Non‐empirical and empirical components in the hypotheses of five social psychological experiments

Abstract

Five studies published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and selected without advance knowledge of their contents, were analyzed with respect to the epistemic and modal status of their hypotheses. It was found that the general hypotheses were a priori and noncontingent (necessarily true), whereas the local auxiliary hypotheses were empirical and contingent. Hence, the data were only relevant for the latter. It is conjectured that such pseudoempirical studies may abound in contemporary psychology. They remain undiscovered because researchers unreflectively believe that all propositions that can be related to data are empirical and that psychological terms need not be defined. Only when terms are defined and presuppositions (axioms) are stated, can one determine the epistemic and modal status of a given proposition, and, hence, whether or not a study is pseudoempirical.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.