Advertisement

The Call of the Finding

Some are worried that psychologists have become addicted to sound-bite results.

By | November 18, 2011

FLICKR, ENGLISH 106

Over the last few months, the news about one of the biggest cases of scientific fraud in recent memory—affecting more than 100 published research papers and resulting in the firing of Diderik Stapel from his post as the head of the Institute for Behavioral Economics Research at Tilburg University—has unfolded bit by bit, shocking the scientific community. Now the discussion is moving beyond the Stapel and overt data falsification and focusing on less obvious, even unintentional, examples of data misuse in the field of social psychology, which some worry are becoming increasingly common.

"If high-impact journals want this kind of surprising finding, then there is pressure on researchers to come up with this stuff," methodological expert Eric-Jan Wagenmakers of the University of Amsterdam told The Chronicle of Higher Education. But, as he commented to statistician Andrew Gelman, "most surprising hypotheses are wrong."

There have also been recently voiced concerns about the statistics used by social psychologists, with small sample sizes making it difficult to scare up statistical significance. In a proof of principle study called "False-Positive Psychology," researchers had people listen to the Beatles' song "When I'm 64," then came to the conclusion that the act had made the subjects younger, relative to listening to a control song. They followed all the "rules" of statistical analysis, but left out the total number of variables they had to dig through to find such a shocking result, and continued to collect data until they got the result they wanted.

"Many of us," the authors wrote, end up "yielding to the pressure to do whatever is justifiable to compile a set of studies that we can publish."

Indeed, according a survey to be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, about a third of academic psychologists admitted to practicing such questionable techniques in their own research, including omitting how many variables they tested from the final paper and ceasing data collection once they achieve a desired result.

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Brian Olson

Brian Olson

Posts: 1

November 18, 2011

See Richard Feynman for the status of psychology as a science.

That having been said, nanotechnology is plagued by a similar disease: publication of results that are not repeatable.

We can go on to other fields that use models to "establish the case" without concern for prediction...or...shall we go on?

Why does the scientific community tolerate such nonsense being granted the status of science. Let us not argue over use of the term "science". We all know the patina of legitimacy that word confers and I hope we all see how it is used. When will the scientific community value its credibility above academic/political convenience?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

November 18, 2011

See Richard Feynman for the status of psychology as a science.

That having been said, nanotechnology is plagued by a similar disease: publication of results that are not repeatable.

We can go on to other fields that use models to "establish the case" without concern for prediction...or...shall we go on?

Why does the scientific community tolerate such nonsense being granted the status of science. Let us not argue over use of the term "science". We all know the patina of legitimacy that word confers and I hope we all see how it is used. When will the scientific community value its credibility above academic/political convenience?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

November 18, 2011

See Richard Feynman for the status of psychology as a science.

That having been said, nanotechnology is plagued by a similar disease: publication of results that are not repeatable.

We can go on to other fields that use models to "establish the case" without concern for prediction...or...shall we go on?

Why does the scientific community tolerate such nonsense being granted the status of science. Let us not argue over use of the term "science". We all know the patina of legitimacy that word confers and I hope we all see how it is used. When will the scientific community value its credibility above academic/political convenience?

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement
Ingenuity Systems
Ingenuity Systems

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Cisbio
Cisbio
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist
Illumina
Illumina