explanations of human vs. humanoid behavior. Taken together, these results suggest that people's intentional stance toward the robot was in this case very similar to their stance toward the human.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Danaher's Ethical Behaviourism: An Adequate Guide to Assessing the Moral Status of a Robot?

Jilles Smids

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00230-4

Abstract:This paper critically assesses John Danaher's 'ethical behaviourism', a theory on how the moral status of robots should be determined. The basic idea of this theory is that a robot's moral status is determined decisively on the basis of its observable behaviour. If it behaves sufficiently similar to some entity that has moral status, such as a human or an animal, then we should ascribe the same moral status to the robot as we do to this human or animal. The paper argues against ethical behaviourism by making four main points. First, it is argued that the strongest version of ethical behaviourism understands the theory as relying on inferences to the best explanation when inferring moral status. Second, as a consequence, ethical behaviourism cannot stick with merely looking at the robot's behaviour, while remaining neutral with regard to the difficult question of which property grounds moral status. Third, not only behavioural evidence ought to play a role in inferring a robot's moral status, but knowledge of the design process of the robot and of its designer's intention ought to be taken into account as well. Fourth, knowledge of a robot's ontology and how that relates to human biology often is epistemically relevant for inferring moral status as well. The paper closes with some concluding observations.
The Epistemic Predicament of a Pseudoscience: Social Constructivism Confronts Freudian Psychoanalysis

MAARTEN BOUDRY,FILIP BUEKENS

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.2011.01098.x

2011-03-29

Theoria

Abstract:Social constructivist approaches to science have often been dismissed as inaccurate accounts of scientific knowledge. In this article, we take the claims of robust social constructivism (SC) seriously and attempt to find a theory which does instantiate the epistemic predicament as described by SC. We argue that Freudian psychoanalysis, in virtue of some of its well‐known epistemic complications and conceptual confusions, provides a perfect illustration of what SC claims is actually going on in science. In other words, the features SC mistakenly ascribes to science in general correctly characterize the epistemic status of Freudian psychoanalysis. This sheds some light on the internal disputes in the field of psychoanalysis, on the sociology of psychoanalytic movement, and on the “war” that has been waged over Freud's legacy with his critics. In addition, our analysis offers an indirect and independent argument against SC as an account of bona fide science, by illustrating what science would look like if it were to function as SC claims it does.

English Else
Phenomenology or constructivism in psychopathology

G. Dzhupanov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.1371

2024-08-30

European Psychiatry

Abstract:Introduction Phenomenology is historically fundamental for psychopathology. In recent decades constructivist approaches occur as an alternative. Some consider them quite compatible, others take the reverse stance, arguing for advances of one or the other. This has parallel in discussions and contradictions in philosophy of mind. Objectives As Dennett points, there is no science free of philosophy, so it is recommendable to make clear and bear in mind on what kind of philosophy is based contemporary psychopathology. Methods Brief review and comparison between phenomenological and constructivist approaches. Results There is no doubt, that culture influences self and experience. Culture and social environment shape abnormal experiences as well. In an extreme variant a constructivist statement would sound as "Someone suffers from a disorder because a violation of social norms." The self is considered as socially constructed entirely, in the spirit of Mead. Psychopathological theories are function of societal development as well. Phenomenological approach pays attention to constitution and structure of subjective experience. The self has a multilayer structure with a pre-reflexive experiential level of self. Elements of subjective reality do exist, that are not result from social influence, these include abnormal experiences. Especially some experiences in severe mental illness originate from profound disturbance of intentionality based on dysfunction of pre-reflexive self-awareness as it shown by T. Fuchs. Conclusions Phenomenology offers more broad and satisfying framework for psychopathology and psychiatry. Contribution of constructivism is not to be ignored, but seems to be one-sided. Further research and deeper education in phenomenological psychopathology of trainees would be valuable. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

psychiatry
Inching Toward a Unified Metatheory for Psychology

Michael F. Mascolo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09543-2

IF: 1.156

2020-06-22

Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science

Abstract:Zagaria et al. (<a href="/article/10.1007/s12124-020-09543-2#ref-CR52">2020</a>) have aptly suggested that as a discipline, psychology is a giant with feet of clay. Drawing on the content of introductory textbooks, the authors show that there is little coherence and consensus about the meaning of key psychological terms – including such terms as psychology, mind, behavior. Drawing on evidence marking psychology is a "soft" science, the authors suggest that psychology can profit by adopting the "hard" foundation of evolutionary psychology as its metatheory. While Zagaria et al.'s characterization of psychology's fractious foundation has deep merit, their desire to erect a psychological metatheory on evolutionary psychology is unlikely to solve the problem they so aptly identify. At the least, I suggest a unified metatheory must: (a) establish a shared psychological lexicon; (b) elaborate a methodology that coordinates first-, second- and third-person modes of inquiry, and (c) develop a process model that describes psychological functioning at the biological, psychological and socio-cultural levels of analysis. To illustrate, I describe how contemporary relational and systems frameworks provide a framework that can move us in these directions.

psychology, biological
Relational moral philosophy needs relational moral psychology

Rachel CalcottBrian D. Earpa Department of Psychology,Harvard University,Cambridge,MA,USAb Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics,Faculty of Philosophy,University of Oxford,Oxford,UK

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2024.2304054

2024-01-13

Philosophical Psychology

Abstract:No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). 1. Terms like "African", "Asian", and "Western" obviously require some justification. Metz uses them to refer to qualities that "have been salient in a locale over a substantial amount of time" or "have for a long while been recurrent in a place in a way they have tended not to be elsewhere." Hence: "long-standing characteristics in a region that differentiate it from many other regions" (Metz, Citation 2021 , p. 7). For simplicity, we'll follow Metz's usage.

psychology, multidisciplinary,ethics
Self, Reality, Knowledge and Theory: Is Social Constructionism Antithetical to Sport and Exercise Psychology Research?

Martin Jeffrey,Jeffrey Martin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2022.139088

2022-01-01

Psychology

Abstract:Sport and exercise psychology researchers produce research to help athletes, exercisers, coaches, and parents. This research, both qualitative and quantitative, is predicated on an implicit and at times explicit endorsement of a mind and an agentic self. For a discipline such as psychology, it cannot be over-stated that a belief in a mind, as well as all of the thoughts and feelings that are mind based, is critical. An agentic self is a person who has the ability to act independently, make choices, demonstrate free will and is conscious and self-aware. Unfortunately, social constructionists often minimize the mind or outright disavow a mind and, by extension, an agentic self that can understand reality. In the current paper, I provide a historical and philosophical overview and critique of social constructionism to sport and exercise psychology researchers and its mind-minimizing/denying philosophy. At the same time, I highlight research that clearly demonstrates the primacy of the mind (i.e., practical adequacy, conscious causation, the cognitive niche, and theory of mind). Researchers should consider if conducting research grounded in a philosophy of science that denies and/or minimizes an agentic self and supports moral relativism, is a defensible position.
Anthropomorphism and the social robot

Brian R. Duffy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8890(02)00374-3

IF: 3.7

2003-03-01

Robotics and Autonomous Systems

Abstract:This paper discusses the issues pertinent to the development of a meaningful social interaction between robots and people through employing degrees of anthropomorphism in a robot’s physical design and behaviour. As robots enter our social space, we will inherently project/impose our interpretation on their actions similar to the techniques we employ in rationalising, for example, a pet’s behaviour. This propensity to anthropomorphise is not seen as a hindrance to social robot development, but rather a useful mechanism that requires judicious examination and employment in social robot research.

robotics,automation & control systems,computer science, artificial intelligence
A Theory of a Human-Centered Social Cognitive Chain

Feng Yu,Liying Xu,Kaiping Peng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2022.2166297

2022-01-01

Social Sciences in China

Abstract:The absence of anthropology from cognitive science may be related to the fact that the Western-dominated cognitive approach is not human-centered. From an anthropological perspective, we propose a possible social cognitive model—the human-centered social cognitive chain. It is a theory of the human cognitive process that includes two phenomena— anthropomorphism and dehumanization; has two directions—upward and downward; involves two dimensions—morality and competence; and produces two results—cuteness and coolness. It is a way for humans to understand the whole world with themselves as starting point and end point, governing social cognition. The human-centered social cognitive chain involves gods, humans, animals, plants, artificial objects, pure objects, and even abstract concepts, on the basis of which upward and downward anthropomorphism and upward and downward dehumanization arise. The existing research on anthropomorphism and dehumanization is slightly biased in that it only emphasizes upward anthropomorphism and downward dehumanization. Theoretically, both anthropomorphism and dehumanization should be two-stage processes based on essentialism, but humans engaged in cognition tend to adopt a dimensional view that simplifies them. The morality-competence dichotomy reflects this tendency and results in the cognitive outcomes of cuteness, where morality is valued higher than competence and coolness, where competence is valued higher than morality. The human-centered social cognitive chain is the paradigm by which humans understand themselves, their culture, and the world.
Folk-ontological stances toward robots and psychological human likeness

Edoardo Datteri

2024-06-18

Abstract:It has often been argued that people can attribute mental states to robots without making any ontological commitments to the reality of those states. But what does it mean to 'attribute' a mental state to a robot, and what is an 'ontological commitment'? It will be argued that, on a plausible interpretation of these two notions, it is not clear how mental state attribution can occur without any ontological commitment. Taking inspiration from the philosophical debate on scientific realism, a provisional taxonomy of folk-ontological stances towards robots will also be identified, corresponding to different ways of understanding robotic minds. They include realism, non-realism, eliminativism, reductionism, fictionalism and agnosticism. Instrumentalism will also be discussed and presented as a folk-epistemological stance. In the last part of the article it will be argued that people's folk-ontological stances towards robots and humans can influence their perception of the human-likeness of robots. The analysis carried out here can be seen as encouraging a 'folk-ontological turn' in human-robot interaction research, aimed at explicitly determining what beliefs people have about the reality of robot minds.

Robotics,Human-Computer Interaction
How to tame a catoblepas

Jeske Toorman Jussi Haukioja Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies,NTNU Trondheim,Trondheim,Norway

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2024.2422945

2024-11-02

Philosophical Psychology

Abstract:Two recent experimental studies, by Shaun Nichols et al. and by Michael Devitt & Brian Porter claim to find evidence for the view that both causal-historical factors and descriptive factors play a role in determining the extensions of natural kind terms. Both studies use versions of a vignette featuring the fictional natural kind term "Catoblepas". We conducted an experiment where we used vignettes and corresponding tasks that were otherwise fully analogous, but featured terms which are not natural kind terms. We found that such terms received the same patterns of response which Nichols et al. and Devitt & Porter took to justify their conclusions. We conclude that either the kind of view they arrive at applies more widely than just for natural kind terms or, as we think is more likely, the original results do not support such a two-factor view in the first place.

psychology, multidisciplinary,ethics

Constructs in Psychology: Lessons from the Philosophy of Science

Questioning Psychological Constructs: Current Issues and Proposed Changes

Constructive anthropomorphism: a functional evolutionary approach to the study of human-like cognitive mechanisms in animals

Constructivist Set-Theoretic Analysis: An Alternative to Essentialist Social Science

Philosophical Primatology: Reflections on Theses of Anthropological Difference, the Logic of Anthropomorphism and Anthropodenial, and the Self-other Category Mistake Within the Scope of Cognitive Primate Research

Mind the (Construct-Measurement) Gap

Philosophy of Science Tend to Social Constructivism

Self-Consciousness as a Construction All the Way Down

How Dogs Perceive Humans and How Humans Should Treat Their Pet Dogs: Linking Cognition With Ethics

Remarks on Parmenides, Plato, and Constructivism

Folk-Psychological Interpretation of Human vs. Humanoid Robot Behavior: Exploring the Intentional Stance toward Robots

Danaher's Ethical Behaviourism: An Adequate Guide to Assessing the Moral Status of a Robot?

The Epistemic Predicament of a Pseudoscience: Social Constructivism Confronts Freudian Psychoanalysis

Phenomenology or constructivism in psychopathology

Inching Toward a Unified Metatheory for Psychology

Relational moral philosophy needs relational moral psychology

Self, Reality, Knowledge and Theory: Is Social Constructionism Antithetical to Sport and Exercise Psychology Research?

Anthropomorphism and the social robot

A Theory of a Human-Centered Social Cognitive Chain

Folk-ontological stances toward robots and psychological human likeness

How to tame a catoblepas