Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-23T20:07:42.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Replies to commentaries on beyond playing 20 questions with nature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

Abdullah Almaatouq Open the ORCID record for Abdullah Almaatouq [Opens in a new window] ,
Thomas L. Griffiths Open the ORCID record for Thomas L. Griffiths [Opens in a new window] ,
Jordan W. Suchow Open the ORCID record for Jordan W. Suchow [Opens in a new window] ,
Mark E. Whiting Open the ORCID record for Mark E. Whiting [Opens in a new window] ,
James Evans Open the ORCID record for James Evans [Opens in a new window]  and
Duncan J. Watts Open the ORCID record for Duncan J. Watts [Opens in a new window]
Abdullah Almaatouq*
Affiliation:
Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA amaatouq@mit.edu
Thomas L. Griffiths
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology and Computer Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA tomg@princeton.edu
Jordan W. Suchow
Affiliation:
School of Business, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, USA jws@stevens.edu
Mark E. Whiting
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA markew@seas.upenn.edu
James Evans
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA jevans@uchicago.edu Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM, USA
Duncan J. Watts
Affiliation:
Department of Computer and Information Science, Annenberg School of Communication, and Operations, Information, and Decisions Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA djwatts@seas.upenn.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Commentaries on the target article offer diverse perspectives on integrative experiment design. Our responses engage three themes: (1) Disputes of our characterization of the problem, (2) skepticism toward our proposed solution, and (3) endorsement of the solution, with accompanying discussions of its implementation in existing work and its potential for other domains. Collectively, the commentaries enhance our confidence in the promise and viability of integrative experiment design, while highlighting important considerations about how it is used.

Information

Type
Author's Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e65
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

DeKay, M. L., Rubinchik, N., Li, Z., & De Boeck, P. (2022). Accelerating psychological science with metastudies: A demonstration using the risky-choice framing effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(6), 1704–1736. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221079611CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubova, M., Moskvichev, A., & Zollman, K. (2022). Against theory-motivated experimentation in science. BITSS. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/ysv2uCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A. (2011). Causality and statistical learning. The American Journal of Sociology, 117(3), 955–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofman, J. M., Sharma, A., & Watts, D. J. (2017). Prediction and explanation in social systems. Science, 355(6324), 486–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, L. (2023). A quasi-comprehensive exploration of the mechanisms of spatial working memory. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(5), 729–739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manzi, J. (2012). Uncontrolled: The surprising payoff of trial-and-error for business, politics, and society. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Martin, T., Hofman, J. M., Sharma, A., Anderson, A., & Watts, D. J. (2016). Exploring limits to prediction in complex social systems. In Proceedings of the 25th International conference on world wide web (pp. 683–694). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. ISBN: 978-1-4503-4143-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1967). Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66(1), 195–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musslick, S., Hewson, J. T., Andrew, B. W., Strittmatter, Y., Williams, C. C., Dang, G., … Holland, J. G. (2023). An evaluation of experimental sampling strategies for autonomous empirical research in cognitive science. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5ch569fgGoogle Scholar
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Awh, E., Brown, G. D. A., Conway, A., Cowan, N., … Ward, G. (2018). Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144(9), 885–958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311(5762), 854–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchow, J. W. (2023). Scaling up behavioural studies of visual memory. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(5), 672–673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, D. J., Beck, E. D., Bienenstock, E. J., Bowers, J., Frank, A., Grubesic, A., … Salganik, M. (2018). Explanation, prediction, and causality: Three sides of the same coin? https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/u6vz5CrossRefGoogle Scholar