Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:13:26.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “‘Crisis’ Crisis” in psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2022

John D. Medaglia Open the ORCID record for John D. Medaglia [Opens in a new window]  and
Kiante A. Fernandez
John D. Medaglia
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USAjdm582@drexel.eduwww.cognew.com Department of Neurology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA Department of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19119, USA
Kiante A. Fernandez
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH43210, USA. kaf395@drexel.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent trend to label dilemmas in psychology as “crises” is insidious. The “‘Crisis’ Crisis” in psychology can distract us from actionable practices. As a case in point, “The Generalizability Crisis” offers the valuable central thesis that verbal-quantitative gaps imperil psychological science. Focusing on the key issues rather than crisis narratives can lead to progress in our discourse and research.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e28
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amrhein, V., Trafimow, D., & Greenland, S. (2019). Inferential statistics as descriptive statistics: There is no replication crisis if we don't expect replication. The American Statistician, 73(S1), 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. (2016). Reproducibility crisis. Nature, 533(26), 353–366.Google Scholar
Bourne, H. R. (2018). Opinion: Expansion fever and soft money plague the biomedical research enterprise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(35), 8647–8651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chambers, C. (2017). The seven deadly sins of psychology. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chopik, W. J., Bremner, R. H., Defever, A. M., & Keller, V. N. (2018). How (and whether) to teach undergraduates about the replication crisis in psychological science. Teaching of Psychology, 45(2), 158–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dictionary, C. (n.d.). Crisis. In dictionary.cambridge.org dictionary. Retrieved February 13, 2020 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/crisis.Google Scholar
Dworkin, J. D., Linn, K. A., Teich, E. G., Zurn, P., Shinohara, R. T., & Bassett, D. S. (2020). The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists. Nature Neuroscience, 23(8), 918–926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanelli, D. (2018). Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2628–2631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2016). The statistical crisis in science. In Pitici, M. (Ed.), The best writing on mathematics (pp. 305–318). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kell, D. B., & Oliver, S. G. (2004). Here is the evidence, now what is the hypothesis? The complementary roles of inductive and hypothesis-driven science in the post-genomic era. Bioessays, 26(1), 99–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius, 3, 2378023117738903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakens, D., Hilgard, J., & Staaks, J. (2016). On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: Six practical recommendations. BMC Psychology, 4(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychology's replication crisis and the grant culture: Righting the ship. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(4), 660–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loken, E., & Gelman, A. (2017). Measurement error and the replication crisis. Science, 355(6325), 584–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? American Psychologist, 70(6), 487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Crisis. In Merriam-webster.com dictionary. Retrieved February 13, 2020 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crisis.Google Scholar
Moed, H. F., Colledge, L., Reedijk, J., Moya-Anegon, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., Plume, A., & Amin, M. (2012). Citation-based metrics are appropriate tools in journal assessment provided that they are accurate and used in an informed way. Scientometrics, 92(2), 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Almenberg, A. D., … Vazire, S. (2021). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Retrieved from https://psyarxiv.com/ksfvq/.Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251).Google Scholar
Ruscio, J. (2016). Taking advantage of citation measures of scholarly impact: Hip hip h index!. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 905–908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shneiderman, B. (2016). Opinion: The dangers of faulty, biased, or malicious algorithms requires independent oversight. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(48), 13538–13540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 487–510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soderberg, C. K., Errington, T., Schiavone, S. R., Bottesini, J. G., Thorn, F. S., Vazire, S., … Nosek, B. A. (2020). Research quality of registered reports compared to the traditional publishing model. Retrieved from https://osf.io/aj4zr/.Google Scholar
Stephan, P. (2012). Perverse incentives. Nature, 484(7392), 29–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trafimow, D. (2018). An a priori solution to the replication crisis. Philosophical Psychology, 31(8), 1188–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahls, W. P. (2018). Point of view: The NIH must reduce disparities in funding to maximize its return on investments from taxpayers. Elife, 7, e34965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitaker, K., & Guest, O. (2020). #bropenscience is broken science: Kirstie Whitaker and Olivia guest ask how open “open science” really is. The Psychologist, 33, 34–37.Google Scholar