Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Dev Psychol. 2010 Nov;46(6):1767-70. doi: 10.1037/a0021293.
In his commentary, Foster (2010) made arguments at 2 levels, offering a broad critique of statistical or methodological approaches in developmental psychology in general together with critical comments that applied only to our recent article (Dogan, Stockdale, Widaman, & Conger, 2010). Certain criticisms by Foster aimed at the field as a whole appear to be justified, whereas others seem overly broad and of dubious validity. In addition, Foster ignored the full range of methodologies used by both developmental psychologists and economists to pursue the identification of causal processes. Other critical remarks by Foster were directed specifically at our article, and many of these are simply incorrect, reflecting Foster's failure to recognize the standards in developmental psychology or his failure to note specific comments or descriptions we provided in our article. Future exchanges regarding methodological innovations and priorities in developmental psychology and economics should enrich and inform one another, rather than taking the form of one field dictating to the other the correct way to pursue science.
福斯特(2010)在评论中从两个层面提出了观点,一方面对发展心理学中的统计或方法论方法进行了广泛的批判,另一方面对我们最近的文章(Dogan、Stockdale、Widaman 和 Conger,2010)提出了批评。福斯特的某些批评似乎针对整个领域,这是有道理的,而其他批评似乎过于宽泛,而且有效性值得怀疑。此外,福斯特忽略了发展心理学家和经济学家用来确定因果过程的各种方法。福斯特的其他批评意见是专门针对我们的文章的,其中许多是不正确的,这反映了福斯特未能认识到发展心理学的标准,或者未能注意到我们在文章中提供的具体评论或描述。未来关于发展心理学和经济学中方法创新和优先事项的交流应该相互丰富和启发,而不是采取一个领域向另一个领域发号施令的形式,规定正确的科学研究方法。