Metrika

  • citati u SCIndeksu: 0
  • citati u CrossRef-u:0
  • citati u Google Scholaru:[]
  • posete u poslednjih 30 dana:16
  • preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:11

Sadržaj

članak: 3 od 66  
Back povratak na rezultate
2021, vol. 51, br. 1, str. 63-80
Psihološka nauka od "objavi ili nestani" do "veruj, ali proveri"
Univerzitet u Prištini sa privremenim sedištem u Kosovskoj Mitrovici, Filozofski fakultet, Katedra za psihologiju

e-adresaandjela.keljanovic@pr.ac.rs
Ključne reči: replikacija; pristrasnost objavljivanja; psihologija
Sažetak
U vreme kada su socijalni psiholozi verovali da mogu da budu ponosni na svoju disciplinu došlo je do razorne vesti da je Diderik Stapel počinio veliku naučnu prevaru. Ovaj događaj se poklopio sa početkom rasprave o poverenju u psihološke nalaze. Ubrzo je usledio izveštaj serije od 9 studija koje nisu uspele da ponove "profesorsku studiju". Ovi rezultati replikacija bili su zapanjujući zbog ranijih izveštaja o uspešnim replikacijama. Usled postojanja krize poverenja u rezultate istraživanja na terenu, Open Science Collaboration sproveo je nakon toga replikaciju 100 korelacionih i eksperimentalnih studija objavljenih 2008. u časopisima Psychological Science, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology i Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Od 97% originalnih studija koje su imale pozitivan efekat, replicirano je 36%. Međutim, i njihovi nalazi su dovedeni u pitanje, računanjem Bajesovog faktora. Osim prevara, i upitne istraživačke prakse nastale usled pristrasnosti u objavljivanju koje rezultiraju lažno pozitivnim nalazima podrivaju poverenje u valjanost rezultata psiholoških istraživanja. Možda je najskuplja greška lažno pozitivnih nalaza pogrešno odbacivanje nulte hipoteze. Međutim, da je Stapel (2011) potvrdio nultu hipotezu ili da je Barg (1996) otkrio da primovanje učesnika ne utiče na brzinu hodanja ili da su Dajksterhojs i Van Knipenberg (1998) objavili da učesnici primovani rečju "profesor" nisu poboljšali svoj učinak na zadatku, niko ne bi bio zainteresovan za njihove nalaze. Nulti nalazi su zanimljivi samo ako su u suprotnosti sa glavnom hipotezom izvedenom iz teorije ili su u suprotnosti sa nizom ranijih studija. Činjenica da se dobro eksperimentalno istraživanje obično sprovodi sa ciljem da se testiraju teorije, istraživači nikada ne mogu biti sigurni jesu li odabrali optimalnu operacionalizaciju datog konstrukta. Kako istraživači nikada ne mogu biti sigurni da su pravilno operacionalizovali teorijske konstrukte koje procenjuju i da li su bili uspešni u kontroli trećih varijabli koje mogu biti odgovorne za njihove rezultate, teorija nikada ne može biti dokazana kao istinita.
Reference
Anderson, C.J., Bahnik, S., Barnett-Cowan, M., Bosco, F.A., Chandler, J., Chartier, C.R., Zuni, K. (2016) Response to comment on 'Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science'. Science, 351 (6277)
Bargh, J.A., Chen, M., Burrows, L. (1996) Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2): 230-244
Bem, D.J. (2011) Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3): 407-425
Bower, B. (2012) The hot and cold of priming: Psychologists are divided on whether unnoticed cues can influence behavior. Science News, 181(10): 26-29
Decoster, J., Claypool, H.M. (2004) A meta-analysis of priming effects on impression formation supporting a general model of informational biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(1): 2-27
Dijksterhuis, A., Spears, R., Lépinasse, V. (2001) Reflecting and deflecting stereotypes: Assimilation and contrast in impression formation and automatic behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4): 286-299
Dijksterhuis, A., van Knippenberg, A. (1998) The relation between perception and behavior: Or how to win a game of Trivial Pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4): 865-877
Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C., Cleeremans, A. (2012) Behavioral priming: It's all in the mind, but whose mind?. PLoS One, 7(1): e29081
Drenth, P. (2013) What lessons can we learn from the Stapel case?. May 20, retrieved September 25, 2019, from: articles, papers from Pieter Drenth website: https://pieterdrenth.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/what-lessons-can-we-learn-from-the-stapel-case
Etz, A., Vandekerckhove, J. (2016) A Bayesian perspective on the Reproducibility Project: Psychology. PloS One, 11(2): e0149794
Fallshore, M., Schooler, J.W. (1995) Verbal vulnerability of perceptual expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(6): 1608-1623
Fanelli, D. (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research?: A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5): e5738
Fidler, F., Wilcox, J. (2018) Reproducibility of scientific results. Zalta E.N. [ur.] Winter, retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/scientific-reproducibility
Galak, J., Leboeuf, R.A., Nelson, L.D., Simmons, J.P. (2012) Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(6): 933-948
Gilbert, D.T., King, G., Pettigrew, S., Wilson, T.D. (2016) Comment on 'Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science'. Science, 351(6277): 1037-1037
John, L.K., Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D. (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5): 524-532
Kawakami, K., Young, H., Dovidio, J.F. (2002) Automatic stereotyping: Category, trait, and behavioral activations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1): 3-15
Keljanović, A. (2020) Upitne istraživačke prakse u kliničkoj psihologiji. u: Dautbegović A; Hadžiahmetović N; Marković M; Mišetić K; Zvizdić S. [ur.] Sarajevski dani psihologije, Sarajevo: Filozofski fakultet, 223-237
Klein, R.A., Ratliff, K.A., Vianello, M., Adams, R.B., Bahník, Š., Bernstein, M.J., Bocian, K., Brandt, M.J., Brooks, B., Brumbaugh, C.C., Cemalcilar, Z., Chandler, J., Cheong, W., Davis, W.E. (2014) Investigating variation in replicability: A 'Many Labs' replication project. Social Psychology, 45(3): 142-152
Klein, R.A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B.G., Adams, R.B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J.R., Babalola, M.T., Bahník, Š., Batra, R., Berkics, M., Bernstein, M.J., Berry, D.R. (2018) Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4): 443-490
Lehrer, J. (2010) The truth wears off. December 6, retrieved from: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off
Macrae, C. N., Johnston, L. (1998) Help, I need somebody: Automatic action and inaction. Social Cognition, 16(4): 400-417
Melcher, J.M., Schooler, J.W. (1996) The misremembrance of wines past: Verbal and perceptual expertise differentially mediate verbal overshadowing of taste memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(2): 231-245
Neuroskeptic (2012) The nine circles of scientific hell. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6): 643-644
Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251): aac4716
Pashler, H., Harris, C.R. (2012) Is the replicability crisis overblown?: Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6): 531-536
Pashler, H., Wagenmakers, E. (2012) Editors' introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6): 528-530
Schlitz, M., Wiseman, R., Watt, C., Radin, D. (2006) Of two minds: Sceptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology. British Journal of Psychology, London, 97: 313-322, England, 1953
Schooler, J.W., Engstler-Schooler, T.Y. (1990) Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22(1): 36-71
Shanks, D.R., Newell, B.R., Lee, E.H., Balakrishnan, D., Ekelund, L., Cenac, Z., Kavvadia, F., Moore, C. (2013) Priming intelligent behavior: An elusive phenomenon. PLoS One, 8(4): e56515
Simmons, J.P., Nelson, L.D., Simonsohn, U. (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11): 1359-1366
Stapel, D.A., Lindenberg, S. (2011) Coping with Chaos: How Disordered Contexts Promote Stereotyping and Discrimination. Science, New York, 332(6026): 251-253, N.Y
Strack, F., Deutsch, R. (2004) Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 8(3): 220-247
Stroebe, W. (2019) What can we learn from Many Labs replications?. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 41(2): 91-103
Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., Spears, R. (2012) Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6): 670-688
Stroebe, W., Strack, F. (2014) The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1): 59-71
Wagenmakers, E., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H.L.J. (2011) Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3): 426-432
Wiseman, R., Schlitz, M. (1999) Replication of experimenter effect and the remote detection of staring. u: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, 471-479
Wiseman, R., Schlitz, M. (1997) Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring. Journal of Parapsychology, 61 (3), 197-208
 

O članku

jezik rada: srpski
vrsta rada: pregledni članak
DOI: 10.5937/ZRFFP51-24851
primljen: 17.01.2020.
prihvaćen: 24.03.2021.
objavljen u SCIndeksu: 20.05.2021.
metod recenzije: dvostruko anoniman
Creative Commons License 4.0

Povezani članci

Nema povezanih članaka