The field of family studies would be enhanced by more systematic use of the method of multiple hypotheses. Multiple interpretations of family phenomena need to be considered routinely. Conceptual hypotheses should more frequently be designed to disconfirm theoretical expectations or to pit competing explanations against one another. Theories need to be bolder, particularly in the sense that they should aim to make counterintuitive and more precise predictions. This article elaborates such a view and relates it to philosophy of science (especially Popper and Kuhn), to current practice in family studies, to factors that inhibit attempts to disconfirm existing interpretations, and to implications for research and for theory development in family studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldous, J. 1978 Family Careers. New York: John Wiley.
2.
Allen, W. R.1978“The search for applicable theories of black family life.”J. of Marriage and the Family40: 117-129.
3.
Anderson, N. H. and J. Shanteau1977“Weak inference with linear models.”Psych. Bull. 84: 1155-1170.
4.
Armstrong, J. S.1979“Advocacy and objectivity in science.”Management Sci. 25: 423-428.
5.
Bartz, K. W. and F. I. Nye1970“Early marriage: A propositional formulation.”J. of Marriage and the Family32: 258-268.
6.
Baumrind, D.1980“New directions in socialization research.”Amer. Psychologist35: 639-652.
7.
Borne, H. , A. Jache, N. Sederberg, and D. Klein 1979 “Family chronogram analysis: Toward the development of new methodological tools for assessing the life cycles of families.” Presented at the Theory and Methodology Workshop at the meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Boston.
8.
Brown, L. H. and J. S. Kidwell1982“Methodology in family studies: The other side of caring.”J. of Marriage and the Family44: 833-839.
9.
Burr, W. R. 1973 Theory Construction and the Sociology of the Family. New York: John Wiley.
10.
Burr, W. R. , R. Hill, F. I. Nye, and I. L. Reiss (eds.) 1979a Contemporary Theories About the Family, vol. 1. New York: Free Press.
11.
Burr, W. R. , R. Hill, F. I. Nye, and I. L. Reiss (eds.) 1979b “Introduction,” pp. 3-16 in W. R. Burret al. (eds.) Contemporary Theories About the Family, vol. 1. New York: Free Press.
12.
Chamberlin, T. C.1965“The method of multiple working hypotheses.”Science148: 754-759. (Originally published 1890)
13.
Chapman, L. J. and J. P. Chapman1969“Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs.”J. of Abnormal Psychology74: 271-280.
14.
DeMonbreun, B. G. and M. J. Mahoney 1976 “The effect of data return patterns on confidences in an hypothesis,” pp. 181-186 in M. J. Mahoney (ed.) Scientist as Subject. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
15.
Dolby, G. R.1982“The role of statistics in the methodology of the life sciences.”Biometrics38: 1069-1083.
16.
Feshback, N. D.1976“Corporal punishment (letter to the editor).”Amer. Psych. Assn. Monitor7: 3.
17.
Feyerabend, P. 1970 “Consolations for the specialists,” pp. 197-230 in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
18.
Goode, W. J. , E. H. Hopkins, and H. M. McClure 1971 Social Systems and Family Patterns: A Propositional Inventory. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
19.
Hill, R. 1971 “Payoffs and limitations of contemporary strategies for family theory systemization.” Presented at the meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Estes Park, CO.
20.
Hill, R. and D. A. Hansen1960“The identification of conceptual frameworks used in family study.”Marriage and Family Living22: 299-311.
21.
Hill, R. and P. Mattessich 1977 “Reconstruction of family development theories: A progress report.” Presented at the Theory and Methods Workshop at the meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, San Diego.
22.
Humphreys, L. G.1976“Corporal punishment (Letter to the editor).”Amer. Psych. Assn. Monitor7: 2, 12.
23.
Katz, A. and R. Hill1958“Residential propinquity and marital selection.”Marriage and Family Living20: 27-35.
24.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970a “Logic of discovery or psychology of science?” pp. 1-23 in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
25.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970b “Reflections on my critics,” pp. 231-278 in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
26.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970c The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
27.
Lakatos, I. 1970 “Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes,” pp. 91-195 in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
28.
Larzelere, R. E. 1980 “Spanking: Model or deterrent of children's aggression in the family?” Presented at the meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Portland, OR.
29.
Larzelere, R. E. and D. M. Klein (forth.) “Methodological implications of the family as an object of study,” in M. B. Sussman and S. K. Steinmetz (eds.) Handbook of Marriage and the Family. New York: Plenum Press.
30.
Lauden, L. 1977 Progress and its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Progress. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
31.
Mahoney, M. J. and B. G. DeMonbreun1977“Psychology of the scientific: An analysis of problem-solving bias.”Cognitive Therapy and Research1: 229-238.
32.
Mederer, H. , R. Hill, and C. Joy 1981 “Bridging theory via multimethods: Questionnaire and interview design for capturing critical transitions processes in family development.” Presented at the Theory and Methods Workshop at the meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Milwaukee.
33.
Meehl, P. E.1978“Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology.”J. of Consulting and Clinical Psychology46: 806-834.
34.
Merton, R. K. 1968 Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
35.
Miller, B. C. , B. C. Rollins, and D. L. Thomas1982“On methods of studying marriages and families.”J. of Marriage and the Family44: 851-873.
36.
Millman, M. and R. M. Kanter (eds.) 1975 Another Voice: Feminist Perspectives on Social Life and Social Sciences. New York: Octagon.
37.
Nock, S. L.1979“The family life cycle: Empirical or conceptual tool?”J. of Marriage and the Family41: 15-26.
38.
Platt, J. R.1964“Strong inference.”Science146: 347-353.
39.
Popper, K. R. 1959 The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1935)
40.
Rodman, H.1980“Are conceptual framework necessary for theory building? The case of family sociology.”Soc. Q.21: 429-441.
41.
Schuessler, K. F. (ed.) 1978 Sociological Methodology 1979. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
42.
Spanier, G. B. , W. Sauer, and R. E. Larzelere1979“An empirical evaluation of the family life cycle.”J. of Marriage and the Family41: 27-38.
43.
Trost, J. 1977 “The family life cycle: A problematic concept,” pp. 471-485 in J. Cuisenieu (ed.) The Family Life Cycle in European Societies. The Hague: Mouton.
44.
Wason, P. C.1960“On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task.”Q. J. of Experimental Psychology12: 129-140.
45.
Wason, P. C. and P. N. Johnson-Laird 1972 Psychology of Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
46.
Watkins, J. 1970 “Against `normal science,' ” pp. 25-37 in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
47.
Weimer, W. B. 1980 “Psychotherapy and philosophy of science: Examples of a two-way street in search of traffic,” in M. J. Mahoney (ed.) Psychotherapy Process. New York: Plenum Press.
48.
Welsh, R. S.1976“Tongue-in-cheek? (Letter to the editor).”Amer. Psych. Assn. Monitor7: 12-13.
