Written by Anupriya Dasgupta, answers by Edoardo Signori
As part of a new series on our science communication blog, we asked some Behavioural Science Research Master’s students about their major thesis projects. Edoardo Signori is a second-year student working with the Developmental Psychopathology group on a project examining the limitations of testing common-sense concepts in behavioural research without rigorously constraining their meanings in order to produce research results that can be universally understood and verified. Signori uses the concept of loneliness to show how such a methodological limitation impacts theory-building in psychology.
What is your project and how and where does it fit into the larger discipline of behavioural science?
My project aims to address some of the consequences of the structural challenges that emerged during the first and second crises in psychology. During the first crisis, criticism was raised about the quality of psychological theories and the consequent perceived lack of cumulative progress within the discipline. The second is commonly referred to as the replication crisis, which we still find ourselves in, and focuses more on the actual applicability of findings, the generalisability of results, and the adequacy and correct use of methodological approaches. Replication itself only represents one among several problematic aspects and structural weaknesses of the field. As a response to both crises, my project uses the empirical case of loneliness to examine how the absence of effective scientific tools for constraining, updating, and synthesising the core “containers” of knowledge within the field, i.e., theories, limits the scientific process and impairs its results.
I argue that the widespread use amongst researchers of under-constrained constructs or concepts, such as loneliness, produces divergent empirical findings that are hard to integrate. For example, the common-sense construct of ‘loneliness’ can have a multitude of different meanings associated under its umbrella, and different researchers may associate different meanings to it. Not explicitly defining how such a construct is understood and utilised in a study can make its results vague and hard to interpret and replicate. This limits the development of cumulative knowledge in the field. In the absence of systematic refinement of theoretical definitions, empirical results often remain weakly connected, contributing to the fragmentation of knowledge rather than its integration. As a result, the field risks producing large quantities of findings without achieving corresponding advances in substantive knowledge. To illustrate this dynamic, I present and discuss an empirical example focusing on loneliness. Through this study, I show how the current zeitgeist in behavioural science often incentivizes research that prioritizes statistical results over theoretical contribution. Such work, while methodologically sound in itself, frequently lacks the capacity to meaningfully inform or refine broader theories.
The broader aim of this project is to bridge the gap between philosophical critiques of the field and the everyday practices of researchers. By doing so, it highlights how routine methodological choices in “soft” areas of psychology can have far-reaching epistemic consequences. Ultimately, the project situates itself within behavioural science as a critical reflection on how knowledge is produced, arguing for a shift toward more theory-constrained, integrative, and cumulatively oriented research practices.
Give us a bit of background into your study and how it has developed to this stage.
This study developed through my collaboration with Dr. Maaike Verhagen and Dr. Renske Van Der Cruyssen as supervisors, with additional vital support and mentorship from PhD candidate Freek Oude Maatman. The project initially emerged from an interest in advancing the conceptualization of loneliness using prototype theory, which is a cognitive science model developed by Eleanor Rosch, proposing that human categories are structured around the most typical or “ideal” member (the prototype). In its original form, the study aimed to integrate prototype theory with loneliness research, investigating whether individuals share a common cognitive prototype of a “lonely person” and whether participants can reliably recognise such a prototype. However, the development and implementation of this experimental design required substantially more time than was available within the scope of a Master’s thesis.
As a result, I redirected the project toward the analysis of an existing Experience Sampling Method (ESM) dataset. This provided an opportunity to explore loneliness in individuals over a period of time. Within this framework, I focused on one of the key mechanisms underlying loneliness, the discrepancy between expected and actual outcomes of social interactions. This discrepancy has been widely identified in the literature as a central component in the emergence and maintenance of loneliness. The study was therefore designed to examine how interpersonal disagreement through the data collection period relates to loneliness trajectories over time.
However, during the process of designing and preparing the study, I became increasingly aware that both its structure and its potential findings were embedded within the broader systemic issue in the field that I explained above, and the project risked producing findings that would remain largely disconnected from the rest of the literature.
This issue is particularly critical given the cumulative nature of scientific knowledge, which depends not on isolated findings but on their replication, integration, and theoretical interpretation. Recognising this, I chose to explicitly and actively incorporate this limitation into the project itself. Rather than treating it solely as a constraint, I use my own study as an empirical example to illustrate how such systemic dynamics can problematically shape research practice and outcomes.
How would you explain the relevance of your study to someone unfamiliar with the technical details?
I would say that, in order to be a good scientist, you need to be critical, and to be critical, you need to be aware of the state of your field. One of the best ways to develop this awareness is to see how these issues actually impact your own work. To do so, I present a concrete example of this process.
Why did you choose this project?
I chose this project because I believe there is a strong need to build greater awareness of the problems that have arisen and continue to arise in the field. Awareness, doubt, and crisis are the essential nutrients that sustain scientific progress. Without them, reaching new stages of knowledge is difficult, if not impossible.
What have you learned so far about collaborating with your supervisors on a project like this?
I believe that collaboration lies at the core of knowledge production; being part of a research group, even with limited supervision time, is both enriching and motivating. The diverse expertise of the people involved comes together to inform and improve the shared work in progress.
What are some scientific insights you’ve gathered so far that have surprised you or taught you something new or interesting?
The most interesting aspects do not concern the results per se, but rather relate to the nature of the critiques that emerged during the first and second crises in social psychology. It is particularly interesting to observe how, around the 1960s and the 2010s, periods in which these crises unfolded, windows opened in which doubts and criticisms toward the field were openly expressed and examined. Different perspectives confronted and informed one another, in several cases contributing to the advancement of the field toward more robust and effective methods and tools. Despite this, many of these issues seem to have faded from the field’s ongoing debates, revealing what appears to be a form of indifference, which, in my view, may mask an underlying insecurity about one’s own work and its practical implications.
Do a quick elevator pitch on why projects like yours should keep getting funded! 🙂
At the core of our work lies the desire to understand, predict, and inform human behaviour. These are vast and complex goals that require the use of the most advanced methods, the strictest ethical standards, and the most careful and effective communication. At the same time, they demand a constant critical perspective on our own work. Critique is at the very foundation of scientific progress: it reveals both the potential and the flaws of our approaches, inevitably creating space for solutions and improvement. Criticism fosters awareness, and this awareness does not weaken the field or damage its image; rather, it pushes it in the right direction, forcing it to take a step forward and to evolve. My research aims to be part of this fundamental process.
What has been your favourite part of the project?
Reading the literature and thinking about the final goal of the manuscript are the parts I enjoy the most!