A Most Courageous Act – Brent Roberts (pigee)

The most courageous act a modern academic can make is to say they were wrong.  After all, we deal in ideas, not things.  When we say we were wrong, we are saying our ideas, our products so to speak, were faulty.  It is a supremely unsettling thing to do. Of course, in the Platonic ideal, and in reality, being a scientist necessitates being wrong a lot. Unfortunately, our incentive system militates against being honest about our work. Thus, countless researchers choose not to admit or even acknowledge the possibility that they might have been mistaken. In a bracingly honest post in response to a blog by Uli Schimmack, the Nobel Prize winning psychologist, Daniel Kahneman, has done the unthinkable.  He has admitted that he was mistaken.   Here’s a quote: Continue reading

A grad student’s review of SPSP 2017 – Carol Tweten (Person X Situation)

Last month I attended the annual conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in San Antonio, TX. I think this was my 4th year attending, and I’ve enjoyed it every year. I wanted to summarize what I viewed as some of the pros of this year’s conference as well as some of the cons. Of course, everything in this post is my opinion, and you are free to disagree. Note too that I’m a graduate student; faculty members likely have a very different experience at conferences. Here we go. Pro #1: Networking SPSP is fantastic for networking, at least within Social/Personality. Big names from every topic area attend this conference! When a well-known researcher walks down a hallway or into a room, at least 3 people will lean in to the person next to them and whisper “that’s so-and-so!” and that other person will then say “Really! Where?!” It’s actually quite entertaining. Continue reading

The Fundamental Errors of Situationism – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)

Are people really "pure dispositionalists" who underestimate the "power of the situation" to influence behavior? A closer look at the evidence suggests these claims are overhyped.

The Fundamental Attribution Error is Overrated – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)

Does the so-called fundamental attribution error deserve to be more widely known? The importance of this phenomenon has actually been blown out of all proportion.

Reviewing Papers in 2016 – Brent Donnellan (The Trait-State Continuum)

[Preface: I am bit worried that this post might be taken the wrong way concerning my ratio of reject to total recommendations. I simply think it is useful information to know about myself. I also think that keeping more detailed records of my reviewing habits was educational and made the reviewing processes even more interesting. I suspect others might have the same reaction.] Happy 2017! I collected more detailed data on my reviewing habits in 2016. Previously, I had just kept track of the outlets and total number of reviews to report on annual evaluation documents.  In 2016, I started tracking my recommendations and the outcomes of the papers I reviewed. This was an interesting exercise and I plan to repeat it for 2017.  I also have some ideas for extensions that I will outline in this post. Preliminary Data: I provided 51 reviews from 1 Jan 2016 to 29 Dec 2016. Of these 51 reviews, 38 were first time submissions (74. Continue reading

A Commitment to Better Research Practices (BRPs) in Psychological Science – Brent Roberts (pigee)

Scientific research is an attempt to identify a working truth about the world that is as independent of ideology as possible.  As we appear to be entering a time of heightened skepticism about the value of scientific information, we feel it is important to emphasize and foster research practices that enhance the integrity of scientific data and thus scientific information. We have therefore created a list of better research practices that we believe, if followed, would enhance the reproducibility and reliability of psychological science. The proposed methodological practices are applicable for exploratory or confirmatory research, and for observational or experimental methods.
  1. If testing a specific hypothesis, pre-register your research[1], so others can know that the forthcoming tests are informative. Report the planned analyses as confirmatory, and report any other analyses or any deviations from the planned analyses as exploratory.
  2. If conducting exploratory research, present it as exploratory. Then, document the research by posting materials, such as measures, procedures, and analytical code so future researchers can benefit from them. Also, make research expectations and plans in advance of analyses—little, if any, research is truly exploratory. State the goals and parameters of your study as clearly as possible before beginning data analysis.
  3. Consider data sharing options prior to data collection (e.g. Continue reading

The Paradox of Conscientious Prisoners – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)

Criminals are usually lower than normal people in conscientiousness, yet a new study finds that prisoners are higher in this trait. What can explain this apparent paradox?