Want us to add your blog?This site aggregates blogs about personality psychology. If you'd like us to add your blog to the meta-blog, email us at email@example.com.
- A Partial Defense of the Pete Rose Rule – Brent Donnellan (The Trait-State Continuum)
- both ways is the only way i want it* – Simine Vazire (sometimes i'm wrong)
- Replication Project in Personality Psychology – Call for Submissions – Brent Donnellan (The Trait-State Continuum)
- Fifty Shades of Tattooing: Body Art, Risk and Personality – Scott A. McGreal MSc. (Unique—Like Everybody Else)
- Be your own replicator – Brent Roberts (pigee)
- Why We Get Such Dumb Advice about Love, Money & Health – Howard Friedman (Secrets of Longevity)
Filter Posts by Blog
Subscribe to the Meta-Blog
DisclaimerThe views expressed in blog posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association for Research in Personality.
I tweeted this yesterday: Let’s adopt a Pete Rose Rule for fakers = banned for life. Nothing questionable about fraud. Jobs and funds are too scarce for 2nd chances. My initial thought was that people who have been shown by a preponderance of the evidence to have passed faked datasets as legitimate should be banned from receiving grants and publishing papers for life. [Pete Rose was a baseball player and manager in professional baseball who bet on games when who was a manager. This made him permanently ineligible to participate in the activities of professional baseball.] Nick Brown didn’t like this suggestion and provided a thoughtful response on his blog. My post is an attempt to defend my initial proposal. I don’t want to hijack his comments with a lengthy rejoinder. You can get banned for life from the Olympics for doping so I don’t think it is beyond the pale to make the same suggestion for science. As always, I reserve the right to change my mind in the future! At the outset, I agree with his suggestion that it is not 100% feasible given that there is no overall international governing body for scientific research like there is for professional sports or the Olympics. Continue reading
Replication Project in Personality Psychology – Call for Submissions – Brent Donnellan (The Trait-State Continuum)
Richard Lucas and I are editing a special issue of the Journal of Research in Personality dedicated to replication (Click here for complete details). This blog post describes the general process and a few of my random thoughts on the special issue. These are my thoughts and Rich may or may not share my views. I also want to acknowledge that there are multiple ways of doing replication special issues and we have no illusions that our approach is ideal or uncontroversial. These kinds of efforts are part of an evolving “conversation” in the field about replication efforts and experimentation should be tolerated. I also want to make it clear that JRP has been open to replication studies for several years. The point of the special issue is to actively encourage replication studies and try something new with a variant of pre-registration. What is the General Process? We modeled the call for papers on procedures others have used with replication special issues and registered reports (e.g., the special issue of Social Psychology, the Registered Replication Reports at PoPS). Here is the gist:
- Authors will submit proposals for replication studies by 1 July 2015. Continue reading
Fifty Shades of Tattooing: Body Art, Risk and Personality – Scott A. McGreal MSc. (Unique—Like Everybody Else)
Women readers of the Fifty Shades trilogy have higher rates of risky behavior So do women who get tattoos. Both of these may be outward signs of a predisposition to take risk rather than a cause of such behavior.
by Brent W. Roberts One of the conspicuous features of the ongoing reproducibility crisis stewing in psychology is that we have a lot of fear, loathing, defensiveness, and theorizing being expressed about direct replications. But, if the pages of our journals are any indication, we have very few direct replications being conducted. Reacting with fear is not surprising. It is not fun to have your hard-earned scientific contribution challenged by some random researcher. Even if the replicator is trustworthy, it is scary to have your work be the target of a replication attempt. For example, one colleague was especially concerned that graduate students were now afraid to publish papers given the seeming inevitability of someone trying to replicate and tear down their work. Seeing the replication police in your rearview mirror would make anyone nervous, but especially new drivers. Another prototypical reaction appears to be various forms of loathing. We don’t need to repeat the monikers used to describe researchers who conduct and attempt to publish direct replications. It is clear that they are not held in high esteem. Other scholars may not demean the replicators but hold equally negative attitudes towards the direct replication enterprise and deem the entire effort a waste of time. Continue reading
Does not every teenager already know you should comb your hair and look for a kind, suitable partner? What kind of dumb advice is this?
Check yourself before you wreck yourself
by Michael InzlichtThings have gone sideways in social psychology. And, I am not sure this is necessarily a recent trend. The rot in my chosen field might have been festering for a very long time. I say this because not a day goes by when I do not hear about one or another of our cherished findings falling under disrepute. You have all heard about the depressingly high number of failed replications, be they one-offs or large scale coordinated lab attempts. You have also, no doubt, heard about problems with publication bias, low statistical power, and the widespread use of questionable research practices. Taken individually, none of these might be terribly upsetting; together they are an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps more upsetting than the real problems facing my beloved social psychology is the level of denial I see. I have heard suggestions that things aren’t so bad. “Yes, there are a few effects that are probably not real,” say the defenders, “but we have made real and extraordinary breakthroughs and most of the stuff we study is rock solid”. I have also heard that every twenty to thirty years our field goes through its routine hand-wringing, but that it always passes. Continue reading