When Being Nice Gets in the Way of Being Smart – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)

The relation between intelligence and the personality trait agreeableness presents a puzzle. Agreeableness is unrelated to IQ, yet lay people tend to associate agreeableness with lower intelligence, even though it is a desirable quality. A new study found that agreeable people choke under pressure, suggesting that being too nice can be a liability at times. read more

(Hopefully) The Last Thing We Write About Warm Water and Loneliness – Brent Donnellan (The Trait-State Continuum)

Our rejoinder to the Bargh and Shalev response to our replication studies has been accepted for publication after peer-review. The Bargh and Shalev response is available here. A pdf of our rejoinder is available here.  Here are the highlights of our piece:
  1. An inspection of the size of the correlations from their three new studies suggests their new effect size estimates are closer to our estimates than to those reported in their 2012 paper. The new studies all used larger sample sizes than the original studies.
  2. We have some concerns about the validity of the Physical Warmth Extraction Index and we believe the temperature item is the most direct test of their hypotheses. If you combine all available data and apply a random-effects meta-analytic model, the overall correlation is .017 (95% CI = -.02 to .06 based on 18 studies involving 5,285 participants).
  3. We still have no idea why 90% of the participants in their Study 1a responded that they took less than 1 shower/bath per week. No other study using a sample from the United States even comes close to this distribution. Continue reading

Popper on direct replication, tacit knowledge, and theory construction – Sanjay Srivastava (The Hardest Science)

I’ve quoted some of this before, but it was buried in a long post and it’s worth quoting at greater length and on its own. It succinctly lays out his views on several issues relevant to present-day discussions of replication in science. Specifically, Popper makes clear that (1) scientists should replicate their own experiments; (2) scientists should be able to instruct other experts how to reproduce their experiments and get the same results; and (3) establishing the reproducibility of experiments (“direct replication” in the parlance of our times) is a necessary precursor for all the other things you do to construct and test theories.

Kant was perhaps the first to realize that the objectivity of scientific statements is closely connected with the construction of theories — with the use of hypotheses and universal statements. Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or regularities, as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be tested — in principle — by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a mere isolated ‘coincidence’, but with events which, on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively testable.

Every experimental physicist knows those surprising and inexplicable apparent ‘effects’ which in his laboratory can perhaps even be reproduced for some time, but which finally disappear without trace. Of course, no physicist would say in such a case that he had made a scientific discovery (though he might try to rearrange his experiments so as to make the effect reproducible). Indeed the scientifically significant physical effect may be defined as that which can be regularly reproduced by anyone who carries out the appropriate experiment in the way prescribed. No serious physicist would offer for publication, as a scientific discovery, any such ‘occult effect,’ as I propose to call it — one for whose reproduction he could give no instructions. The ‘discovery’ would be only too soon rejected as chimerical, simply because attempts to test it would lead to negative results. (It follows that any controversy over the question whether events which are in principle unrepeatable and unique ever do occur cannot be decided by science: it would be a metaphysical controversy. Continue reading

(Mis)Interpreting Confidence Intervals – Ryne Sherman (Sherman's Head)

In a recent paper Hoekstra, Morey, Rouder, & Wagenmakers argued that confidence intervals are just as prone to misinterpretation as tradiational p-values (for a nice summary, see this blog post). They draw this conclusion based on responses to six questions from 442 bachelor students, 34 master students, and 120 researchers (PhD students and faculty). The six questions were of True / False format and are shown here (this is taken directly from their Appendix, please don’t sue me; if I am breaking the law I will remove this without hesitation): Bubledorf Hoekstra et al. note that all six statements are false and therefore the correct response to mark each as False. [1, 2] The results were quite disturbing. The average number of statements marked True, across all three groups, was 3.51 (58.5%). Particularly disturbing is the fact that statement #3 was endorsed by 73%, 68%, and 86% of bachelor students, master students, and researchers respectively. Such a finding demonstrates that people often use confidence intervals simply to revert back to NHST (i.e., if the CI does not contain zero, reject the null). Continue reading

What Is An Intelligent Personality? – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)

Some theorists argue that intelligence and socially desirable personality traits naturally go together. However, lay people associate intelligence with a mix of desirable and undesirable personality traits, such as disagreeableness. The relationship between personality and intelligence may be more complicated than is suggested by grand unitary theories. read more

Towards a De-biased Social Psychology: The effects of ideological perspective go beyond politics. – David Funder (funderstorms)

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, in press; subject to final editing before publication This is a commentary on: Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E.  (in press). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. To access the target article, click here. Continue reading

Everyone Gets a Job! – Michael Kraus (Psych Your Mind)

A terrifying graph for any PhD student! (source)
It's late October and that means we are squarely in the middle of job season for psychology PhDs (and PhD candidates). I was hired during the 2011-2012 job cycle, and so I recently switched to the evaluation side of the job process. Sitting on this side of the fence I feel incredibly fortunate to have a job: There are a ton of accomplished graduate students and postdocs with strong records, interesting research ideas, and stellar (!!!) letters of recommendation. If the system were running optimally, most of these applicants would land jobs. If the system were running optimally... Read More->