Just posted in @PsyArXiv a short where I collected some suggestions concerning "how to prepare a rebuttal letter". Journals do not provide explicit guidance on this and, in my experience as a reviewer and editor, a great diversity exists in their format..

psyarxiv.com/kyfus/ .. however, not all formats are, in my modest and personal opinion, as effective. And by effective here I mean the capacity of delivering all the relevant information (how are you responding to the Reviewer's point) in a clear and efficient manner. I mostly focused on formatting

I just finished reading an all-time classic of experiment psychology “Principles of Behavior” by Clark Hull (1943). In the book, the author tries to delineate the first principles of a scientific theory of behaviour, based on a capillary survey of (mainly) animal experiments 1/n The first chapter presents his epistemological manifesto in favour of a mathematical (logico-deductive) formalization. It reminded me of the preface of “Theory of games" (1944). Back then use of formal approaches to social sciences was presented as a necessary paradigm shift

I just finished reading this paper by Meehl on appraisal theory selection in Psychology (and beyond). The paper essentially proposes to amend rigid falsificationism (Popper0) in favor of a more flexible approach including a step of “strategic retreat and defense” (Lakatos) The point here is that when one tests a theory, they never test the Theory "alone", but also a series of ancillary elements (how does the measurement work?) and assumptions (e.g., the ceteribus paribus clause: which is always false in psychology)...

🚨🥳Very glad to share the publication by @TrendsCognSci of this review paper entitled “The computational roots of positivity and confirmation bias in human reinforcement learning” with my usual partner in scientific crime @mael_lebreton (long) thread 🧵
doi.org/10.1016/j.tics… In this paper we summarise the evidence allowing answering this fundamental question: do we (reinforcement) learn equally well from positive or negative prediction errors? From outcomes that confirm our current choices?

Just finished reading this old-ish gem by Herbert Simon (1992) that I strongly suggest reading for all interested in the epistemological foundations of behavioural sciences. Many key ideas are extremely clearly and convincingly laid down 1/n The first great thing to mention about the paper is that even one of the "fathers" of cognitive revolution did not believe that a cognitive revolution ever happened 2/n

Just finished reading this that I strongly recommend to anyone interested in history of cognitive science (and more broadly in questions related to the advancement of science) and is curious about what happened during the “cognitive revolutions” 1/n
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downlo… The paper starts by (extremely clearly and sharply) reminding the elements of Kuhn’s hypothetical structure of scientific revolutions and illustrate criteria proposed by later scholars to “empirically” (or at least more objectively) assess whether a revolution occurred.

Will huge sample sizes (alone) solve psychology problems (as for example it is claimed they solved behavioural genetics problems)? This classic article clearly illustrate that "not quite". It start from recognising a key difference between psychology and physics 1/n Physical theories allow point estimate predictions (what the exact value of an empirical measure should be), therefore increasing the number of measures will increase the precision and represent a more stringent test for the theory 2/n

Just finished reading this book by Allen Parducci. I so loved it that I was sad approaching the end. In my experience it is very rare to find books that are very relevant to both your professional and personal life. I will summarize few takes below 1/n The core question of the book is whether (and under which circumstances) a happy life is possible. Happiness is defined following utilitarianism as the summation of pleasure of pain over time. Parducci clearly states this definition is descriptive, rather than normative.

I have just finished reading “the new behaviourism” by John Staddon. Here are a few thoughts about it. First all the book is clearly strongly opinionated. So if you are looking for a “balanced” view of behaviorism or the cognitive revolution, you should look elsewhere 1/n As a background on why (and how) I read it, you should be aware I have basically no training in psychology. My masters being in biotechnology and neuroscience, I started my PhD with no idea about what behaviorism was, except a vague idea that it had been somehow “rejected” 2/n

Few weeks ago I discovered this book (and, on the same occasion, a whole field of research...). This monograph summarises decades of research about the effect of reward magnitude in animal behaviour. Spoiler alert: rewards have relative effects. For example, in the main paradigm (successive negative contrast) animals are shifted from a big to a small reward. As a result both instrumental and consummatory behaviours are reduced below the level observed in a control group that experienced only the small magnitude reward.

Thrilled to share our last paper! In this review article, we discuss why the description-experience gap may constitute a challenge to #neuroeconomics (specifically when comparing human and monkey findings)
with @PagerFM & @FCerrotti
preprint 👉 psyarxiv.com/9s23f/ In description paradigms, payoffs and probabilities (i.e. the decision variables) are given explicitly and symbolically. In experience paradigms, decision variables are never stated and information is acquired a via trial-by-trial feedbacks.