| 1. |
- Benjamin, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Redefine statistical significance
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Nature Human Behaviour. - : Nature Research (part of Springer Nature). - 2397-3374. ; 2:1, s. 6-10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 2. |
- ODonnell, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998)
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Perspectives on Psychological Science. - : SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD. - 1745-6916 .- 1745-6924. ; 13:2, s. 268-294
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (professor) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence (soccer hooligans). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the professor category and those primed with the hooligan category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.
|
|
| 3. |
- Rohrer, Julia M., et al.
(författare)
-
Putting the Self in Self-Correction : Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Perspectives on Psychological Science. - : Sage Publications. - 1745-6916 .- 1745-6924. ; 16:6, s. 1255-1269
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Science is often perceived to be a self-correcting enterprise. In principle, the assessment of scientific claims is supposed to proceed in a cumulative fashion, with the reigning theories of the day progressively approximating truth more accurately over time. In practice, however, cumulative self-correction tends to proceed less efficiently than one might naively suppose. Far from evaluating new evidence dispassionately and infallibly, individual scientists often cling stubbornly to prior findings. Here we explore the dynamics of scientific self-correction at an individual rather than collective level. In 13 written statements, researchers from diverse branches of psychology share why and how they have lost confidence in one of their own published findings. We qualitatively characterize these disclosures and explore their implications. A cross-disciplinary survey suggests that such loss-of-confidence sentiments are surprisingly common among members of the broader scientific population yet rarely become part of the public record. We argue that removing barriers to self-correction at the individual level is imperative if the scientific community as a whole is to achieve the ideal of efficient self-correction.
|
|
| 4. |
- Schoenbrodt, Felix D., et al.
(författare)
-
Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annual Review of Psychology. - : Annual Reviews. - 1545-2085 .- 0066-4308. ; 73, s. 719-748
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Replication mdash an important, uncommon, and misunderstood practice mdash 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. © 2022 Annual Reviews Inc.. All rights reserved.
|
|
