The document discusses the development of Aaron Beck's cognitive theory of depression. It describes how Beck initially observed a patient experiencing automatic negative thoughts just before feelings of guilt. He then inductively verified this observation with other patients by having them report thoughts before different feelings. This led Beck to conclude that automatic thoughts involving rapid negative interpretations play a causal role in depression. The document advocates an inductive, positive discovery approach to theory development rather than a falsification approach.

1. THE CASE FOR
INDUCTION
Why Psychology needs it so
bad.
John L. Dennis
Università Cattolica Milano
Umbra Institute Perugia

2. HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD
RETARDS SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS
▶ Where did this method come from?

3. HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD
RETARDS SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS
▶ Where did this method come from?
▶ Plato
▶ Hume
▶ Kant
▶ Kuhn
▶ Popper

4. POPPER - THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC
DISCOVERY.
▶ “A principle of induction is superfluous, and it must lead to logical
inconsistencies”

5. POPPER - THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC
DISCOVERY.
▶ “A principle of induction is superfluous, and it must lead to logical
inconsistencies”
▶ “Theories are…never empirically verifiable.”

6. POPPER - THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC
DISCOVERY.
▶ “A principle of induction is superfluous, and it must lead to logical
inconsistencies”
▶ “Theories are…never empirically verifiable.”
▶ “I shall, therefore, neither adopt nor reject the ‘principle of
causality’; I shall be content simply to exclude it as ‘metaphysical’,
from the sphere of science.”

7. POPPER - THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC
DISCOVERY.
▶ “A principle of induction is superfluous, and it must lead to logical
inconsistencies”
▶ “Theories are…never empirically verifiable.”
▶ “I shall, therefore, neither adopt nor reject the ‘principle of
causality’; I shall be content simply to exclude it as ‘metaphysical’,
from the sphere of science.”
▶ “it is widely believed that it is possible to rise by a process called
‘abstraction’ from individual concepts. This view is a near relation
to inductive logic….Logically these procedures are equally
impracticable”

8. WHERE DO THEORIES COME
FROM?
ACCORDING TO POPPER:

9. WHERE DO THEORIES COME
FROM?
ACCORDING TO POPPER:
▶ “There is no such thing as a logical method of having
new ideas, or a logical reconstruction of this process.”

10. WHERE DO THEORIES COME
FROM?
ACCORDING TO POPPER:
▶ “There is no such thing as a logical method of having
new ideas, or a logical reconstruction of this process.”
▶ “Every discovery contains ‘an irrational element’, or ‘a
creative intuition.”

11. WHERE DO THEORIES COME
FROM?
ACCORDING TO POPPER:
▶ “There is no such thing as a logical method of having
new ideas, or a logical reconstruction of this process.”
▶ “Every discovery contains ‘an irrational element’, or ‘a
creative intuition.”
▶ Start from anywhere, deduce a theory,
and then try to falsify it.

12. FALSIFICATION APPROACH

13. FALSIFICATION APPROACH
▶ “There is no such thing as proof in science—
because some later alternative explanation
may be as good or better—so science
advances only by disproofs.”

14. FALSIFICATION APPROACH
▶ “There is no such thing as proof in science—
because some later alternative explanation
may be as good or better—so science
advances only by disproofs.”
▶ Your falsification might be false.

15. FALSIFICATION APPROACH
How do you know evidence is valid?
▶ Need to see if you can falsify your falsification
and ...
▶ Falsification approach MUST lead to an infinite
regress—the very problem that Popper
claimed was the fatal weakness of induction.

16. FALSIFICATION APPROACH
How do you know evidence is valid?
▶ Need to see if you can falsify your falsification
and ...

17. FALSIFICATION APPROACH
How do you know evidence is valid?
▶ Need to see if you can falsify your falsification
and ...
▶ Falsification approach MUST lead to an infinite
regress—the very problem that Popper
claimed was the fatal weakness of induction.

18. POSITIVE DISCOVERY APPROACH
▶ How could science ever advance by showing
that something is not true?

19. POSITIVE DISCOVERY APPROACH
▶ How could science ever advance by showing
that something is not true?
▶ Genes not controlled by leprechauns???

20. POSITIVE DISCOVERY APPROACH
▶ How could science ever advance by showing
that something is not true?
▶ Genes not controlled by leprechauns???
▶ Planets not kept in orbit by tiny gold strings???

21. POSITIVE DISCOVERY APPROACH
▶ Advances occur by discovering things
that are true.

22. POSITIVE DISCOVERY APPROACH
▶ Advances occur by discovering things
that are true.
▶ If not true, would be living in the Dark Ages.

23. POSITIVE DISCOVERY APPROACH
▶ Advances occur by discovering things
that are true.
▶ If not true, would be living in the Dark Ages.
▶ Science has not, and could not progress
by falsification

24. POSITIVE DISCOVERY APPROACH
▶ Advances occur by discovering things
that are true.
▶ If not true, would be living in the Dark Ages.
▶ Science has not, and could not progress
by falsification
▶ Science progresses only by the process of
making positive discoveries.

25. WELL-VALIDATED THEORIES
▶ Aaron Beck’s cognitive theory of depression

26. WELL-VALIDATED THEORIES
▶ Aaron Beck’s cognitive theory of depression
▶ Albert Bandura’s social-cognitive theory

27. WELL-VALIDATED THEORIES
▶ Aaron Beck’s cognitive theory of depression
▶ Albert Bandura’s social-cognitive theory
▶ Edwin Locke & Gary Latham’s goal setting
theory

28. BECK’S COGNITIVE THEORY
▶ 1956 reveal his first discovery regarding the
importance of cognition.

29. BECK’S COGNITIVE THEORY
▶ 1956 reveal his first discovery regarding the
importance of cognition.

30. BECK’S COGNITIVE THEORY
▶ 1956 reveal his first discovery regarding the
importance of cognition.
▶ Practicing psychoanalysis and patient, M, was
free-associating in line with “good” practice
and was angrily criticizing Beck.

31. BECK’S COGNITIVE THEORY
▶ Beck asked him what he was feeling. Besides
anger, the patient was experiencing a stream
of thought:

32. BECK’S COGNITIVE THEORY
▶ Beck asked him what he was feeling. Besides
anger, the patient was experiencing a stream
of thought:
▶ “I said the wrong thing…I should not have
said that…I’m wrong to criticize him. I’m
bad…”

33. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ “My formulation of this observation was that
M’s critical thoughts were an intermediate
variable between his angry expressions and
his guilty feelings.”

34. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ “My formulation of this observation was that
M’s critical thoughts were an intermediate
variable between his angry expressions and
his guilty feelings.”
▶ Beck verified conclusion with other patients.
▶ They too experienced double streams of
thinking.

35. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ Second stream he labeled “automatic
thoughts.”

36. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ Second stream he labeled “automatic
thoughts.”
▶ Here is how Beck described them:
▶ “First, they tended to be very fleeting.

37. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ Second stream he labeled “automatic
thoughts.”
▶ Here is how Beck described them:
▶ “First, they tended to be very fleeting.
▶ Second, they were just on the fringe of
consciousness.

38. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ Second stream he labeled “automatic
thoughts.”
▶ Here is how Beck described them:
▶ “First, they tended to be very fleeting.
▶ Second, they were just on the fringe of
consciousness.
▶ Third, they were not the kinds of thoughts that
individuals were accustomed to verbalize to other
people.

39. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ Beck asked patients to start noticing thoughts
that occurred just before they experienced a
particular feeling.

40. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ Beck asked patients to start noticing thoughts
that occurred just before they experienced a
particular feeling.
▶ He started this practice with the very next
patient after M.

41. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ He discovered that just prior to experiencing
anxiety regarding a sexual relationship, patient
Z reported thoughts such as:

42. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ He discovered that just prior to experiencing
anxiety regarding a sexual relationship, patient
Z reported thoughts such as:
▶ “He is bored with me….He will probably get
rid of me.”

43. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ Beck made similar observations in other patients,
friends and relatives and added these to his own
introspective observations.

44. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ Beck made similar observations in other patients,
friends and relatives and added these to his own
introspective observations.
▶ He concluded that automatic thoughts involved:
▶ Rapid, automatic interpretations of events and
evaluations of the self. These subconscious
thoughts were widely generalized. Patient who
believed she was boring believed she was
boring in all social situations.

45. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ Beck then trained all his patients to report
subconscious thoughts. He observed that “in
ambiguous situations, the depressed patients
were particularly prone to make a negative
interpretation when a positive one would seem to
be more appropriate.”

46. WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
INDUCTIVELY
▶ Beck then trained all his patients to report
subconscious thoughts. He observed that “in
ambiguous situations, the depressed patients
were particularly prone to make a negative
interpretation when a positive one would seem to
be more appropriate.”
▶ Material from patients’ thoughts “provided me with
the raw data for constructing a theory of
psychopathology as well as a therapy.”

47. HOW CAN WE DO THIS?
▶ Start with a core idea.

48. HOW CAN WE DO THIS?
▶ Start with a core idea.
▶ Develop a substantial body of observations.

49. HOW CAN WE DO THIS?
▶ Start with a core idea.
▶ Develop a substantial body of observations.
▶ Rely on introspection.

50. HOW CAN WE DO THIS?
▶ Start with a core idea.
▶ Develop a substantial body of observations.
▶ Rely on introspection.
▶ Identify causal mechanisms.

51. HOW CAN WE DO THIS?
▶ Start with a core idea.
▶ Develop a substantial body of observations.
▶ Rely on introspection.
▶ Identify causal mechanisms.
▶ Experimentation.

52. HOW CAN WE DO THIS?
▶ Start with a core idea.
▶ Develop a substantial body of observations.
▶ Rely on introspection.
▶ Identify causal mechanisms.
▶ Experimentation.
▶ Link concepts/theories.

53. HOW CAN WE DO THIS?
▶ Start with a core idea.
▶ Develop a substantial body of observations.
▶ Rely on introspection.
▶ Identify causal mechanisms.
▶ Experimentation.
▶ Link concepts/theories.
▶ Integrate findings.

54. HOW CAN WE DO THIS?
▶ Start with a core idea.
▶ Develop a substantial body of observations.
▶ Rely on introspection.
▶ Identify causal mechanisms.
▶ Experimentation.
▶ Link concepts/theories.
▶ Integrate findings.
▶ Finding boundary conditions.