View article

We are grateful for the commentary papers and appreciate the comments, the critical discussions, and disagreements. In our responses, we clarify important points and further the ongoing discussion, hoping that this discussion about constructs that began in this journal can continue on other fora and in follow-up exchanges with interested scholars. We discuss key points made in the commentaries and argue for keeping doors open for different approaches while pursuing corresponding efforts in parallel, rather than to focus on a single explanation of the problems psychology as a science is confronted with.

To briefly summarize, De Boeck et al.(this issue), which we term our Questioning paper, introduced a controversy in relation to explanations for some fundamental issues in psychology. These issues include observed heterogeneity and inconsistencies in psychological results, which are linked to dissatisfactions …