ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5138-7255
Current Organisation
Princeton University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 30-06-2021
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 03-03-2015
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 07-01-2014
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 02-2023
Abstract: Board, card, or video games have been played by virtually every in idual in the world population, with both children and adults participating. Games are popular because they are intuitive and fun. These distinctive qualities of games also make them ideal as a platform for studying the mind. By being intuitive, games provide a unique vantage point for understanding the inductive biases that support behavior in more complex, ecological settings than traditional lab experiments. By being fun, games allow researchers to study new questions in cognition such as the meaning of "play'' and intrinsic motivation, while also supporting more extensive and erse data collection by attracting many more participants. We describe both the advantages and drawbacks of using games relative to standard lab-based experiments and lay out a set of recommendations on how to gain the most from using games to study cognition. We hope this article will lead to a wider use of games as experimental paradigms, elevating the ecological validity, scale, and robustness of research on the mind.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 06-06-2020
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 22-11-2022
Abstract: The dominant paradigm of experiments in the social and behavioral sciences views an experiment as a test of a theory, where the theory is assumed to generalize beyond the experiment’s specific conditions. According to this view, which Alan Newell once characterized as “playing twenty questions with nature,” theory is advanced one experiment at a time, and the integration of disparate findings is assumed to happen via the scientific publishing process. In this article, we argue that the process of integration is at best inefficient, and at worst it does not, in fact, occur. We further show that the challenge of integration cannot be adequately addressed by recently proposed reforms that focus on the reliability and replicability of in idual findings, nor simply by conducting more or larger experiments. Rather, the problem arises from the imprecise nature of social and behavioral theories and, consequently, a lack of commensurability across experiments conducted under different conditions. Therefore, researchers must fundamentally rethink how they design experiments and how the experiments relate to theory. We specifically describe an alternative framework, integrative experiment design, which intrinsically promotes commensurability and continuous integration of knowledge. In this paradigm, researchers explicitly map the design space of possible experiments associated with a given research question, embracing many potentially relevant theories rather than focusing on just one. The researchers then iteratively generate theories and test them with experiments explicitly s led from the design space, allowing results to be integrated across experiments. Given recent methodological and technological developments, we conclude that this approach is feasible and would generate more-reliable, more-cumulative empirical and theoretical knowledge than the current paradigm—and with far greater efficiency.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 08-2023
Abstract: Commentaries on the target article offer erse perspectives on integrative experiment design. Our responses engage three themes: (1) Disputes of our characterization of the problem. (2) Skepticism towards our proposed solution. (3) Endorsement of the solution, with accompanying discussions of its implementation in existing work and its potential for other domains. Collectively, the commentaries enhance our confidence in the promise and viability of integrative experiment design, while highlighting important considerations about how it is used.
No related grants have been discovered for Thomas Griffiths.