All Things Not Being Equal An ongoing debate continues in the academic and scientific world of psychology in regards to the measurement of hypotheses, theories, and phenomenon. For the researcher, the argument is worrisome as well as tedious in nature. Most have the desire for the greatest statisticians to arrive at a consensus or standard, and allow the remainder to return to research business as usual. Very few if any researchers enjoy, comprehend, or desire to be knee deep in what a p value really means, other than the significance of the effect is less than .05. A statistically significant result allows for a positive hypothesis and a possible publication. However, an honest interpretation of statistical data would be more apt to produce a flawed literary publication that could be less than accurate. For this reason, psychology implores replication as the gold standard for research results. Reliability and validity are the foundational aspects of psychological science; without replication, there is little evidence to support the construct tested. Statistically speaking, results from research must be available and “empirically evaluated to determine their merit” (Thomas & Hersen, 2011, p. 9). Thus, when new measures of statistical inference are used, the same evaluative process is applied. An example opined from Iverson, Wagenmakers, and Lee (2010) offer a paradoxical example applied to a new statistic that could not stand up to the scientific muster of replication.
There has been an ongoing debate on whether psychology is indeed scientific, although recent, psychology is now considered a science. This is because it uses scientific methodology in researching, devising treatments and measuring the outcomes. These methods include collecting and analysing data and concluding their findings in order to identify whether the research or treatment adequality solves the problem. Scientific studies must be replicable, this means the if repeated exactly the same, the results should produce an identical outcome. Replicability can be increased by ruling out any alternatives that may not have originally been thought of. Objectivity in science is the idea that scientist, in an attempt to get the best results, must first
Cohen’s article is a reminder to be careful when reviewing research. This article shows how not all research is true and people put their faith into what they want the research to mean. It is damaging to the progression of psychology as a science if researchers do not claim something as significant for being true. We do this by claiming something is significant because that is what NHST says, and
*Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.) (2009). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Please see note below regarding this edition of the APA manual.
For any measure to be valuable in psychological research, it needs to be both valid and reliable (Goodwin, 2008: 128). Research is reliable when more researchers have found the same results, or, within for instance behavioural research, when the same behaviour occurs at several measurements (Goodwin, 2008: 124). There are different types of validity. Firstly, there is construct validity, which measures whether an operationalisation of a construct actually measures what it is supposed to measure. Secondly, criterion validity determines whether a certain phenomenon is related to another phenomenon, and can accurately determine future developments. Lastly, content validity determines whether a test measures all aspects of the construct that is being measured (Goodwin, 2008: 125-126).
However, Gauthier & Tarr and Diamond & Carey’s methodologies have come under much criticism especially from Robbins and McKone. Robbins and McKone argue that they have found major flaws in the expert hypothesis. The differing views of these psychologists are outlined in fiery academic exchanges (Robbins & McKone 2007), (McKone & Robbins, 2007), (Gauthier & Baukach, 2007). As a
What: The author is basically talking about many psychology studies not being as strong as they claimed to be. Yes what the author is talking about is logical.
Classic studies in psychology are not worthy of the term — all such studies are vastly over-rated. Discuss.
The article discusses the increasing trend of conducting replications, as opposed to novel idea studies Additionally, the article highlights that replications are becoming more common and can lead to debunking and discrediting another’s work. Unfortunately, with the focus being on replication, the time spent conducting and exploring new knowledge is consequently reduced. However, it is also suggested that replications provide accountability for scientists to ensure their work is of high quality. Questions to discuss in class: What do we think is the ultimate goal of conducting a replication versus an original study? How can scientists ensure that as a field, the
A recent Pew poll shows there is an increasingly substantial amount of public disagreement about basic scientific facts, facts such as the human though process (Scientific American). People in today’s society believe that studies, for example the Stanley Milgram Experiments, are falsified and irrelevant. In “The Perils of Obedience” Stanley Milgram, an experienced psychologist at Yale, explains how the human mind reacts to commands when placed under extreme stress. However, Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, disagrees with Milgram in her article “Review of Stanley Milgram 's Experiments on
Manuscript Structure and Context, Crediting Sources, Reference Examples. (n.d.). In Publication Manual of the American Psychological; Association (Sixth edition ed., pp. Chapter 2, 6-7). Washington, DC 20002, American Psychological
It is often said that in our society we have such a thing as equality, but is it actually there?, or has it become a myth. Discrimination happens everyday, anywhere at anytime. It comes from the lowest class to the highest class. People that judge you based on your looks, race, even the way you talk, dress or walk. They are everywhere and people are not treated equally
Despite the great deal of controversies about the null hypothesis yet it still dominates the field of social sciences and it is still being used in research that involves scientific psychology (Krueger 2010).
Another difficulty with research across all disciplines of science is the file drawer problem. This is where research studies across all fields are more likely to be published if they produce positive findings than non-significant or negative ones. This has been suggested to affect the validity of research especially in meta-analysis which use these data. However, in contrast research from (Dan R Dalton, 2012) has shown that the file drawer effect ‘does not produce an inflation bias’ to the extent currently assumed.
Studying the findings of researchers and experimenting with one’s own hypotheses leads to an expansion of not only the
Stemwedel (2011) discusses the importance of teamwork to avoid the subjectivity in research. She believes the peer review and repeated experiment should be effective to make the research more objective. The peer review and communicate between colleagues are easy to reach. But the social science research is not scientific research, such as physics, which we can measure the length several times on certain object, and get the average as the most accurate length of it. Social science research is affected by a lot of factors, and the errors or subjectivity of studies can hardly be eliminated.