Two Voices on the Credibility Crisis in Psychology

A. Białek, Piotr Wolski
{"title":"Two Voices on the Credibility Crisis in Psychology","authors":"A. Białek, Piotr Wolski","doi":"10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While various shortcomings and flaws in the conduct of research and analysis of results in psychology and other social sciences have been recognized for a long time, recent years have witnessed greater prevalence and wider scope of this criticism. There are also more proposals for improvement. In this article, we focus on selected, key areas of the credibility crisis in psychology. Piotr Wolski discusses those related to the improper understanding and application of significance tests, while Arkadiusz Białek characterizes some of the research practices that undermine the credibility of psychological studies and demonstrates how to counteract them. Although the use of good research practices can improve the reproducibility and replicability of research results, the proposed reform should also encompass the way theories are developed. The discussed proposal for theory development in psychology leads to a series of practical steps. Unlike the hypothetico-deductive model, it starts with the identification and description of the phenomenon. The explanation of the phenomenon formulated through abduction is then formalized in mathematical equations or computer simulations and verified. Adhering to good research practices and proper theory development has the potential to provide psychology with more solid foundations and make it a cumulatively evolving science.","PeriodicalId":508615,"journal":{"name":"Przegląd Psychologiczny","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Przegląd Psychologiczny","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9679","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While various shortcomings and flaws in the conduct of research and analysis of results in psychology and other social sciences have been recognized for a long time, recent years have witnessed greater prevalence and wider scope of this criticism. There are also more proposals for improvement. In this article, we focus on selected, key areas of the credibility crisis in psychology. Piotr Wolski discusses those related to the improper understanding and application of significance tests, while Arkadiusz Białek characterizes some of the research practices that undermine the credibility of psychological studies and demonstrates how to counteract them. Although the use of good research practices can improve the reproducibility and replicability of research results, the proposed reform should also encompass the way theories are developed. The discussed proposal for theory development in psychology leads to a series of practical steps. Unlike the hypothetico-deductive model, it starts with the identification and description of the phenomenon. The explanation of the phenomenon formulated through abduction is then formalized in mathematical equations or computer simulations and verified. Adhering to good research practices and proper theory development has the potential to provide psychology with more solid foundations and make it a cumulatively evolving science.
关于心理学可信度危机的两种声音
虽然心理学和其他社会科学在开展研究和分析结果时存在的各种不足和缺陷早已为人们所认识,但近年来这种批评更为普遍,范围也更为广泛。改进建议也越来越多。在本文中,我们将重点讨论心理学公信力危机的某些关键领域。皮奥特-沃尔斯基(Piotr Wolski)讨论了与显著性检验的不当理解和应用有关的问题,而阿卡迪乌斯-比亚韦克(Arkadiusz Białek)则描述了一些有损心理学研究可信度的研究实践,并展示了如何应对这些问题。尽管采用良好的研究实践可以提高研究成果的可重复性和可复制性,但所建议的改革还应包括理论发展的方式。所讨论的心理学理论发展建议提出了一系列切实可行的步骤。与假设-演绎模式不同的是,它始于对现象的识别和描述。然后,通过诱导形成的对现象的解释通过数学公式或计算机模拟形式化,并得到验证。坚持良好的研究实践和正确的理论发展有可能为心理学提供更坚实的基础,并使其成为一门不断发展的科学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信