Replicability Crisis in Social Psychology: Looking at the Past to Find New Pathways for the Future
By Wojciech Świątkowski, Benoît Dompnier. 2017
97 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Over the last few years, psychology researchers have become increasingly preoccupied with the question of whether findings from psychological studies are generally replicable. The debates have originated from some unfortunate events of scientific misconduct in the field, and they have reached a climax with the recent discovery of a relatively weak rate of replicability of published literature, leading to the so-called replicability crisis in psychology. The present paper is concerned with examining the issue of replicability in the field of social psychology. We begin by drawing a state of the art of the crisis in this field. We then highlight some possible causes for the crisis, discussing topics of statistical power, questionable research practices, publication standards, and hidden auxiliary assumptions of context-dependency of social psychological theories. Finally, we argue that given the absence of absolute falsification in science, social psychology could greatly benefit from adopting McGuire’s perspectivist approach to knowledge construction.
Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, General Decision Sciences, History and Philosophy of Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/16c8af4882668834c1a495d68d1f2f67efc5d8ce
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
In General Decision Sciences
In History and Philosophy of Science
Citations in the corpus
- Keep Calm and Learn Multilevel Logistic Modeling: A Simplified Three-Step Procedure Using Stata, R, Mplus, and SPSS (2017, background): “Sufficient sample size is one of the first indications of research quality (Świątkowski & Dompnier, 2017).”
- When Does HARKing Hurt? Identifying When Different Types of Undisclosed Post Hoc Hypothesizing Harm Scientific Progress (2017, background): “Despite this view, there is a growing trend to regard undisclosed HARKing as unethical (e.g., Ṡwiątkowski & Dompnier, 2017) because it contradicts the general principles of openness and transparency in the research process.”