“Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science,” from Science This paper isn’t really a study; it’s the outcome of an important movement in the field of psychology. In an effort called the Reproducibility Project, researchers at dozens of universities collaborated to replicate a hundred psychology studies that were initially conducted in 2008. They ended up replicating between a third and half of the studies. Is that result bad or good? It’s inevitable that studies won’t always be replicable—if every study could be replicated, then every researcher would be right the first time; even legitimate findings can prove fragile when you try to repeat them. All the same, the paper concludes that there is “room for improvement” in psychology, especially when it comes to “cultural practices in scientific communication.” Specifically, the authors propose that “low-power research designs combined with publication bias favoring positive results together produce a literature with upwardly biased effect sizes.” In other words, the desire for novelty drives researchers to overestimate the conclusiveness of their own work. It’s a fascinating and valuable effort to make sure that psychology moves forward in the best way possible.
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
1More
The Six Most Interesting Psychology Papers of 2015 - The New Yorker - 1 views
2More
Is the Field of Psychology Biased Against Conservatives? - 0 views
1More
Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results | Science | T... - 1 views
1More
New Critique Sees Flaws in Landmark Analysis of Psychology Studies - The New York Times - 0 views
4More
What Do You Say to a Roanoke Truther? - The Daily Beast - 0 views
Is psychology a "real" science? Does it really matter? | The Curious Wavefunction, Scie... - 0 views
1More
Henry Gustave Molaison: The Basis for 'Memento' and the World's Most Celebrated Amnesia... - 0 views
The Psychology of Online Comments : The New Yorker - 2 views
2More