I suggest that the recent, highly visible, and often heated debate over failures to replicate results in the social sciences reveals more than the need for greater attention to the pragmatics and value of empirical falsification. It is also a symptom of a serious issue—the under-developed state of theory in many areas of psychology. While I focus on the phenomenon of “social priming”—since it figures centrally in current debate—it is not the only area of psychological inquiry to which my critique applies. I first discuss some of the key issues in the “social priming” debate and then attempt to show that many of the problems thus far identified are traceable to a lack of specificity of theory. Finally, I hint at the possibility that adherence to the materialist tenets of modern psychological theory may have a limiting effect on our full appreciation of the phenomena under scrutiny.
BarghJ. A.ChenM.BurrowsL. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244.
3.
BrunswikE. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1947)
4.
BungeM. A. (2010). Matter and mind: A philosophical inquiry. New York, NY: Springer.
5.
ChurchlandP. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind-brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
CronbachL. J.MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
DijksterhuisA.van KnippenbergA. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of Trivial Pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 865–877.
9.
DoyenS.KleinO.PichonC-L.CleermansA. (2012). Behavioral priming: It’s all in the mind, but whose mind?Plos One, 7(1), 1–7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029081
10.
EarleW. (1955). Objectivity: An essay on phenomenological ontology. New York, NY: The Noonday Press.
11.
EarleW. E. (1972). The autobiographical consciousness. Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books.
12.
ElveeR. Q. (1992). The end of science? Attack and defense: Nobel conference XXV. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
13.
FodorJ. A. (1968). Psychological explanation: An introduction to the philosophy of psychology. New York, NY: Random House.
14.
GallagherS.ZahaviD. (2008). The phenomenological mind. New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
Godfrey-SmithP. (2003). Theory and reality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16.
HansonN. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HeisenbergW. (1999). Physics and philosophy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1958)
18.
JamesW. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
19.
KimJ. (1998). Philosophy of mind. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
20.
KleinS. B. (2013). Making the case that episodic recollection is attributable to operations occurring at retrieval rather than to content stored in a dedicated subsystem of long-term memory. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(3), 1–14. doi: 103389/fnbeh.2013.00003
21.
KleinS. B. (2014). The two selves: Their metaphysical commitments and functional independence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22.
KoestlerA. (1989). The sleepwalkers: A history of man’s changing vision of the universe. New York, NY: Arkana.
23.
KoonsR. C.BealerG. (2010). The waning of materialism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
KosslynS. M. (2006). You can play 20 questions with nature and win: Categorical versus coordinate spatial relations as a case study. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1519–1523.
25.
KuhnT. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
26.
LadymanJ. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
MargenauH. (1950). The nature of physical reality. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
28.
MargenauH. (1961). Open vistas: Philosophical perspectives of modern science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
MartinC. B. (2008). The mind in nature. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
McGinnC. (2013). Mind and cosmos: Why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false [Review of the book Mind and cosmos: Why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly wrong, by T. Nagel]. Mind, 122, 582–585.
31.
MedawarP. B. (1980). Induction and intuition in scientific thought. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society. (Original work published 1968)
MelnykA. (2003). A physicalist manifesto: Thoroughly modern materialism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
NagelT. (2012). Mind and cosmos: Why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly wrong. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
NewellA. (1973). You can’t play 20 questions with nature and win: Projective comments on the papers of this symposium. In ChaseW. G. (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 283–308). San Francisco, CA: Academic Press.
36.
NieuwensteinM.van RijnH. (2012). The unconscious thought advantage: Further replication failures from a search for confirmatory evidence. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 779–798.
37.
Papa-GrimaldiA. (2010). Orphans of the one or the deception of the immanence. Bern, Germany: Peter Lang.
38.
PashlerH.CoburnN.HarrisC. R. (2012). Priming social distance? Failure to replicate effects on social and food judgments. Plos One, 7(8), 1–6. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042510
39.
PlaceU. T. (1956). Is consciousness a brain process?British Journal of Psychology, 47, 44–50.
40.
PopperK. (2004). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London, UK: Routledge. (Original work published 1963)
41.
RescherN. (1984). The limits of science. Berkeley: University of California Press.
42.
RescherN. (1996). Process metaphysics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
43.
SannaL. J.ChangE. C.MiceliP. M.LundbergK. B. (2011). Rising up to higher virtues: Experiencing elevated physical height uplifts prosocial actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 472–476.
Spencer BrownG. (1957). Probability and scientific inference. London, UK: Longmans, Green and Co.
46.
StapelD. A.LindenbergS. (2011). Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination. Science, 332, 251–253.
47.
TorgersonW. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
48.
TrustedJ. (1979). The logic of scientific inference. London, UK: Macmillan Press.
49.
TrustedJ. (1991). Physics and metaphysics. London, UK: Routledge.
50.
TulvingE.SzpunarK. K. (2012). Does the future exist? In LevineB.CraikF. L. M. (Eds.), Mind and the frontal lobes (pp. 248–263). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
51.
ValeraF. J.ThompsonE.RoschE. (1993). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
52.
WallaceR. A. (2003). Choosing reality: A Buddhist view of physics and the mind. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.
53.
WilliamsL. E.BarghJ. A. (2008). Keeping one’s distance: The influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation. Psychological Science, 19, 302–308.
54.
WittgensteinL. (2009). Philosophical investigations (4th rev. ed., AnscombeG. E. M.HackerP. M. S.SchultzeJ. Trans.). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. (Original work published 1953)
