Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Free AccessCall for Papers

“Theory Specification and Theory Building in Psychology”

A Topical Issue of the Zeitschrift für Psychologie

Published Online:February 23, 2024https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000541

Focus of the Topical Issue, Aims, and Scope

One of the pressing challenges in the field of psychology is the lack of specification of theories. This issue manifests in several ways, including insufficient clarification of the generality of theories (i.e. the conditions under which they apply), vague definitions of constructs and overlapping constructs, unclear relationships between constructs and data, and an overall lack of clarity in the propositions that constitute a theory. This underspecification of theories contributes to problems like replication failures, the persistence of redundant theories, and hinders the cumulative development of knowledge in psychology.

The issue of underspecified theories, the underlying reasons, their consequences, and potential solutions have garnered significant attention in recent years (e.g., Frankenhuis et al., in press; Gigerenzer, 2017; Klein, 2014; Maier et al., 2023; Muthukrishna & Henrich, 2019; Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019; Reisenzein, 2022; Smaldino, 2019; Trafimow & Earp, 2016; for earlier approaches, see also Haig, 2008; Meehl, 1990a, 1990b; Popper, 1935/2002; Westmeyer, 1989). The academic discourse on this topic has proposed various approaches to enhance theory specification. Notable contributions come from Borsboom et al. (2021), Glöckner and Betsch (2011), Gray (2017), Hale et al. (2020), Leising et al. (2023), van Rooij and Baggio (2021), and van Rooij and Blokpoel (2020). Some scholars furthermore emphasize the necessity of improving the link between theory and data, suggesting better methods for theory testing (e.g., Almaatouq et al., 2022; Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019). A comprehensive 10-step approach has been proposed, which adds fostering consensus building (Leising et al., 2022b; see also Oreskes, 2019), as well as challenging existing consensus (Leising et al., 2022a) as important additional aspects to solve some problems of theory underspecification.

Other researchers have highlighted the complexity of psychological phenomena as a challenge for theory specification (Sanbonmatsu & Johnston, 2019) or argued that, in certain domains, establishing a sufficient number of robust phenomena is a prerequisite for successful theory specification (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021).

In this special issue, our aim is to promote further developments in theory specification and the theory-building debate by providing a platform to showcase recent advancements, compare and integrate different approaches, and provide exemplary applications of theory specification. We invite contributions from all psychological disciplines that delve into the processes, methods, challenges, and advancements in theory specification and theory building. We welcome original research articles, methodological articles, and comprehensive reviews.

Topics covered may include, but are not limited to:

  • •
    Methods, techniques, and best practices in theory specification and development
  • •
    Critical analyses of existing theoretical frameworks and the identification of gaps through the specification of current theories
  • •
    The role of theory in guiding empirical research and its implications
  • •
    Interdisciplinary approaches in theory building and their contributions to psychology
  • •
    The implications of underspecified theories and the challenges they present
  • •
    The historical trajectory and evolution of major psychological theories
  • •
    Future directions and the “next frontiers” in psychological theory
  • •
    The potential of integrating emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, and data sciences in theory building processes

Through this topical issue, we aim to stimulate academic discourse, foster advancements in theory specification methodology, and contribute to specific theories. Our goal is to ignite further discussions on the pivotal role of well-specified theories in advancing our understanding of psychological processes.

How to Submit

There is a two-stage submission process. Initially, interested authors are requested to submit extended abstracts of their proposed papers. Authors of the selected abstracts will then be invited to submit full papers. All papers will undergo blind peer review.

Stage 1: Structured Abstract Submission

Authors interested in this special issue must submit a structured abstract of the planned manuscript before submitting a full paper. The goal is to provide authors with prompt feedback regarding the suitability and relevance of the planned manuscript to the special issue.

The deadline for submitting structured abstracts is April 15, 2024.

Feedback on whether or not the editors encourage authors to submit a full paper will be given by June 15, 2024.

Structured abstracts should be within four pages and may encompass information on each of the following headings: (a) Background and Objectives, (b) Methods, (c) Results, and (d) Conclusions.

Structured abstracts should be submitted by e-mail to the guest editor Susann Fiedler ().

Stage 2: Full Paper Submission

For those who have been encouraged to submit a full paper, the deadline for submission of manuscripts is November 15, 2024.

Full manuscripts will undergo a blind peer-review process.

Submission Guidelines for Full Papers

  • •
    Only English-language submissions can be considered.
  • •
    Contributions must be original (not published previously or currently under review for publication elsewhere).
  • •
    Review and original articles should not exceed 45,000 characters and spaces in length, including references, figures, and tables (allowances for figures and tables should be deducted on the basis of size: approximately 1,250 characters for a quarter-page figure/table).
  • •
    All research syntheses should adhere to the meta-analytic reporting standards (MARS) proposed by the APA (http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/jars.pdf). Additionally, authors should include a statement in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement http://www.prisma-statement.org) as a supplemental file for review.
  • •
    Other submission formats (short reports, research summaries, opinion pieces, etc.) are also considered; please contact the editors for details.
  • •
    Reference citations in the text and in the reference list should be in accordance with the principles set out in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
  • •
    Supplementary material must be made available through PsychArchives: https://www.psycharchives.org/
  • •
    See also any recent issue of the journal for exemplary articles.
For detailed author guidelines, please see the journal's website at http://www.hgf.io/zfp

Timeline

  • •
    April 15, 2024: Abstract submissions due
  • •
    June 15, 2024: Deadline for abstract selection/call for full papers
  • •
    November 15, 2024: Full paper submissions due
  • •
    February 15, 2025: Guest editor feedback to authors
  • •
    April 15, 2025: Deadline for revised papers
  • •
    May 31, 2025: Guest editor feedback to revised papers
  • •
    Issue 4 (2025): Publication of topical issue

About the Journal

The Zeitschrift für Psychologie, founded in 1890, is the oldest psychology journal in Europe and the second oldest in the world. One of the founding editors was Hermann Ebbinghaus. Since 2007, it is published in English and devoted to publishing topical issues that provide state-of-the-art reviews of current research in psychology. For more detailed information about the journal, please visit the official website at http://www.hgf.io/zfp.

References

  • Almaatouq, A., Griffiths, T. L., Suchow, J. W., Whiting, M. E., Evans, J., & Watts, D. J. (2022). Beyond playing 20 questions with nature: Integrative experiment design in the social and behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–55. 10.1017/S0140525X22002874 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 756–766. 10.1177/1745691620969647 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eronen, M. I., & Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The theory crisis in psychology: How to move forward. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 779–788. 10.1177/1745691620970586 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Frankenhuis, W. E., Panchanathan, K., & Smaldino, P. E. (in press). Strategic ambiguity in the social sciences. Social Psychological Bulletin. 10.23668/psycharchives.8381 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2017). A theory integration program. Decision, 4(3), 133–145. 10.1037/dec0000082 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2011). The empirical content of theories in judgment and decision making: Shortcomings and remedies. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 711–721. 10.1017/S1930297500004149 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gray, K. (2017). How to map theory: Reliable methods are fruitless without rigorous theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 731–741. 10.1177/1745691617691949 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Haig, B. D. (2008). An abductive perspective on theory construction. Journal of Theory Construction & Testing, 12(1), 7–10. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hale, J., Hastings, J., West, R., Lefevre, C., Direito, A., Bohlen, L., Godinho, C., Anderson, N., Zink, S., Groarke, H., & Michie, S. (2020). An ontology-based modelling system (OBMS) for representing behaviour change theories applied to 76 theories [version 1; peer review: Awaiting peer review]. Wellcome Open Research, 5, Article 177. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16121.1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Klein, S. B. (2014). What can recent replication failures tell us about the theoretical commitments of psychology? Theory & Psychology, 24(3), 326–338. 10.1177/0959354314529616 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Leising, D., Grenke, O., & Cramer, M. (2023). Visual Argument Structure Tool (VAST) Version 1.0. Meta-Psychology, 7, Article e2911. 10.15626/MP.2021.2911 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Leising, D., Thielmann, I., Glöckner, A., Gärtner, A., & Schönbrodt, F. (2022a). Ten steps toward a better personality science—A rejoinder to the comments. Personality Science, 3, 1–15. Article e7961. 10.5964/ps.7961 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Leising, D., Thielmann, I., Glöckner, A., Gärtner, A., & Schönbrodt, F. (2022b). Ten steps toward a better personality science—How quality may be rewarded more in research evaluation. Personality Science, 3, 1–44, Article e6029. 10.5964/ps.6029 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Maier, M., van Dongen, N., & Borsboom, D. (2023). Comparing theories with the Ising model of explanatory coherence. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. 10.1037/met0000543 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Meehl, P. E. (1990a). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry, 1(2), 108–141. 10.1207/s15327965pli0102_1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Meehl, P. E. (1990b). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66(1), 195–244. 10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 221–229. 10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(5), 1596–1618. 10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Oreskes, N. (2019). Why trust science? Princeton University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Popper, K. R. (1935/2002). The logic of scientific discovery [Original published as: Logik der Forschung]. Routledge Classics. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Reisenzein, R. (2022). Tasks for a theoretical psychology of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 36(2), 171–187. 10.1080/02699931.2021.1992356 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Johnston, W. A. (2019). Redefining science: The impact of complexity on theory development in social and behavioral research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 672–690. 10.1177/1745691619848688 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Smaldino, P. (2019). Better methods can't make up for mediocre theory. Nature, 575(7781), Article 9. 10.1038/d41586-019-03350-5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Trafimow, D., & Earp, B. D. (2016). Badly specified theories are not responsible for the replication crisis in social psychology: Comment on Klein. Theory & Psychology, 26(4), 540–548. 10.1177/0959354316637136 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2021). Theory before the test: How to build high-verisimilitude explanatory theories in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 682–697. 10.1177/1745691620970604 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van Rooij, I., & Blokpoel, M. (2020). Formalizing verbal theories: A tutorial by dialogue. Social Psychology, 51(5), 285–298. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000428 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Westmeyer, H. (1989). Psychological theories from a structuralist point of view. In H. Westmeyer (Ed.), Psychological theories from a structuralist point of view (pp. 1–12). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-84015-9_1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar