Religion, Virtues, and Health

The literature on the relationship between religion and health is vast, but it is in a state of disarray. One empirical study has been piled upon another, while little effort has been made to integrate them into a more tightly knit theoretical whole. This book was designed to address this problem. It is the product of 40 years of empirical research, hundreds of peer-reviewed publications, and countless hours of deep reflection. This volume contributes to the literature in three ways: (1) a unique approach to theory construction and model development is presented that is designed to produce a conceptual scheme that is evidence based and empirically verifiable; (2) a new construct—communities of faith—that has largely been overlooked in empirical studies on religion is introduced; and (3) the need is highlighted for a no-holds-barred discussion of how to practice one’s research craft.

Issues in Theory Construction

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss key steps in the theory construction process that have not received sufficient attention in the literature. Four issues are explored: (1) a brief history of the prevailing approaches to theory construction is presented; (2) an in-depth discussion is provided on how the core study model was developed—a special emphasis is placed on specifying a generic strategy for how to practice one’s own research craft; (3) a concise discussion on how to weave preliminary theoretical specifications into a viable midrange theory is described; and (4) a discussion involving how to write for an academic audience is provided.

Exploring task-based cognitive processes

This paper argues that TBLT researchers should dedicate more effort to investigating the cognitive processes in which L2 learners engage during task work to facilitate theory-construction and to inform pedagogical practices. To help achieve this, a review follows of various subjective (questionnaires, interviews, think-aloud/stimulated recall protocols) and objective (dual-task methodology, keystroke-logging, eye-tracking) methods that are available to TBLT researchers to examine cognitive processes underlying task-based performance. The paper concludes that, to obtain a more valid understanding of task-generated cognitive processes, it is best to combine various methods to overcome the limitations of each. Finally, some methodological recommendations are provided for future cognitively-oriented TBLT research.

Three aspects of an empirical effect: statistical, theoretical, and practical aspect

A transparent evaluation of an empirical effect’s relevance is based on the size of effect (statistical aspect), a theoretical construct’s ability to adequately predict the effect (theoretical aspect), and the effect’s practical utility (practical aspect). In behavioral science publications, however, all three aspects are often found conflated. Already if only the practical aspect is evaluated independently of the other two aspects, disagreements about the effect’s relevance turn out to be resolvable. And, if also the statistical aspect is evaluated independently of the theoretical aspect, then the ‘smallest effect of interest’ turns out to be much larger when predicting an effect (statistical aspect) as opposed to explaining it (theoretical aspect). Crucially, behavioral science publications today typically report either small, homogenous empirical effects or large, heterogeneous ones. This pattern greatly impairs the prospects for theory construction in behavioral science, because an empirically adequate theoretical construct would have to predict a larger and more homogenous empirical effect than can be observed.

The pragmatic use of metaphor in empirical psychology

Metaphors of mind and their elaboration into models serve a crucial explanatory role in psychology. In this article, an attempt is made to describe how biology and engineering provide the predominant metaphors for contemporary psychology. A contrast between the discursive and descriptive functions of metaphor use in theory construction serves as a platform for deliberation upon the pragmatic consequences of models derived therefrom. The conclusion contains reflections upon the possibility of an integrative interdisciplinary psychology.

Introduction

This chapter provides a general introduction to the work’s investigation of Indian Buddhist metaphysics. It places Buddhist philosophical theory construction within the larger Buddhist soteriological project, explaining why metaphysical theorizing might have so important a place in Buddhist practice. It provides summary accounts of the metaphysics of two important non-Buddhist systems, Sāṃkhya and Nyāya, that served as important sources of objections to the key Buddhist thesis of non-self. It also contains brief sketches of the major Buddhist schools in India and some of the major figures in its history, from Gautama (the Buddha) through Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu, and Dharmakīrti, to Ratnakīrti. There is also some discussion of the motivation for examining philosophical traditions other than one’s own.

The Problematic Concept of Native Speaker in Psycholinguistics: Replacing Vague and Harmful Terminology With Inclusive and Accurate Measures

Though the term NATIVE SPEAKER/SIGNER is frequently used in language research, it is inconsistently conceptualized. Factors, such as age, order, and context of acquisition, in addition to social/cultural identity, are often differentially conflated. While the ambiguity and harmful consequences of the term NATIVE SPEAKER have been problematized across disciplines, much of this literature attempts to repurpose the term in order to include and/or exclude certain populations. This paper problematizes NATIVE SPEAKER within psycholinguistics, arguing that the term is both unhelpful to rigorous theory construction and harmful to marginalized populations by reproducing normative assumptions about behavior, experience, and identity. We propose that language researchers avoid NATIVE SPEAKER altogether, and we suggest alternate ways of characterizing language experience/use. The vagueness of NATIVE SPEAKER can create problems in research design (e.g., through systematically excluding certain populations), recruitment (as participants’ definitions might diverge from researchers’), and analysis (by distilling continuous factors into under-specified binary categories). This can result in barriers to cross-study comparison, which is particularly concerning for theory construction and replicability. From a research ethics perspective, it matters how participants are characterized and included: Excluding participants based on binary/essentialist conceptualizations of nativeness upholds deficit perspectives toward multilingualism and non-hegemonic modes of language acquisition. Finally, by implicitly assuming the existence of a critical period, NATIVE SPEAKER brings with it theoretical baggage which not all researchers may want to carry. Given the issues above and how ‘nativeness’ is racialized (particularly in European and North American contexts), we ask that researchers consider carefully whether exclusion of marginalized/minoritized populations is necessary or justified—particularly when NATIVE SPEAKER is used only as a way to achieve linguistic homogeneity. Instead, we urge psycholinguists to explicitly state the specific axes traditionally implied by NATIVENESS that they wish to target. We outline several of these (e.g., order of acquisition, allegiance, and comfort with providing intuitions) and give examples of how to recruit and describe participants while eschewing NATIVE SPEAKER. Shifting away from harmful conventions, such as NATIVE SPEAKER, will not only improve research design and analysis, but also is one way we can co-create a more just and inclusive field.

Understanding Replication in a Way That Is True to Science

In this article, I critically examine a number of widely held beliefs about the nature of replication and its place in science, with particular reference to psychology. In doing so, I present a number of underappreciated understandings of the nature of science more generally. I contend that some contributors to the replication debates overstate the importance of replication in science and mischaracterize the relationship between direct and conceptual replication. I also claim that there has been a failure to appreciate sufficiently the variety of legitimate replication practices that scientists engage in. In this regard, I highlight the tendency to pay insufficient attention to methodological triangulation as an important strategy for justifying empirical claims. I argue, further, that the replication debates tend to overstate the closeness of the relationship between replication and theory construction. Some features of this relationship are spelt out with reference to the hypothetico-deductive and the abductive accounts of scientific method. Additionally, an evaluation of the status of replication in different characterizations of scientific progress is undertaken. I maintain that viewing replication as just one element of the wide array of scientific endeavors leads to the conclusion that it is not as prominent in science as is often claimed.