New research published by the journal Science found that just over a third of 100 psychological experiments published in respected journals had replicable findings, The Washington Post reports.
HOW THE STUDY WAS DONE
For the study, which was conducted over a four-year period, 270 researchers repeated experiments that were documented in academic psychology journals. And when 36% of the repeated experiments arrived at similar conclusions to the originals, the “decline effect” – in which support decreases for the original scientific claims – was present.
Reproducibility is often considered as a necessary feature of reliable research; if a study cannot be replicated, then its findings are usually considered to be questionable.
University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek led the study. Nosek started the Reproductibility Project, as the study is also known, in 2011. He is also the chief of the Center for Open Science, an organization that has advocated for replication.
PERVERSE INCENTIVES
Some researchers will work completely or mostly on original work because it may be better for advancing their career than replicating other research is, Ars Technica UK reported. Other factors will influence the way the academic community will treat a study: “Novel, positive and tidy results are more likely to survive peer review,” Nosek said. According to the WaPo, other perverse incentives among scientists include the desire to secure tenure, be published in a famous journal, or get grants.
SOME FALSIFIED FINDINGS IN Psychology Research
A few of the dispelled claims were: people’s feelings of personal closeness being influenced by physical distance, attached women are more attracted to unattached men when they are fertile, and a correlation between having stronger beliefs in free will among people who commit infidelity, according to The New York Times.
THE PROBLEM IN RECENT YEARS
The past few years have been controversial ones for research’s reproducibility. There have been some cases of outright fraud, like what happened four years ago when the Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel admitted he had, for years, been making data up.
Academic journals also currently have higher rates of retracting research than ever before. In May, Science came under fire for publishing an article about gay marriage and political canvassing based on false data; the journal retracted it after the criticism.
For technology related news and product reviews, check out Clapway Trends:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQvv6ThzPoU
Study Says Psychology Research Is Often Faulty
No comments:
Post a Comment