TARGET ARTICLE: "Posttraumatic Growth: Conceptual Foundations and Empirical Evidence"

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard G. Tedeschi ◽  
Lawrence G. Calhoun
Keyword(s):  
Posttraumatic Growth ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Conceptual Foundations

Knowledge by default

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Cognitive Neuroscience ◽  
Predictive Coding ◽  
Plausible Account ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Analysis By Synthesis

Abstract The target article presents strong empirical evidence that knowledge is basic. However, it offers an unsatisfactory account of what makes knowledge basic. Some current ideas in cognitive neuroscience – predictive coding and analysis by synthesis – point to a more plausible account that better explains the evidence.

What we (don't) know about what we know

2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-39
Author(s):  
Shlomi Sher ◽  
Piotr Winkielman
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Cognitive Architecture ◽  
Complex Behavior ◽  
Target Article

AbstractThe hypothesis of unconscious influences on complex behavior is observationally equivalent to the dissociability of cognition and metacognition (reportability). The target article convincingly argues that evidence for unconscious influence is limited by the quality of the metacognitive measure used. However, it understates the empirical evidence for unconscious influences and overlooks considerations of cognitive architecture that make cognitive/metacognitive dissociations likely.

Where is the evidence for general intelligence in nonhuman animals?

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludwig Huber
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Convergent Evolution ◽  
General Intelligence ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Species Comparisons ◽  
Made In

AbstractThis commentary contrasts evolutionary plausibility with empirical evidence and cognitive continuity with radiation and convergent evolution. So far, neither within-species nor between-species comparisons on the basis of rigorous experimental and species-appropriate tests substantiate the claims made in the target article. Caution is advisable on meta-analytical comparisons that primarily rely on publication frequencies and overgeneralizations (from murids and primates to other nonhuman animals).

scholarly journals Money, lies, and replicability: On the need for empirically grounded experimental practices and interdisciplinary discourse

2001 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Hertwig ◽  
Andreas Ortmann
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Methodological Choices ◽  
Design And Implementation ◽  
Target Article ◽  
The Impact

This response reinforces the major themes of our target article. The impact of key methodological variables should not be taken for granted. Rather, we suggest grounding experimental practices in empirical evidence. If no evidence is available, decisions about design and implementation ought to be subjected to systematic experimentation. In other words, we argue against empirically blind conventions and against methodological choices based on beliefs, habits, or rituals. Our approach will neither inhibit methodological diversity nor constrain experimental creativity. More likely, it will promote both goals.

The brighter the light, the deeper the shadow: Morality also fuels aggression, conflict, and violence

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Böhm ◽  
Isabel Thielmann ◽  
Benjamin E. Hilbig
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Negative Cognitions ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Group Members ◽  
And Behaviors ◽  
Moral Convictions

AbstractWe argue that, in addition to the positive effects and functionality of morality for interactions among in-group members as outlined in the target article, morality may also fuel aggression and conflict in interactions between morality-based out-groups. We summarize empirical evidence showing that negative cognitions, emotions, and behaviors are particularly likely to appear between out-groups with opposing moral convictions.

Adaptive principles of weight regulation: Insufficient, but perhaps necessary, for understanding obesity

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Nettle ◽  
Clare Andrews ◽  
Melissa Bateson
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Formal Model ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Weight Regulation ◽  
Proximate Mechanisms ◽  
Insurance Hypothesis ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Proximate Explanation

AbstractWe reflect on the major issues raised by a thoughtful and diverse set of commentaries on our target article. We draw attention to the need to differentiate between ultimate and proximate explanation; the insurance hypothesis (IH) needs to be understood as an ultimate-level argument, although we welcome the various suggestions made about proximate mechanisms. Much of this response is concerned with clarifying the interrelationships between adaptationist explanations like the IH, constraint explanations, and dysfunction explanations, in understanding obesity. We also re-examine the empirical evidence base, concurring that it is equivocal and only partially supportive. Several commentators offer additional supporting evidence, whereas others propose alternative explanations for the evidence we reviewed and suggest ways that our current knowledge could be strengthened. Finally, we take the opportunity to clarify some of the assumptions and predictions of our formal model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document