I first discuss several strategies that serve as surrogates for theories in psychology: one-word explanation, redescription, drawing vague dichotomies, and data fitting. I then identify two conventions that allow these surrogates to flourish and multiply: null hypothesis testing, which makes precise hypotheses irrelevant, and the isolation of research in different disciplines, which prevents the exchange of positive metaphors between fields.
Bower, B. (1997). Null science. Science News, 151, 356-357.
2.
Brandtstadter, J. (1987). On certainty and universality in human development: Developmental psychology between apriorism and empiricism. In M. Chapman & R. A. Dixon (Eds.), Meaning and the growth of understanding: Wittgenstein's significance for developmental psychology (pp. 69-84). Berlin: Springer.
3.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Einhom, H.J. , & Hogarth, R.M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 53-88.
5.
Fiedler, K. (1983). On the testability of the availability heuristic. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Decision making under uncertainty (pp. 109-119). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
6.
Fiedler, K. (1991). Heuristics and biases in theory formation. Theory & Psychology, 1, 407-430.
7.
Fiedler, K. (1996). Explaining and simulating judgment biases as an aggregation phenomenon in probabilistic, multiple-cue environments. Psychological Review, 103, 193-214.
8.
Fodor, J.A. (1995). The folly of simulation. In P. Baumgartner & S. Payr (Eds.), Speaking minds: Interviews with twenty eminent cognitive scientists (pp. 85-100). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
Gigerenzer, G. (1981). Messung und Modellbildung in der Psychologie [Measurement and modelling in psychology]. Munich: Ernst Reinhardt (UTB).
10.
Gigerenzer, G. (1992). Discovery in cognitive psychology: New tools inspire new theories. Science in Context, 5, 329-350.
11.
Gigerenzer, G. (1993). The superego, the ego, and the id in statistical reasoning. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues (pp. 311-339). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Gigerenzer, G. (1994). Why the distinction between single-event probabilities and frequencies is relevant for psychology (and vice versa). In G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds.), Subjective probability. Chichester: Wiley.
13.
Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A rebuttal to Kahneman and Tversky (1996). Psychological Review, 103, 592-596.
14.
Gigerenzer, G. , & Murray, D.J. (1987). Cognition as intuitive statistics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
Gigerenzer, G. , & Regier, T. (1996). How do we tell an association from a rule? Comment on Sloman (1996). Psychological Bulletin, 119, 23-26.
16.
Gigerenzer, G. , Swijtink, Z., Porter, T., Daston, L.J., Beatty, J., & Kruiger, L. (1989). The empire of chance: How probability changed science and everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Kahneman, D. , & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103, 582-591.
18.
Massaro, D.W. (1988). Some criticisms of connectionist models of human performance. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 213-234.
19.
Newell, A. (1973). You can't play 20 questions with nature and win: Projective comments on the papers of this symposium. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 283-308). New York: Academic Press.
20.
Oaksford, M. , & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608-631.
21.
Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
Sahlin, N.-E. (1991). Baconian inductivism in research on human decision-making. Theory & Psychology, 1, 431-450.
23.
Shanteau, J. (1989). Cognitive heuristics and biases in behavioral auditing: Review, comments and observations. Accounting Organizations and Society, 14, 165-177.
24.
Shepard, R.N. (1962). The analysis of proximities. Part 2. Psychometrika, 27, 219-246.
25.
Shepard, R.N. (1974). Representation of structure in similarity data: Problems and prospects. Psychometrika, 39, 373-421.
26.
Sloman, S.A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
27.
Smith, E.E. , & Osherson, D.N. (1989). Similarity and decision making. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 60-75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Tooby, J. , & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
30.
Tversky, A. , & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
31.
Wallach, L. , & Wallach, M.A. (1994). Gergen versus the mainstream: Are hypo-theses in social psychology subject to empirical test?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 233-242.
32.
Wallach, M.A. , & Wallach, L. (1998). When experiments serve little purpose: Misguided research in mainstream psychology. Theory & Psychology, 8, 183-194.
33.
Wallsten, T.S. (1983). The theoretical status of judgmental heuristics. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Decision making under uncertainty (pp. 21-39). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
34.
Wanke, M. , Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1995). The availability heuristic revisited: Experienced ease of retrieval in mundane frequency estimates. Acta Psychologica, 89, 83-90.
