Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science

Replication—an important, uncommon, and misunderstood practice—is gaining appreciation in psychology. Achieving replicability is important for making research progress. If findings are not replicable, then prediction and theory development are stifled. If findings are replicable, then interrogation of their meaning and validity can advance knowledge. Assessing replicability can be productive for generating and testing hypotheses by actively confronting current understandings to identify weaknesses and spur innovation. For psychology, the 2010s might be characterized as a decade of active confrontation. Systematic and multi-site replication projects assessed current understandings and observed surprising failures to replicate many published findings. Replication efforts highlighted sociocultural challenges such as disincentives to conduct replications and a tendency to frame replication as a personal attack rather than a healthy scientific practice, and they raised awareness that replication contributes to self-correction. Nevertheless, innovation in doing and understanding replication and its cousins, reproducibility and robustness, has positioned psychology to improve research practices and accelerate progress. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 73 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science

Replication, an important, uncommon, and misunderstood practice, is gaining appreciation in psychology. Achieving replicability is important for making research progress. If findings are not replicable, then prediction and theory development are stifled. If findings are replicable, then interrogation of their meaning and validity can advance knowledge. Assessing replicability can be productive for generating and testing hypotheses by actively confronting current understanding to identify weaknesses and spur innovation. For psychology, the 2010s might be characterized as a decade of active confrontation. Systematic and multi-site replication projects assessed current understanding and observed surprising failures to replicate many published findings. Replication efforts highlighted sociocultural challenges, such as disincentives to conduct replications, framing of replication as personal attack rather than healthy scientific practice, and headwinds for replication contributing to self-correction. Nevertheless, innovation in doing and understanding replication, and its cousins, reproducibility and robustness, have positioned psychology to improve research practices and accelerate progress.

The severity of bullying messages predicts increased levels of targets’ depression and general anxiety as a function of targets’ inferences of a bully’s goals

Being the recipient of severe bullying messages for a period of time is a meaningful predictor of subsequent mental health issues. Employing Goal Understanding Theory, we test an explanation for this association. Specifically, we hypothesize and generally confirm that targets’ adverse emotional reaction and hurt from bullying messages serially mediate the positive association between message severity and depression and general anxiety, depending on the goal understanding of targets (i.e., inferences of upward-mobility, personal-attack, and highlight-differences goals motivating a bully). That is, the mediation of message severity on mental health via emotional reaction and then hurt is present at high (not low) levels of goal inferences. Implications of the communicative processes connecting severe bullying with mental health are discussed.

Effectiveness of Supervised Classification Models for Hate Speech on Twitter

<div> <div> <div> <p>Abstract </p> <p>The ceaseless connectivity imposed by the internet has made many vulnerable to offensive comments, be it their physical appearance, political beliefs, or religion. Some define hate speech as any kind of personal attack on one’s identity or beliefs. Of the many sites that grant the ability to spread such offensive speech, Twitter has arguably become the primary medium for individuals and groups to spread these hurtful comments. Such comments typically fail to be detected by Twitter’s anti-hate system and can linger online for hours before finally being taken down. Through sentiment analysis, this algorithm is able to distinguish hate speech effectively through the classification of sentiment. </p> </div> </div> </div>

Effectiveness of Supervised Classification Models for Hate Speech on Twitter

<div> <div> <div> <p>Abstract </p> <p>The ceaseless connectivity imposed by the internet has made many vulnerable to offensive comments, be it their physical appearance, political beliefs, or religion. Some define hate speech as any kind of personal attack on one’s identity or beliefs. Of the many sites that grant the ability to spread such offensive speech, Twitter has arguably become the primary medium for individuals and groups to spread these hurtful comments. Such comments typically fail to be detected by Twitter’s anti-hate system and can linger online for hours before finally being taken down. Through sentiment analysis, this algorithm is able to distinguish hate speech effectively through the classification of sentiment. </p> </div> </div> </div>

Het persoonlijke in Thorbeckes Tweede Kamer

Remarks about the person in Thorbecke’s Second ChamberThere is always a risk in parliamentary politics that objective debate will change into personal debate and conflict. On the one hand, orators can choose to launch a personal verbal attack to their opponents. On the other hand, opponents can interpret verbal arguments as a personal attack, even if these words were not meant that way. In the most extreme cases personal honour is damaged and needs to be repaired through other means, including a physical duel. Compared to other young parliaments, the nineteenth century Dutch ‘Second Chamber’ (Tweede Kamer) had a quiet and calm reputation. How did Dutch Members of Parliament handle their emotions in confrontations that risked to become personal? How did the most influential politician, J.R. Thorbecke, deal with these confrontations? Which rules and rituals were at the disposal of MPs to protect themselves against personal politics? And what could contemporary parliamentary debate learn from these Dutch nineteenth-century examples? To find asnwers to these questions, this article explores personal politics in Thorbecke’s Second Chamber.

‘Parasitische politiek’ : Thorbecke en de persoonlijke aanval in de Nederlandse Tweede Kamer

‘Parasitic Politics’. Thorbecke and Personal Attacks in the Dutch Lower HouseThis contribution uses a famous personal attack in Dutch parliamentary history to discuss ad hominem in the context of the activity type of parliamentary debating. The case is Thorbecke, liberal leader and most prominent defender of pure parliamentary discussion, vs the then Prime Minister Van Hall, in December 1860. Thorbecke rejected Van Hall’s opportunist policies but he also disliked him intensely. His personal feelings transpired in his diatribe against Van Hall’s ‘parasitic politics’. Thorbecke’s adherents applauded what they considered a principled attack, Van Hall’s supporters criticized the vehement personal attack. The attack virtually ended the discussion, and it was the culmination of Thorbecke’s vendetta against Van Hall. It is hard to deny that Thorbecke’s diatribe was a personal attack, since he disregarded the arguments of his opponent and discredited him by attacking his personal credibility, but the interpretation of such a political case will always remain open to discussion.

De persoonlijke aanval als wezenlijk kenmerk van het parlementaire debat : Een analyse aan de hand van de geschiedenis van ‘onparlementair taalgebruik’ in de Tweede Kamer

The Personal Attack as Essential Characteristic of Parliamentary Debating. An Analysis on the Basis of the History of ‘Unparliamentary Language’ in the Dutch Lower HousePersonal attacks abound in Dutch parliamentary history. This article considers personal insults and character attacks as an intrinsic part of parliamentary debate. But how widespread is the phenomenon? What forms of ad hominem arguments can be distinguished in the history of Dutch parliamentary debate? When and to what extent do parliamentarians deem the abusive attack acceptable? Drawing on a rich source of language ruled to be unparliamentary in Dutch parliament from 1934 until 2001, the article will reflect on the complicated nature of personal attacks within the context of parliaments: often condemned as indecent, yet appreciated as a cunning debating strategy.

THE FALLACY ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAM “WAKTU INDONESIA BERCANDA”

Recently, one of popular programs on TV is Waktu Indonesia Bercanda (WIB). It is a Quiz Show program that offers problems to solve and the host makes use fallacies as the core of its game. WIB offers the sense of achievement among its participants, but competitive atmosphere is hardly to find among them. This research tries to analyze the fallacies being used in WIB and figure out how such fallacies can encourage people to think critically. The research employs descriptive research design as it simply attempts to determine, describe or identify phenomena. 6 WIB from September through December were randomly selected as the subject of the research. The result shows that WIB demonstrates the use of fallacies of relevance but it avoids using argumentum ad hominem that contains personal attack. WIB may encourage the audiences and participants to think critically as fallacious arguments offered make the audiences work hard to think any possible implicatures. Eventually, WIB is the program that invites the participants and the viewers to think, evaluate and decide the answer or solution to the problem provided. In conclusion, WIB is a worth watching ShowQuiz as it is entertaining and encouraging its audience to think critically.