English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In his commentary, Foster (2010) made arguments at 2 levels, offering a broad critique of statistical or methodological approaches in developmental psychology in general together with critical comments that applied only to our recent article (Dogan, Stockdale, Widaman, &amp; Conger, 2010). Certain criticisms by Foster aimed at the field as a whole appear to be justified, whereas others seem overly broad and of dubious validity. In addition, Foster ignored the full range of methodologies used by both developmental psychologists and economists to pursue the identification of causal processes. Other critical remarks by Foster were directed specifically at our article, and many of these are simply incorrect, reflecting Foster's failure to recognize the standards in developmental psychology or his failure to note specific comments or descriptions we provided in our article. Future exchanges regarding methodological innovations and priorities in developmental psychology and economics should enrich and inform one another, rather than taking the form of one field dictating to the other the correct way to pursue science.

Complexity, usefulness, and optimality: A response to Foster (2010).