Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:05:40.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Representative design: A realistic alternative to (systematic) integrative design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

Gijs A. Holleman Open the ORCID record for Gijs A. Holleman [Opens in a new window] ,
Mandeep K. Dhami ,
Ignace T. C. Hooge  and
Roy S. Hessels Open the ORCID record for Roy S. Hessels [Opens in a new window]
Gijs A. Holleman*
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Neuropsychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands g.a.holleman@tilburguniversity.edu
Mandeep K. Dhami
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Middlesex University, London, UK m.dhami@mdx.ac.uk
Ignace T. C. Hooge
Affiliation:
Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands i.hooge@uu.nl r.s.hessels@uu.nl; royhessels@gmail.com
Roy S. Hessels
Affiliation:
Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands i.hooge@uu.nl r.s.hessels@uu.nl; royhessels@gmail.com
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We disagree with Almaatouq et al. that no realistic alternative exists to the “one-at-a-time” paradigm. Seventy years ago, Egon Brunswik introduced representative design, which offers a clear path to commensurability and generality. Almaatouq et al.'s integrative design cannot guarantee the external validity and generalizability of results which is sorely needed, while representative design tackles the problem head on.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e48
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.)

References

Brunswik, E. (1943). Organismic achievement and environmental probability. Psychological Review, 50(3), 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1944). Distal focussing of perception: Size-constancy in a representative sample of situations. Psychological Monographs, 56(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1955a). The conceptual framework of psychology. In Carnap, R., Neurath, O., & Morris, C. W. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of unified science (Vol. 1, Part 2, pp. 655–760). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1955b). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62(3), 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1956a). Historical and thematic relations of psychology to other sciences. The Scientific Monthly, 83(3), 151–161.Google Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1956b). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhami, M. K., Hertwig, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2004). The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, K. R. (1966). Probabilistic functionalism: Egon Brunswik's integration of the history, theory, and method of psychology. In Hammond, K. R. (Ed.), The psychology of Egon Brunswik (Vol. 15, p. 80). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hammond, K. R. (1998). Ecological validity: Then and now. https://brunswiksociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/essay2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Holleman, G. A., Hooge, I. T. C., Kemner, C., & Hessels, R. S. (2020). The “real-world approach” and its problems: A critique of the term ecological validity. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holleman, G. A., Hooge, I. T. C., Kemner, C., & Hessels, R. S. (2021). The reality of “real-life” neuroscience: A commentary on Shamay-Tsoory and Mendelsohn (2019). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 461–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Olsson, H. (2000). Naive empiricism and dogmatism in confidence research: A critical examination of the hard–easy effect. Psychological Review, 107(2), 384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, J. C., Bourgin, D. D., Agrawal, M., Reichman, D., & Griffiths, T. L. (2021). Using large-scale experiments and machine learning to discover theories of human decision-making. Science (New York, N.Y.), 372(6547), 1209–1214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed