Perspectives on Psychological Science最新文献_第7页

Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors. 美国心理学教授的禁忌与自我审查。

IF 12.6 1区心理学

Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-05-16 DOI: 10.1177/17456916241252085

Cory J Clark, Matias Fjeldmark, Louise Lu, Roy F Baumeister, Stephen Ceci, Komi Frey, Geoffrey Miller, Wilfred Reilly, Dianne Tice, William von Hippel, Wendy M Williams, Bo M Winegard, Philip E Tetlock

{"title":"Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors.","authors":"Cory J Clark, Matias Fjeldmark, Louise Lu, Roy F Baumeister, Stephen Ceci, Komi Frey, Geoffrey Miller, Wilfred Reilly, Dianne Tice, William von Hippel, Wendy M Williams, Bo M Winegard, Philip E Tetlock","doi":"10.1177/17456916241252085","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17456916241252085","url":null,"abstract":"We identify points of conflict and consensus regarding (a) controversial empirical claims and (b) normative preferences for how controversial scholarship-and scholars-should be treated. In 2021, we conducted qualitative interviews (n = 41) to generate a quantitative survey (N = 470) of U.S. psychology professors' beliefs and values. Professors strongly disagreed on the truth status of 10 candidate taboo conclusions: For each conclusion, some professors reported 100% certainty in its veracity and others 100% certainty in its falsehood. Professors more confident in the truth of the taboo conclusions reported more self-censorship, a pattern that could bias perceived scientific consensus regarding the inaccuracy of controversial conclusions. Almost all professors worried about social sanctions if they were to express their own empirical beliefs. Tenured professors reported as much self-censorship and as much fear of consequences as untenured professors, including fear of getting fired. Most professors opposed suppressing scholarship and punishing peers on the basis of moral concerns about research conclusions and reported contempt for peers who petition to retract papers on moral grounds. Younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship. These results do not resolve empirical or normative disagreements among psychology professors, but they may provide an empirical context for their discussion.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"17456916241252085"},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140945233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Papers Involved in the December 2022 APS Vote of No Confidence in the Editor-in-Chief of Perspectives on Psychological Science 2022 年 12 月美国心理学会对《心理科学视角》主编投不信任票涉及的论文

IF 12.6 1区心理学

Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI: 10.1177/17456916241246556

Wendy Wood, Randi Martin, Alison Gopnik, Robert Gropp

引用次数: 0

Diversity for Truth: Reply to Jussim, Stanovich, and Stroebe 多样性促进真理：答复朱西姆、斯坦诺维奇和斯特罗贝

IF 12.6 1区心理学

Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI: 10.1177/17456916241236175

Bernhard Hommel

引用次数: 0

The Myth of the Need for Diversity Among Subjects in Theory-Testing Research: Comments on “Racial Inequality in Psychological Research” by Roberts et al. (2020) 理论测试研究中需要受试者多样性的神话：对罗伯茨等人撰写的《心理学研究中的种族不平等》（2020 年）的评论

IF 12.6 1区心理学

Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI: 10.1177/17456916241236165

Wolfgang Stroebe

{"title":"The Myth of the Need for Diversity Among Subjects in Theory-Testing Research: Comments on “Racial Inequality in Psychological Research” by Roberts et al. (2020)","authors":"Wolfgang Stroebe","doi":"10.1177/17456916241236165","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241236165","url":null,"abstract":"Roberts and colleagues focus on two aspects of racial inequality in psychological research, namely an alleged underrepresentation of racial minorities and the effects attributed to this state of affairs. My comment focuses only on one aspect, namely the assumed consequences of the lack of diversity in subject populations. Representativeness of samples is essential in survey research or applied research that examines whether a particular intervention will work for a particular population. Representativeness or diversity is not necessary in theory-testing research, where we attempt to establish laws of causality. Because theories typically apply to all of humanity, all members of humanity (even American undergraduates) are suitable for assessing the validity of theoretical hypotheses. Admittedly, the assumption that a theory applies to all of humanity is also a hypothesis that can be tested. However, to test it, we need theoretical hypotheses about specific moderating variables. Supporting a theory with a racially diverse sample does not make conclusions more valid than support from a nondiverse sample. In fact, cause-effect conclusions based on a diverse sample might not be valid for any member of that sample.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140640344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Toward a Psychology of Ideas Rather Than Demographics: Commentary on Hommel (2024) 走向思想心理学而非人口统计学：霍梅尔评论（2024）

IF 12.6 1区心理学

Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI: 10.1177/17456916241236167

Keith E. Stanovich

引用次数: 0

Dealing With Diversity in Psychology: Science and Ideology 处理心理学中的多样性：科学与意识形态

IF 12.6 1区心理学

Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI: 10.1177/17456916241240743

Steven Othello Roberts

{"title":"Dealing With Diversity in Psychology: Science and Ideology","authors":"Steven Othello Roberts","doi":"10.1177/17456916241240743","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241240743","url":null,"abstract":"In the spirit of America’s Shakespeare, August Wilson (1997), I have written this article as a testimony to the conditions under which I, and too many others, engage in scholarly discourse. I hope to make clear from the beginning that although the ideas presented here are not entirely my own—as they have been inherited from the minority of scholars who dared and managed to bring the most necessary, unpalatable, and unsettling truths about our discipline to the broader scientific community—I do not write for anyone but myself and those scholars who have felt similarly marginalized, oppressed, and silenced. And I write as a race scholar, meaning simply that I believe that race—and racism—affects the sociopolitical conditions in which humans, and scholars, develop their thoughts, feelings, and actions. I believe that it is important for all scholars to have a basic understanding of these conditions, as well as the landmines and pitfalls that define them, as they shape how research is conducted, reviewed, and disseminated. I also believe that to evolve one’s discipline into one that is truly robust and objective, it must first become diverse and self-aware. Any effort to suggest otherwise, no matter how scholarly it might present itself, is intellectually unsound.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140640077","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Diversity Is Diverse: Social Justice Reparations and Science 多样性就是多样性：社会正义赔偿与科学

IF 12.6 1区心理学

Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI: 10.1177/17456916241236171

Lee Jussim

{"title":"Diversity Is Diverse: Social Justice Reparations and Science","authors":"Lee Jussim","doi":"10.1177/17456916241236171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241236171","url":null,"abstract":"Because the term “diversity” has two related but different meanings, what authors mean when they use the term is inherently unclear. In its broad form, it refers to vast variety. In its narrow form, it refers to human demographic categories deemed deserving of special attention by social justice–oriented activists. In this article, I review Hommel’s critique of Roberts et al. (2020), which, I suggest, essentially constitutes two claims: that Roberts et al.’s (2020) call for diversity in psychological science focuses exclusively on the latter narrow form of diversity and ignores the scientific importance of diversity in the broader sense, and ignoring diversity in the broader sense is scientifically unjustified. Although Hommel’s critique is mostly justified, this is not because Roberts et al. (2020) are wrong to call for greater social justice–oriented demographic diversity in psychology but because Hommel’s call for the broader form of diversity subsumes that of Roberts et al. (2020) and has other aspects critical to creating a valid, generalizable, rigorous, and inclusive psychological science. In doing so, I also highlight omissions, limitations, and potential downsides to the narrow manner in which psychology and the broader academy are currently implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140640019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Dealing With Diversity in Psychology: Science or Ideology? 处理心理学中的多样性：科学还是意识形态？

IF 12.6 1区心理学

Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI: 10.1177/17456916241236170

Bernhard Hommel

引用次数: 0

The Burden for High-Quality Online Data Collection Lies With Researchers, Not Recruitment Platforms 高质量在线数据收集的责任在于研究人员，而非招聘平台

IF 12.6 1区心理学

Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-04-22 DOI: 10.1177/17456916241242734

Christine Cuskley, Justin Sulik

{"title":"The Burden for High-Quality Online Data Collection Lies With Researchers, Not Recruitment Platforms","authors":"Christine Cuskley, Justin Sulik","doi":"10.1177/17456916241242734","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241242734","url":null,"abstract":"A recent article in Perspectives on Psychological Science (Webb & Tangney, 2022) reported a study in which just 2.6% of participants recruited on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) were deemed “valid.” The authors highlighted some well-established limitations of MTurk, but their central claims—that MTurk is “too good to be true” and that it captured “only 14 human beings . . . [out of] N = 529”—are radically misleading, yet have been repeated widely. This commentary aims to (a) correct the record (i.e., by showing that Webb and Tangney’s approach to data collection led to unusually low data quality) and (b) offer a shift in perspective for running high-quality studies online. Negative attitudes toward MTurk sometimes reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what the platform offers and how it should be used in research. Beyond pointing to research that details strategies for effective design and recruitment on MTurk, we stress that MTurk is not suitable for every study. Effective use requires specific expertise and design considerations. Like all tools used in research—from advanced hardware to specialist software—the tool itself places constraints on what one should use it for. Ultimately, high-quality data is the responsibility of the researcher, not the crowdsourcing platform.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140636777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

New Insights on Expert Opinion About Eyewitness Memory Research 关于目击者记忆研究专家意见的新见解

IF 12.6 1区心理学

Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-04-18 DOI: 10.1177/17456916241234837

Travis M. Seale-Carlisle, Adele Quigley-McBride, Jennifer E. F. Teitcher, William E. Crozier, Chad S. Dodson, Brandon L. Garrett

{"title":"New Insights on Expert Opinion About Eyewitness Memory Research","authors":"Travis M. Seale-Carlisle, Adele Quigley-McBride, Jennifer E. F. Teitcher, William E. Crozier, Chad S. Dodson, Brandon L. Garrett","doi":"10.1177/17456916241234837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241234837","url":null,"abstract":"Experimental psychologists investigating eyewitness memory have periodically gathered their thoughts on a variety of eyewitness memory phenomena. Courts and other stakeholders of eyewitness research rely on the expert opinions reflected in these surveys to make informed decisions. However, the last survey of this sort was published more than 20 years ago, and the science of eyewitness memory has developed since that time. Stakeholders need a current database of expert opinions to make informed decisions. In this article, we provide that update. We surveyed 76 scientists for their opinions on eyewitness memory phenomena. We compared these current expert opinions to expert opinions from the past several decades. We found that experts today share many of the same opinions as experts in the past and have more nuanced thoughts about two issues. Experts in the past endorsed the idea that confidence is weakly related to accuracy, but experts today acknowledge the potential diagnostic value of initial confidence collected from a properly administered lineup. In addition, experts in the past may have favored sequential over simultaneous lineup presentation, but experts today are divided on this issue. We believe this new survey will prove useful to the court and to other stakeholders of eyewitness research.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"210 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140620465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0