《人格与社会心理学杂志》的一篇新论文仔细研究了心理学的可重复性和研究质量危机,我们将其研究结果分为两部分进行探讨。
第一部分:研究者的视角
in a review that outlined why, thanks particularly to what are now termed “questionable research practices” (QRPs), over half of all published research in social and medical sciences might be invalid. Kaboom. This shook a large swathe of science, but the fires continue to burn especially fiercely in the fields of social and personality psychology, which marshalled its response through a 2012 special issue in Perspectives on Psychological Sciencethat brought these concerns fully out in the open, discussing replication failure, publication biases, and how to reshape incentives to improve the field. The fire flared up again in 2015 with the publication of Brian Nosek and the Open Science Collaboration’s high-profile attempt to replicate 100 studies in these fields, which succeeded in only 36 per cent of cases. Meanwhile, and to its credit, efforts to institute better safeguards like registered reports have gathered pace.
The field of social psychology is reeling from a series of crises that call into question the everyday scientific practices of its researchers. The fuse was lit by statistician John Ioannidis in 2005,社会心理学领域正在受到一系列的危机的影响,这场质疑研究者的日常科学实践的危机,其导火索由统计学家John Ioannidis于2005点燃,他在一篇综述中概述了之所以要特别感谢所谓的“有问题的研究惯例questionable research practices (QRPs)”的原因。在所有已发表的社会科学与医学研究之中,可能有一半是无效的。这个大爆炸撼动了一大堆的科学,但是这场大火在社会和人格心理学领域依旧剧烈地燃烧着,《心理科学透视》2012年特刊的整理和回应,将这场担忧完全公开了,在这个特刊中,讨论了重复性失败 、出版社的偏见、以及如何重塑激励措施、如何改善这一领域。,这场大火于2015年又开始复燃,布莱恩·诺赛克(Brian Nosek)和“开放科学合作组织”(The Open Science Collaboration)在2015年高调尝试重复了这一领域的100项研究,只有36%的案例成功重复。值得赞扬的是,与此同时,努力建立像注册报告这样的更好保障措施已经开始加快了步伐。
So how bad did things get, and have they really improved? A new article in pre-print at theJournal of Personality and Social Psychology tries to tackle the issue from two angles: first by asking active researchers what they think of the past and present state of their field, and how they now go about conducting psychology experiments, and second by analysing features of published research to estimate the prevalence of broken practices more objectively.
那么,事情有多糟糕?情况真的改善了吗?《人格与社会心理学》杂志预印的一篇新文章试图从两个角度来解决这个问题:首先,向活跃的研究者询问了他们对自己研究领域的过去与现在的状态之看法,以及他们是如何进行心理学实验的;第二,通过分析已发表研究的特点,更客观地估计惯常破坏性行为的流行程度。
The paper comes from a large group of authors at the University of Illinois at Chicago under the guidance of Linda Skitka, a distinguished social psychologist who participated in the creation of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science and who is on the editorial board of many more social psych journals, and led by Matt Motyl, a social and personality psychologist who has published with Nosek in the past, including on the issue of improving scientific practice.
这篇论文来自于伊利诺伊大学的一个团队,论文指导者Linda Skitka是位杰出的社会心理学家,他参与了《社会与人格心理学》杂志的创立,他还是众多社会心理学期刊的编委,这个团队由社会和人格心理学家Matt Motyl带领,Matt Motyl曾经和Nosek一起发表过一篇提高科学实践问题的论文。
Psychology research is the air that we breathe at the Digest, making it crucial that we understand its quality. So in this two-part series, we’re going to explore the issues raised in the University of Illinois at Chicago paper, to see if we can make sense of the state of social psychology, beginning in this post with the findings from Motyl et al’s survey of approximately 1,200 social and personality psychologists, from graduate students to full professors, mainly from the US, Europe and Australasia.