Replications can cause distorted belief in scientific progress

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Białek
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
The Public ◽  
Psychological Science

AbstractIf we want psychological science to have a meaningful real-world impact, it has to be trusted by the public. Scientific progress is noisy; accordingly, replications sometimes fail even for true findings. We need to communicate the acceptability of uncertainty to the public and our peers, to prevent psychology from being perceived as having nothing to say about reality.

scholarly journals Replications can cause distorted belief in scientific progress: BBS commentary by Białek on Zwaan et al.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Bialek
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
The Public ◽  
Psychological Science

If we want psychological science to have a meaningful real-world impact, it has to be trusted by the public. Scientific progress is noisy; accordingly, replications sometimes fail even for true findings. We need to communicate the acceptability of uncertainty to the public and our peers, to prevent psychology from being perceived as having nothing to say about reality.

Psychological Science in the Public Interest: The Case for Juried Analyses

2000 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 177-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Ceci ◽  
Robert A. Bjork
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Real World ◽  
Well Being ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
The Public ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
American Psychological Society

The inaugural issue of Psychological Science in the Public Interest (PSPI), a new publishing initiative by the American Psychological Society, accompanies this issue of Psychological Science. The report it contains, “Psychological Science Can Improve Diagnostic Decisions,” by John Swets, Robyn Dawes, and John Monahan, represents a careful effort by those authors to summarize the potential of modern psychological science to enhance real-world diagnostic decisions. Such decisions (Is a cancer present? Will this individual commit violence? Will an impending storm strike? Will this applicant succeed?) are prevalent and crucial to the lives of individuals and to the well-being of our society. Subsequent issues of PSPI will address other important topics of public interest in areas where psychological science may have the potential to inform and improve public policy. Each of those reports will also represent the efforts of a distinguished team of scientists to report the available evidence, and the implications of that evidence, fairly and comprehensively. In this article, we describe the goals, procedures, and potential of PSPI.

A Preregistered Validation Study of the Taylor Aggression Paradigm

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Skylan Chester
Keyword(s):  
Aggressive Behavior ◽  
Validation Study ◽  
Real World ◽  
External Validity ◽  
State Level ◽  
Taylor Aggression Paradigm ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Laboratory Measure ◽  
Behavioral Tasks ◽  
Preliminary Support

The Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP) is a frequently-used laboratory measure of aggressive behavior. However, the flexibility inherent in its implementation and analysis can undermine its validity. To test whether the TAP was a valid aggression measure irrespective of this flexibility, I conducted a preregistered study of a 25-trial version of the TAP using a single scoring approach with 160 diverse undergraduate participants. TAP scores showed agreement with other laboratory aggression measures and were magnified by an experimental provocation manipulation. Mixed evidence was found for associations with aggressive dispositions and real-world violence. These results provide preliminary support for this approach to the TAP to measure state-level aggressive behavior. However, more evidence is needed to assess the TAP’s external validity and ability to measure dispositional forms of aggression. Using preregistered designs, researchers should validate specific variants of their behavioral tasks in order to optimize the veridicality and reproducibility of psychological science.

scholarly journals COVID-19, Social Media, and the Role of the Public Physician

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Joel M. Topf ◽  
Paul N. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Real World ◽  
The Public ◽  
Large Segment ◽  
Core Part ◽  
Audience Size

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an avalanche of information, much of it false or misleading. Social media posts with misleading or dangerous opinions and analyses are often amplified by celebrities and social media influencers; these posts have contributed substantially to this avalanche of information. An emerging force in this information infodemic is public physicians, doctors who view a public presence as a large segment of their mission. These physicians bring authority and real-world experience to the COVID-19 discussion. To investigate the role of public physicians, we interviewed a convenience cohort of physicians who have played a role in the infodemic. We asked the physicians about how their roles have changed, how their audience has changed, what role politics plays, and how they address misinformation. The physicians noted increased audience size with an increased focus on the pandemic. Most avoided confronting politics, but others found it unavoidable or that even if they tried to avoide it, it would be brought up by their audience. The physicians felt that confronting and correcting misinformation was a core part of their mission. Public physicians on social media are a new occurrence and are an important part of fighting online misinformation.

scholarly journals How Do We Choose Our Giants? Perceptions of Replicability in Psychological Science

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 251524592110181
Author(s):  
Manikya Alister ◽  
Raine Vickers-Jones ◽  
David K. Sewell ◽  
Timothy Ballard
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Statistical Methods ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Specific Study ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Average Confidence

Judgments regarding replicability are vital to scientific progress. The metaphor of “standing on the shoulders of giants” encapsulates the notion that progress is made when new discoveries build on previous findings. Yet attempts to build on findings that are not replicable could mean a great deal of time, effort, and money wasted. In light of the recent “crisis of confidence” in psychological science, the ability to accurately judge the replicability of findings may be more important than ever. In this Registered Report, we examine the factors that influence psychological scientists’ confidence in the replicability of findings. We recruited corresponding authors of articles published in psychology journals between 2014 and 2018 to complete a brief survey in which they were asked to consider 76 specific study attributes that might bear on the replicability of a finding (e.g., preregistration, sample size, statistical methods). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which information regarding each attribute increased or decreased their confidence in the finding being replicated. We examined the extent to which each research attribute influenced average confidence in replicability. We found evidence for six reasonably distinct underlying factors that influenced these judgments and individual differences in the degree to which people’s judgments were influenced by these factors. The conclusions reveal how certain research practices affect other researchers’ perceptions of robustness. We hope our findings will help encourage the use of practices that promote replicability and, by extension, the cumulative progress of psychological science.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document