Abstract

I apply Benjamin's taxonomy of common scientific “modes of explanation” to the psychological context. I argue that: in a “naming” mode, generalizability is not necessary; in an “analysis,” generalizability is desired; in a “causal ontology,” generalizability is merely one of the means to an end ; in a “synthesis,” generalizability is critical. A better appreciation of the diversity in psychologists' modes of explanation is crucial for cogent meta-psychological discussions.