Psychologists too often rely on only one source of evidence to affirm the validity of a construct. However, they usually do not know all the conditions that can produce the evidence they gather. Hence, the inference is often limited to the data gathered and does not generalize to other categories of information. Examples of this habit are presented along with the suggestion that all social scientists should affirm the utility of their concepts with more than one class of information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaillargeonR.
(1994).
How do infants learn about the physical world?Current Directions in Psychological Science,
3,
133–140.
2.
BerthierN.E.De BoisS.PoirierC.R.NovakM.A.CliftonR.K.
(2000).
Where's the ball?Developmental Psychology,
36,
294–401.
3.
HoodB.Cole-DaviesV.DiasM.
(2003).
Looking and search measures of object knowledge in preschool children.
Developmental Psychology,
38,
61–70.
4.
InselT.R.
(2007).
From animal models to model animals.
Biological Psychiatry,
62,
1337–1339.
5.
KaganJ.SnidmanN.
(2004).
The long shadow of temperament. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
KaganJ.SnidmanN.KahnV.TowsleyS.
(2007).
The preservation of two infant temperaments into adolescence.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
72,
1–75.
7.
RagattP.
(2006).
Putting the 5-factor model into context: Evidence linking Big Five traits to narrative.
Journal of Personality,
74,
1321–1348.
8.
RichmondJ.KaganJ.NelsonC.
(2008).
The role of stimulus discrepancy in infant attention: An event-related potential (ERP) study. Unpublished manuscript.
