EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY GETTING A MUCH-NEEDED REVIEW?
(Posted 2012-04-18 08:48:59 by Ray Lopez)
In today's _Chronicle of Higher Education_ is an article by Tom Bartlett [
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/is-psychology-about-to-come-undone ],
describing a new project being initiated by Brian Nosek of the University
of Virginia.
The purpose of this project is to replicate the findings of all studies
published during 2008 in the following journals:
* _Psychological Science_
* _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_
* _Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition_
Needless to say, this is a huge undertaking. What is even greater are the
implications this project will have on the areas of social psychology,
personality psychology, and cognitive psychology.� What will it mean if
only 10 or 20 percent of the studies can be successfully replicated?
This year marks my 30th year working in experimental psychology, having
started as a wee undergraduate at The University of Texas, in the lab of
the late, great Abram Amsel.� In that time I have experienced all of the
ups and downs, the blood, sweat and tears, and the personalities that exist
in the world of experimental psychology.
Based on this experience, I predict that Nosek and his team will find that
they can only replicate no more than 25 percent of the studies they'll
attempt.� The reasons for this are complex, but in my opinion many of these
reasons can be summarized in one word:� assholes.
The system is set up to reward the efforts of narcissistic, grant-grubbing
glory-seekers.� To glorify yourself, get money, and get a mention in a
major news outlet, you have to publish some sort of positive result in a
prestigious journal.� To get positive results, you run experiments multiple
times until you get what you want, or you outright fabricate data.� The
impressiveness of the results and your ability to look down your nose at
those who dare question you are what ultimately enable you to get that
article published.� This feeds the ego, feeds the grant coffers, and allows
all the big names in experimental psychology to go about growing their
careers and treating anyone beneath them like crap.� For the field of
experimental psychology, the end result is a whole bunch of research that
sounds interesting, but can't be replicated.
If Nosek and his team find that they are able to replicate only a minority
of studies, I am hopeful that this will lead to a much needed discussion on
what is wrong with science nowadays.� But I am very skeptical that it will,
mainly because the assholes are much too powerful.� Excuses will be made,
smokescreens will be put up, hands will be waved, and blame will be
assigned.� Maybe one or two "bright young stars" will be exposed as frauds,
depriving the world of psychology of more classless, arrogant pricks.
I honestly hope I am wrong about all of this.� In the worst case, I hope
that if Nosek is unable to replicate most of the studies he attempts, that
this will lead to some reforms.� For example, it would be great to see
funding entities and journal editors encourage research from people and
places they've traditionally ignored.� Great research doesn't just come
from people with Ivy league degrees.� It is of course hard to predict what
will come of all of this, but whatever happens I do hope it prompts a lot
of soul-searching about why we should be doing this type of research in the
first place.
--------
There are no comments on this post.
To submit a comment on this post, email
[email protected] or visit us on the web
[
http://ratthing.com ].
