scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables.

01 Mar 1948-Psychological Review (Psychol Rev)-Vol. 55, Iss: 2, pp 95-107
TL;DR: A distinction is made between two subclasses of intervening variables, or the authors prefer to say, between ‘intervening variables’ and ‘hypothetical constructs’ which they feel is fundamental but is currently being neglected.
Abstract: As the thinking of behavior theorists has become more sophisticated and selfconscious, there has been considerable discussion of the value and logical status of so-called ‘intervening variables.’ Hull speaks of “symbolic constructs, intervening variables, or hypothetical entities” (5, p. 22) and deals with them in his theoretical discussion as being roughly equivalent notions. At least, his exposition does not distinguish among them explicitly. In his presidential address on behavior at a choice point, Tolman inserts one of Hull’s serial conditioning diagrams (11, p. 13) between the independent variables (maintenance schedule, goal object, etc.) and the dependent variable (‘behavior ratio’) to illustrate his concept of the intervening variable. This would seem to imply that Tolman views his ‘intervening variables’ as of the same character as Hull’s. In view of this, it is somewhat surprising to discover that Skinner apparently feels that his formulations have a close affinity to those of Tolman, but are basically dissimilar to those of Hull (10, p. 436, 437). In advocating a theoretical structure which is ‘descriptive’ and ‘positivistic,’ he suggests that the model chosen by Hull (Newtonian mechanics) is not the most suitable model for purposes of behavior theory; and in general is critical of the whole postulate-deductive approach. Simultaneously with these trends, one can still observe among ‘tough-minded’ psychologists the use of words such as ‘unobservable’ and ‘hypothetical’ in an essentially derogatory manner, and an almost compulsive fear of passing beyond the direct colligation of observable data. ‘Fictions’ and ‘hypothetical entities’ are sometimes introduced into a discussion of theory with a degree of trepidation and apology quite unlike the freedom with which physicists talk about atoms, mesons, fields, and the like. There also seems to be a tendency to treat all hypothetical constructs as on the same footing merely because they are hypothetical; so that we find people arguing that if neutrons are admissible in physics, it must be admissible for us to talk about, e.g., the damming up of libido and its reversion to earlier channels. The view which theoretical psychologists take toward intervening variables and hypothetical constructs will of course profoundly influence the direction of theoretical thought. Furthermore, what kinds of hypothetical constructs we become accustomed to thinking about will have a considerable impact upon theory creation. The present paper aims to present what seems to us a major problem in the conceptualization of intervening variables, without claiming to offer a wholly satisfactory solution. Chiefly, it is our aim here to make a distinction between two subclasses of intervening variables, or we prefer to say, between ‘intervening variables’ and ‘hypothetical constructs’ which we feel is fundamental but is currently being neglected. We shall begin with a common-sense distinction, and proceed later to formulations of this distinction which we hope will be more rigorous. Naively, it would seem that there is a difference in logical status between constructs which involve the hypothesization of an entity, proc-
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The present interpretation of construct validity is not "official" and deals with some areas where the Committee would probably not be unanimous, but the present writers are solely responsible for this attempt to explain the concept and elaborate its implications.
Abstract: Validation of psychological tests has not yet been adequately conceptualized, as the APA Committee on Psychological Tests learned when it undertook (1950-54) to specify what qualities should be investigated before a test is published. In order to make coherent recommendations the Committee found it necessary to distinguish four types of validity, established by different types of research and requiring different interpretation. The chief innovation in the Committee's report was the term construct validity.[2] This idea was first formulated by a subcommittee (Meehl and R. C. Challman) studying how proposed recommendations would apply to projective techniques, and later modified and clarified by the entire Committee (Bordin, Challman, Conrad, Humphreys, Super, and the present writers). The statements agreed upon by the Committee (and by committees of two other associations) were published in the Technical Recommendations (59). The present interpretation of construct validity is not "official" and deals with some areas where the Committee would probably not be unanimous. The present writers are solely responsible for this attempt to explain the concept and elaborate its implications.

9,935 citations


Cites background from "On a distinction between hypothetic..."

  • ...CONSTRUCT VALIDITY IN PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS Lee J. Cronbach and Paul E. Meehl (1955)[1] First published in Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302....

    [...]

  • ...[2] This idea was first formulated by a subcommittee (Meehl and R. C. Challman) studying how proposed recommendations would apply to projective techniques, and later modified and clarified by the entire Committee (Bordin, Challman, Conrad, Humphreys, Super, and the present writers)....

    [...]

  • ...Space does not permit full analysis of the relation of the present paper to the MacCorquodale-Meehl distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables....

    [...]

  • ..." For the benefit of readers who may have been influenced by certain eisegeses of MacCorquodale and Meehl (40), let us here emphasize: Whether or not an interpretation of a test's properties or relations involves questions of construct validity is to be decided by examining the entire body of evidence offered, together with what is asserted about the test in the context of this evidence....

    [...]

  • ...For the benefit of readers who may have been influenced by certain eisegeses of MacCorquodale and Meehl (40), let us here emphasize: Whether or not an interpretation of a test's properties or relations involves questions of construct validity is to be decided by examining the entire body of evidence offered, together with what is asserted about the test in the context of this evidence....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Efron and Tibshirani as discussed by the authors used bootstrap tests to assess mediation, finding that the sampling distribution of the mediated effect is skewed away from 0, and they argued that R. M. Kenny's (1986) recommendation of first testing the X --> Y association for statistical significance should not be a requirement when there is a priori belief that the effect size is small or suppression is a possibility.
Abstract: Mediation is said to occur when a causal effect of some variable X on an outcome Y is explained by some intervening variable M. The authors recommend that with small to moderate samples, bootstrap methods (B. Efron & R. Tibshirani, 1993) be used to assess mediation. Bootstrap tests are powerful because they detect that the sampling distribution of the mediated effect is skewed away from 0. They argue that R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny's (1986) recommendation of first testing the X --> Y association for statistical significance should not be a requirement when there is a priori belief that the effect size is small or suppression is a possibility. Empirical examples and computer setups for bootstrap analyses are provided.

8,940 citations


Cites background from "On a distinction between hypothetic..."

  • ...E-mail: pat.shrout@nyu.edu 1 One of the earliest discussions of mediation in psychology was initiated by Maccorquodale and Meehl (1948) and...

    [...]

  • ...Statistical approaches to the analysis of mediation have been discussed extensively in the psychological literature (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Collins, Graham, & Flaherty, 1998; James & Brett, 1984; Judd & Kenny, 1981; Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998; Maccorquodale & Meehl, 1948; MacKinnon & Dwyer, 1993; Mac-Kinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000; MacKinnon, Warsi, & Dwyer, 1995; Rozeboom, 1956; Sobel, 1982)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A Monte Carlo study compared 14 methods to test the statistical significance of the intervening variable effect and found two methods based on the distribution of the product and 2 difference-in-coefficients methods have the most accurate Type I error rates and greatest statistical power.
Abstract: A Monte Carlo study compared 14 methods to test the statistical significance of the intervening variable effect. An intervening variable (mediator) transmits the effect of an independent variable to a dependent variable. The commonly used R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny (1986) approach has low statistical power. Two methods based on the distribution of the product and 2 difference-in-coefficients methods have the most accurate Type I error rates and greatest statistical power except in 1 important case in which Type I error rates are too high. The best balance of Type I error and statistical power across all cases is the test of the joint significance of the two effects comprising the intervening variable effect.

8,629 citations


Cites background from "On a distinction between hypothetic..."

  • ...Hypotheses articulating measurable processes that intervene between the independent and dependent variables have long been proposed in psychology (e.g., MacCorquodale & Meehl, 1948; Woodworth, 1928)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors discuss the etymology and strategy behind the use of endophenotypes in neuropsychiatric research and, more generally, in research on other diseases with complex genetics.
Abstract: Endophenotypes, measurable components unseen by the unaided eye along the pathway between disease and distal genotype, have emerged as an important concept in the study of complex neuropsychiatric diseases. An endophenotype may be neurophysiological, biochemical, endocrinological, neuroanatomical, cognitive, or neuropsychological (including configured self-report data) in nature. Endophenotypes represent simpler clues to genetic underpinnings than the disease syndrome itself, promoting the view that psychiatric diagnoses can be decomposed or deconstructed, which can result in more straightforward-and successful-genetic analysis. However, to be most useful, endophenotypes for psychiatric disorders must meet certain criteria, including association with a candidate gene or gene region, heritability that is inferred from relative risk for the disorder in relatives, and disease association parameters. In addition to furthering genetic analysis, endophenotypes can clarify classification and diagnosis and foster the development of animal models. The authors discuss the etymology and strategy behind the use of endophenotypes in neuropsychiatric research and, more generally, in research on other diseases with complex genetics.

5,321 citations


Cites background from "On a distinction between hypothetic..."

  • ...That is, the intervening variables or hypothetical constructs that were championed as useful for theorizing about behaviors (35)—and that could mark the path between the genotype and the behavior of interest (Figure 2)—might Mendelize in a predicted manner....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A set of conceptual criteria is developed that can be used to determine whether a construct should be modeled as having formative or reflective indicators, and an estimate of the extent of measurement model misspecification in the field is estimated.
Abstract: A review of the literature suggests that few studies use formative indicator measurement models, even though they should. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to (a) discuss the distinction between formative and reflective measurement models, (b) develop a set of conceptual criteria that can be used to determine whether a construct should be modeled as having formative or reflective indicators, (c) review the marketing literature to obtain an estimate of the extent of measurement model misspecification in the field, (d) estimate the extent to which measurement model misspecification biases estimates of the relationships between constructs using a Monte Carlo simulation, and (e) provide recommendations for modeling formative indicator constructs.

5,022 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

4,181 citations

Book
01 Jan 1938

911 citations

Book
01 Jan 1954

795 citations

Book
01 Jan 1940
TL;DR: Bertrand Russell is concerned in this book with the foundations of knowledge as mentioned in this paper, and he approaches his subject through a discussion of language, the relationships of truth to experience and an investigation into how knowledge of the structure of language helps our understanding of the world.
Abstract: Bertrand Russell is concerned in this book with the foundations of knowledge. He approaches his subject through a discussion of language, the relationships of truth to experience and an investigation into how knowledge of the structure of language helps our understanding of the structure of the world. This edition includes a new introduction by Thomas Baldwin, Clare College, Cambridge

588 citations