Psychology’s Theory Crisis, and why formal modelling cannot solve it
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2024.4224Keywords:
theory, theory crisis, formal modelling, underdetermination, evidenceAbstract
In light of psychology’s ‘theory crisis’, multiple authors have argued that adopting formalization and/or formal modelling would constitute a useful or even necessary step towards stronger psychological theory. In this article, I instead argue that formal modelling cannot solve the core problem the psychological ‘theory crisis’ refers to, which are the currently high degrees of contrastive and holistic underdetermination of our theories by our data. I do so by first introducing underdetermination as an explanatory framework for determining the evidential import of research findings for theories, and showing how both broader theoretical considerations and informal assumptions are key to this process. Then, I derive the aforementioned core problem from the current ‘theory crisis’ literature and tentatively explore its possible solutions. Lastly, I show that formal modelling is neither a necessary nor sufficient solution for either contrastive or holistic underdetermination, and that its uncritical adoption might instead worsen the crisis.
Metrics
References
Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.010
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The Concept of Validity [Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association]. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061
Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., Dalege, J., Kievit, R. A., & Haig, B. D. (2021). Theory Construction Methodology: A Practical Framework for Building Theories in Psychology [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 756–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620969647
Brenninkmeijer, J., Derksen, M., & Rietzschel, E. (2019). Informal Laboratory Practices in Psychology (S. Vazire & M. Nuijten, Eds.). Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.221
Bringmann, L. F., & Eronen, M. I. (2016). Heating up the measurement debate: What psychologists can learn from the history of physics [Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd]. Theory & Psychology, 26(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315617253
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix [Place: US Publisher:
American Psychological Association]. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
Chang, H. (2004). Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford University Press.
Chester, D. S., & Lasko, E. N. (2021). Construct Validation of Experimental Manipulations in Social Psychology: Current Practices and Recommendations for the Future [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620950684
Collins, H. (1985). Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. University of Chicago Press. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests [Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association]. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
Danziger, K. (1985). The Methodological Imperative in Psychology [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 15(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839318501500101
Earp, B. D., & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology [Publisher: Frontiers]. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621
Eronen, M. I., & Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The Theory Crisis in Psychology: How to Move Forward [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970586
Eronen, M. I., & Romeijn, J.-W. (2020). Philosophy of science and the formalization of psychological theory [Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd]. Theory & Psychology, 30(6), 786–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320969876
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (2020). A Validity-Based Framework for Understanding Replication in Psychology [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 316–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320931366
Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2010). Computational Models as Aids to Better Reasoning in Psychology [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410386677
Feest, U. (2019). Why Replication Is Overrated. Philosophy of Science, 86(5), 895–905. https://doi.org/10.1086/705451
Fiedler, K., Kutzner, F., & Krueger, J. I. (2012). The Long Way From -Error Control to Validity Proper: Problems With a Short-Sighted False-
Positive Debate [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612462587
Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393
Fried, E. I. (2020a). Lack of Theory Building and Testing Impedes Progress in The Factor and Network Literature. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1853461
Fried, E. I. (2020b). Theories and Models: What They Are, What They Are for, and What They Are About. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1854011
Guest, O., & Martin, A. E. (2021). How Computational Modeling Can Force Theory Building in Psychological Science [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 789–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970585
Hagger, M. S., Gucciardi, D. F., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2017). On Nomological Validity and Auxiliary Assumptions: The Importance of Simultaneously Testing Effects in Social Cognitive Theories Applied to Health Behavior and Some Guidelines [Publisher: Frontiers]. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01933
Haslbeck, J. M. B., Ryan, O., Robinaugh, D. J., Waldorp, L. J., & Borsboom, D. (2022). Modeling psychopathology: From data models to formal theories [Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association]. Psychological Methods, 27(6), 930–957. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000303
Hochstein, E. (2019). How metaphysical commitments shape the study of psychological mechanisms [Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd]. Theory & Psychology, 29(5), 579–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319860591
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (2017). Reproducibility in Psychological Science: When Do Psychological Phenomena Exist? [Publisher: Frontiers]. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00879
Kane, M. T. (2001). Current Concerns in Validity Theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319–342. https://doi .org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01130.x
Kellen, D., Davis-Stober, C. P., Dunn, J. C., & Kalish, M. L. (2021). The Problem of Coordination and the Pursuit of Structural Constraints in Psychology [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 767–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620974771
Klein, S. B. (2014). What can recent replication failures tell us about the theoretical commitments of psychology? [Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd]. Theory & Psychology, 24(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354314529616
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago.
Landy, J. F., Jia, M., Ding, I. L., Viganola, D., Tierney, W., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., Pfeiffer, T., Ebersole, C. R., Gronau, Q. F., Ly, A., Van den Bergh, D., Marsman, M., Derks, K., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Proctor, A., Bartels, D. M., Bauman, C. W., Brady, W. J., . . . Uhlmann, E. L. (2020). Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results [Place: US Publisher: American
Psychological Association]. Psychological Bulletin, 146(5), 451–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000220
Maier, M., Van Dongen, N., & Borsboom, D. (2024). Comparing theories with the Ising model of explanatory coherence [Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association]. Psychological Methods, 29(3), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000543
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.
Mayo, D. G. (2018). Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: How to Get Beyond the Statistics Wars. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107286184
Mayo, D. G., & Spanos, A. (Eds.). (2009). Error and Inference: Recent Exchanges on Experimental Reasoning, Reliability, and the Objectivity and Rationality of Science. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511657528
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology [Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association]. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(4), 806–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806
Meehl, P. E. (1990a). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable [Place: US Publisher: Psychological Reports]. Psychological Reports, 66(1), 195–244. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.66.1.195-244
Meehl, P. E. (1990b). Appraising and Amending Theories: The Strategy of Lakatosian Defense and Two Principles that Warrant It. Psychological Inquiry, 1(2), 108–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0102_1
Michell, J. (2021). Representational measurement theory: Is its number up? [Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd]. Theory & Psychology, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320930817
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A Manifesto on Psychology as Idiographic Science: Bringing the Person Back Into Scientific Psychology, This Time Forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 2(4), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1
Morawski, J. (2019). The replication crisis: How might philosophy and theory of psychology be of use? [Place: US Publisher: Educational Publishing Foundation]. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 39(4), 218–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000129
Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory [Publisher: Nature Publishing Group]. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1
Navarro, D. J. (2021). If Mathematical Psychology Did Not Exist We Might Need to Invent It: A Comment on Theory Building in Psychology [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 707–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620974769
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology’s Renaissance [Publisher: Annual Reviews]. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(Volume 69, 2018), 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836
Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(5), 1596–1618. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2
Oude Maatman, F. (2020). Folk psychology and network theory: Fact or gamble? A reply to Kalis and Borsboom [Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd]. Theory & Psychology, 30(5), 729–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320952863
Piccinini, G. (2009). Computationalism in the Philosophy of Mind. Philosophy Compass, 4(3), 515–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00215.x
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery [Pages: 480]. Basic Books.
Proulx, T., & Morey, R. D. (2021). Beyond Statistical Ritual: Theory in Psychological Science [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211017098
Quine, W. V. (1951). Main Trends in Recent Philosophy: Two Dogmas of Empiricism [Publisher: [Duke University Press, Philosophical Review]]. The Philosophical Review, 60(1), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/2181906
Richters, J. E. (2021). Incredible Utility: The Lost Causes and Causal Debris of Psychological Science. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 43(6), 366–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2021.1979003
Robinaugh, D. J., Haslbeck, J. M. B., Ryan, O., Fried, E. I., & Waldorp, L. J. (2021). Invisible Hands and Fine Calipers: A Call to Use Formal Theory as a Toolkit for Theory Construction [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620974697
Robinaugh, D. J., Haslbeck, J. M. B., Waldorp, L. J., Kossakowski, J. J., Fried, E. I., Millner, A. J., McNally, R. J., Ryan, O., de Ron, J., Van der Maas, H. L. J., Van Nes, E. H., Scheffer, M., Kendler, K. S., & Borsboom, D. (2024). Advancing the network theory of mental disorders: A computational model of panic disorder [Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association]. Psychological Review, 131(6), 1482–1508. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000515
Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M., & Lakens, D. (2021). Why Hypothesis Testers Should Spend Less Time Testing Hypotheses [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966795
Shapiro, L., & Spaulding, S. (2021). Embodied Cognition. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 10, 2025, from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/embodied-cognition/
Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology, Science, and Knowledge Construction: Broadening Perspectives from the Replication Crisis [Publisher: Annual Reviews]. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(Volume 69, 2018), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- psych- 122216-011845
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior [Pages: x, 461]. Macmillan.
Smaldino, P. (2017). Models Are Stupid, and We Need More of Them [Num Pages: 21]. In Computational Social Psychology. Routledge.
Smaldino, P. (2019). Better methods can’t make up for mediocre theory [Bandiera_abtest: a Cg_type: World View Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Subject_term: Research management, Careers]. Nature, 575(7781), 9–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03350-5
Smaldino, P. (2020). How to Build a Strong Theoretical Foundation. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 297–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1853463
Stanford, K. (2017). Underdetermination of Scientific Theory. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved December 10, 2025, from https:/plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/scientific-underdetermination/
Stroebe, W., & Strack, F. (2014). The Alleged Crisis and the Illusion of Exact Replication [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514450
Tafreshi, D., Slaney, K. L., & Neufeld, S. D. (2016). Quantification in psychology: Critical analysis of an unreflective practice [Place: US Publisher: Educational Publishing Foundation]. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 36(4), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000048
Teo, T. (2020). Theorizing in psychology: From the critique of a hyper-science to conceptualizing subjectivity [Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd]. Theory & Psychology, 30(6), 759–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320930271
Trafimow, D. (2017). Implications of an initial empirical victory for the truth of the theory and additional empirical victories. Philosophical Psychology, 30(4), 415–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2016.1274023
Trafimow, D., & Earp, B. D. (2016). Badly specified theories are not responsible for the replication crisis in social psychology: Comment on Klein [Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd]. Theory & Psychology, 26(4), 540–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354316637136
Tunç, D. U., & Tunç, M. N. (2023). A Falsificationist Treatment of Auxiliary Hypotheses in Social and Behavioral Sciences: Systematic Replications Framework. Meta-Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2021.2756
Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., & Reinero, D. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility [Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(23), 6454–6459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521897113
Van Geert, P. L. (2019). Dynamic Systems, Process and Development. Human Development, 63(3-4), 153–179. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503825
Van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2020). Theory Development Requires an Epistemological Sea Change. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 321–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1853477
Van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2021). Theory Before the Test: How to Build High-Verisimilitude Explanatory Theories in Psychological Science [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 682–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970604
Wallot, S., & Kelty-Stephen, D. G. (2018). Interaction-Dominant Causation in Mind and Brain, and Its Implication for Questions of Generalization and Replication. Minds and Machines, 28(2), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023- 017-9455-0
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Freek Oude Maatman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
