Search

The article deploys servicisation as a case study to discuss economists' methods and the confirmation bias issue. Data show the average pattern of structural transformation in developing countries has since the early 1990s been servicisation, and the faster the growth, the greater the servicisation. Data also show that servicisation has been an extremely under-researched topic compared with industrialisation. This is an example of confirmation bias—weak links between theory and facts—that erodes the plausibility of policy advice. The paper analyses methods and their policing, and points to issues to address to reduce risks of confirmation bias by strengthening 'the power of facts'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open research practices seek to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research. While there is evidence of increased uptake in these practices, such as study preregistration and open data, facilitated by new infrastructure and policies, little research has assessed general uptake of such practices across psychology university researchers. The current study estimates psychologists' level of engagement in open research practices across universities in the United Kingdom and Ireland, while also assessing possible explanatory factors that may impact their engagement. Data were collected from 602 psychology researchers in the United Kingdom and Ireland on the extent to which they have implemented various practices (e.g., use of preprints, preregistration, open data, open materials). Here we present the summarized descriptive results, as well as considering differences between various categories of researcher (e.g., career stage, subdiscipline, methodology), and examining the relationship between researcher's practices and their self‐reported capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM‐B) to engage in open research practices. Results show that while there is considerable variability in engagement of open research practices, differences across career stage and subdiscipline of psychology are small by comparison. We observed consistent differences according to respondent's research methodology and based on the presence of institutional support for open research. COM‐B dimensions were collectively significant predictors of engagement in open research, with automatic motivation emerging as a consistently strong predictor. We discuss these findings, outline some of the challenges experienced in this study, and offer suggestions and recommendations for future research. Estimating the prevalence of responsible research practices is important to assess sustained behaviour change in research reform, tailor educational training initiatives, and to understand potential factors that might impact engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In psychological science, replicability—repeating a study with a new sample achieving consistent results (Parsons et al., 2022)—is critical for affirming the validity of scientific findings. Despite its importance, replication efforts are few and far between in psychological science with many attempts failing to corroborate past findings. This scarcity, compounded by the difficulty in accessing replication data, jeopardizes the efficient allocation of research resources and impedes scientific advancement. Addressing this crucial gap, we present the Replication Database (https://forrt-replications.shinyapps.io/fred_explorer), a novel platform hosting 1,239 original findings paired with replication findings. The infrastructure of this database allows researchers to submit, access, and engage with replication findings. The database makes replications visible, easily findable via a graphical user interface, and tracks replication rates across various factors, such as publication year or journal. This will facilitate future efforts to evaluate the robustness of psychological research.

Personality is not the most popular subfield of psychology. But, in one way or another, personality psychologists have played an outsized role in the ongoing credibility revolution in psychology. Not only have individual personality psychologists taken on visible roles in the movement, but our fields practices and norms have now become models for other fields to emulate (or, for those who share Baumeisters (2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003) skeptical view of the consequences of increasing rigor, a model for what to avoid). In this article we discuss some unique features of our field that may have placed us in an ideal position to be leaders in this movement. We do so from a subjective perspective, describing our impressions and opinions about possible explanations for personality psychologys disproportionate role in the credibility revolution. We also discuss some ways in which personality psychology remains less-than-optimal, and how we can address these flaws.

Summary: We discuss three important properties of panel data event study designs. First, assuming constant treatment effects before and/or after some event time, also known as binning, is a natural restriction, which identifies dynamic treatment effects in the absence of never‐treated units. Second, event study designs with binned endpoints and distributed‐lag models are numerically identical. Third, classic dummy variable event study designs can be generalized to models that account for multiple treatments of different signs and varying intensities. We demonstrate the practical relevance of our methodological points in an application studying the effects of unemployment benefit duration on job search effort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This comment examines a threat to the development of law and psychology as a “public science” (i.e., one that goes beyond theory to address important issues in society), a failure to think critically about effect sizes. Effect sizes estimate the strength or magnitude of the relationship between variables and therefore can help decision makers understand whether scientific results are relevant to some legal or policy outcome. Accordingly, I suggest that those conducting and reporting law and psychology research should: (1) justify why observed effect sizes are meaningful and report them candidly and transparently, (2) scrutinize effect sizes to determine if they are plausible, and (3) plan studies such that they fit with the researchers’ inferential goals. I explore these points by way of case studies on influential law and psychology studies, such as implicit bias in the courtroom. I end with suggestions for implementing my recommendations, including a metaresearch agenda for law and psychology.

The replication crisis and credibility revolution in the 2010s brought a wave of doubts about the credibility of social and personality psychology. We argue that as a field, we must reckon with the concerns brought to light during this critical decade. How the field responds to this crisis will reveal our commitment to self-correction. If we do not take the steps necessary to address our problems and simply declare the crisis to be over or the problems to be fixed without evidence, we risk further undermining our credibility. To fully reckon with this crisis, we must empirically assess the state of the field to take stock of how credible our science actually is and whether it is improving. We propose an agenda for metascientific research, and we review approaches to empirically evaluate and track where we are as a field (e.g., analyzing the published literature, surveying researchers). We describe one such project (Surveying the Past and Present State of Published Studies in Social and Personality Psychology) underway in our research group. Empirical evidence about the state of our field is necessary if we are to take self-correction seriously and if we hope to avert future crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The credibility revolution transformed quantitative social sciences and was both a curse and a blessing for Russian studies. On the one hand, Russia turned out to be an attractive field for experimentalist research, which allowed Russian studies to gain unprecedented recognition in the broader disciplines. On the other hand, a focus on causal identification could have contributed to insufficient attention to potentially important topics relevant for understanding Russia and to some aspects of the Russian setting able to augment the general social science discourse. The war in Ukraine makes many causal identification designs used for studying Russia (with the exception of natural experiments) difficult or impossible to implement. It may make the return to other approaches and de-emphasizing causal identification necessary, at least to some extent. At the same time, the question remains of how the general social science disciplines will perceive such shift in focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychological science's "credibility revolution" has produced an explosion of metascientific work on improving research practices. Although much attention has been paid to replicability (reducing false positives), improving credibility depends on addressing a wide range of problems afflicting psychological science, beyond simply making psychology research more replicable. Here we focus on the "four validities" and highlight recent developments—many of which have been led by early-career researchers—aimed at improving these four validities in psychology research. We propose that the credibility revolution in psychology, which has its roots in replicability, can be harnessed to improve psychology's validity more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Personality is not the most popular subfield of psychology. But, in one way or another, personality psychologists have played an outsized role in the ongoing “credibility revolution” in psychology. Not only have individual personality psychologists taken on visible roles in the movement, but our field’s practices and norms have now become models for other fields to emulate (or, for those who share Baumeister’s (2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003) skeptical view of the consequences of increasing rigor, a model for what to avoid). In this article we discuss some unique features of our field that may have placed us in an ideal position to be leaders in this movement. We do so from a subjective perspective, describing our impressions and opinions about possible explanations for personality psychology’s disproportionate role in the credibility revolution. We also discuss some ways in which personality psychology remains less-than-optimal, and how we can address these flaws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing research practices in gifted education have many areas for potential improvement so that they can provide useful, generalizable evidence to various stakeholders. In this article, we first review the field's current research practices and consider the quality and utility of its research findings. Next, we discuss how open science practices increase the transparency of research so readers can more effectively evaluate its validity. Third, we introduce five large-scale collaborative research models that are being used in other fields and discuss how they could be implemented in gifted education research. Finally, we review potential challenges and limitations to implementing collaborative research models in gifted education. We believe greater use of large-scale collaboration will help the field overcome some of its methodological challenges to help provide more precise and accurate information about gifted education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past 10 years, the field of relationship science—like many other fields—has been exposed to dramatic changes in how scientists approach the research process. Relationship science has been at the forefront of many recent changes in the field, whether it be high profile replication attempts or broader discussions about how to increase rigor and reproducibility. A major goal of this special issue was to provide an opportunity for relationship scientists to engage with these issues and reforms. The first four articles in this special issue represent a sampling of different approaches relationship researchers have used to enhance the credibility of their work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Millikan's famous oil drop experiment is scrutinized from the viewpoint of the methodological dicta of the credibility revolution. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]