Samenvatting
2.3 Problem 7 Summary
Summary of 2.3 Problem 7 literature and articles
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 6 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 6 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
2.3 Problem 7Wagenmakers Et Al.
Fairy-tale Factor- researchers don’t commit themselves to plan of
analysis, prior to seeing data, meaning they can fine tune analyses
to data, making the data more compelling than it really is
o Increased likelihood that finding is fictional and non-replicable
Confirmation bias- humans tend to seek confirmation rather than
disconfirmation of their beliefs
o 3 ways it works:
1. Ambiguous info interpreted to be consistent with ones prior
beliefs
2. Search for information that confirms, not disconfirms
preferred beliefs
3. Remember info that supports our prior beliefs, better
- Hindsight bias- tendency to judge an event as more predictable
after it has occurred
o Researchers typically seek confirmation, not falsification
Furthered by want for publication, chose methods most
likely to publish
Catastrophic: results in false publications
Replication rates lower than 50% in biomedical and cancer research
Bad Science
Virtually on psychological research conducted in confirmatory way
o Rarely specify specific analyses prior to data collection
Can cherry-pick only variables that obtain desired
results
Include in papers only experiments with desired
outcome
Use different statistical tests to tailor data to fit
Researchers often believe that they aren’t doing wrong, instead
allowing for deeper analyse of data
Issue partly rooted in law that data can only be used once
o Only for one hypothesis, so want this hypothesis to be right
Amount of exploration, data analysis, etc. varies greatly between
each psychological test
o So does reliability of statistical results
Good Science
Key that the researcher is honest
Researcher may think they’re honest, even when not, due to
confirmation and hindsight bias
o Should instead separate exploratory articles and confirmation
articles
If exploratory articles disguise themselves as
confirmatory, increases amount of bad science
Proposed solution: publish protocol and means of methods before even
starting the study
Eliminates fairy tale factor
Proposed Research:
, 1. Conduct exploratory studies, but don’t present them as strong
evidence for a claim: should instead determine interest data aspects
2. Confirmatory approach: use online repositories, and submit
document with the variables, data collection, methods, etc.
Should remove hindsight and confirmation bias
All findings should be mentioned in separate exploratory results
section
Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science
Reproducibility= core principle of scientific progress
Scientific claims shouldn’t gain credit because of the status or
authority of originator
o Should get status from replicability of supporting evidence
Direct replication- attempt to recreate conditions believed
sufficient to obtain previously observed finding, means to establish
reproducibility of a finding
o Gives change to assess/improve reproducibility
o May not obtain original results as:
Differences between replication and original study may
change observed effect
Original result could be false positive*
Replication could create false negatives*
* create misleading info on the effects, fail to identify
necessary conditions to reproduce a finding
Reproducibility poorly understood, as greater incentives for sciences
in novelty, not reproducibility
Problematic practices (eg. selective reporting, selective analysis,
insufficient specification of conditions needed)
o May lead to greater chances of false-positives and
irreproducible results
Study Results
Effect size is significantly lower in replications than original studies
Replication success consistently related to original strength of
evidence: more than to team characteristics and implementation of
replication
Direct replication provides evidence for result reliability
Publication, selection, cultural differences, and reporting biases can
explain difference between original and replication effects
HARKing
Hypothesising After Results are Known
Hypothetico-deductive approach- deducing or deriving one or more
explicit and testable hypotheses from some plausible theory(ies) about
the phenomena of interest prior to designing one’s research (HD
approach)
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper lablyth. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €2,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 70055 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen