Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T04:55:16.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Note on Hammond's Analogy Between “Relativity and Representativeness”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Egon Brunswik
Egon Brunswik*
Affiliation:
University of California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The editor of this Journal has asked me to comment on the preceding paper by Professor Hammond (5) in which certain parallels are drawn between relativity physics and my own suggestions concerning the establishment of “representative design” in psychological experimentation (1). Since I find little basis for criticism of Dr. Hammond's major line of reasoning, I shall concentrate on anticipating possible objections to Hammond's comparison as well as on elucidating my point of view by means of examples, both old and new, that seem pertinent in the present context.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , July 1951 , pp. 212 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © 1951, The Williams & Wilkins Company

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

(1) Brunswik, E., Systematic and Representative Design of Psychological Experiments. University of California Press, 1947.Google Scholar
(2) Brunswik, E., The Conceptual Framework of Psychology. Internat. Encycl. of Unified Science, Vol. I, No. 10. University of Chicago Press, 1951.Google Scholar
(3) Fisher, R. A., Design of Experiments. First ed., 1935; fifth ed., New York: Hafner, 1949.Google Scholar
(4) Hammond, K. R., Subject and object sampling. Psychol. Bulletin, 1946, 45 530–533.10.1037/h0056803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5) Hammond, K. R., Relativity and Representativeness. Philos. of Science, 1951, 18 208–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6) Jenkins, W. O., and Stanley, J. C., Partial reinforcement: A review and critique. Psychol. Bulletin, 1950, 47 193–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(7) Mowrer, O. H., Motivation and learning in relation to the national emergency. Psychol. Bulletin, 1941, 38 421–431.10.1037/h0058205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8) Postman, L., The history and present status of the law of effect. Psychol. Bulletin, 1947, 44 489–563.10.1037/h0057716CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(9) Reichenbach, H., The Theory of Probability. University of California Press, 1949.Google Scholar
(10) Thorndike, E. L., An Experimental Study of Rewards. Columbia University Teach. Coll., Contr. Educ, No. 580, 1933.Google Scholar