Want us to add your blog or article?This site aggregates blogs and popular press articles about personality psychology. If you are an ARP member who writes a blog, or whose research has been featured in a recent popular press article, email us at email@example.com to have your work added to the meta-blog.
- An Oath for Scientists – Simine Vazire (sometimes i'm wrong)
- What Makes a Hero? And What makes a Psychopath? – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)
- Are Heroes and Psychopaths Cut from the Same Cloth? – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)
- Romantic Love, Casual Sex, and Human Ecology – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)
- Can we tell where leeway becomes freeway? – J. P. Gerber – Jonathan Gerber (The personality sentences)
- “Creativity is talking listening to a cat” – Nancy Martin (1985) cited by E. Paul Torrance (1988) – Jonathan Gerber (The personality sentences)
Filter Posts by Blog
- citation needed (22)
- funderstorms (22)
- Person X Situation (4)
- pigee (29)
- Press coverage (1)
- Psych Your Mind (46)
- Secrets of Longevity (8)
- Sherman's Head (7)
- sometimes i'm wrong (55)
- The Desk Reject (4)
- The Hardest Science (49)
- The personality sentences (5)
- The SAPA Project (1)
- The Trait-State Continuum (34)
- Uncategorized (5)
- Unique—Like Everybody Else (76)
Subscribe to the Meta-Blog
DisclaimerThe views expressed in blog posts and other articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association for Research in Personality.
Author Archives: Sanjay Srivastava
The following is a guest post by Neil Lewis, Jr. Neil is an assistant professor at Cornell University. Last week I visited the Center for Open Science in Charlottesville, Virginia to participate in the second annual meeting of the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS). It was my first time going to SIPS, and I didn’t really know what to expect. The structure was unlike any other conference I’ve been to—it had very little formal structure—there were a few talks and workshops here and there, but the vast majority of the time was devoted to “hackathons” and “unconference” sessions where people got together and worked on addressing pressing issues in the field: making journals more transparent, designing syllabi for research methods courses, forming a new journal, changing departmental/university culture to reward open science practices, making open science more diverse and inclusive, and much more. Participants were free to work on whatever issues we wanted to and to set our own goals, timelines, and strategies for achieving those goals. I spent most of the first two days at the diversity and inclusion hackathon that Sanjay and I co-organized. These sessions blew me away. Maybe we’re a little cynical, but going into the conference we thought maybe two or three people would stop by and thus it would essentially be the two of us trying to figure out what to do to make open science more diverse and inclusive. Instead, we had almost 40 people come and spend the first day identifying barriers to diversity and inclusion, and developing tools to address those barriers. We had sub-teams working on (1) improving measurement of diversity statistics (hard to know how much of a diversity problem one has if there’s poor measurement), (2) figuring out methods to assist those who study hard-to-reach populations, (3) articulating the benefits of open science and resources to get started for those who are new, (4) leveraging social media for mentorship on open science practices, and (5) developing materials to help PIs and institutions more broadly recruit and retain traditionally underrepresented students/scholars. Although we’re not finished, each team made substantial headway in each of these areas. Continue reading
Last week was the second meeting of the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science, a.k.a. SIPS. SIPS is a service organization with the mission of advancing and supporting all of psychological science. About 200 people met in Charlottesville, VA to participate in hackathons and lightning talks and unconference sessions, go to workshops, and meet other people interested in working to improve psychology. What Is This Thing Called SIPS? If you missed SIPS and are wondering what happened – or even if you were there but want to know more about the things you missed – here are a few resources I have found helpful: The conference program gives you an overview and the conference OSF page has links to most of what went on, though it’s admittedly a lot to dig through. For an easier starting point, Richie Lennie posted an email he wrote to his department with highlights and links, written specifically with non-attendees in mind. Drilling down one level from the conference OSF page, all of the workshop presenters put their materials online. I didn’t make it to any workshops so I appreciate having access to those resources. Continue reading
For several years now I have heard fellow scientists worry that the dialogue around open and reproducible science could be used against science – to discredit results that people find inconvenient and even to de-fund science. And this has not just been fretting around the periphery. I have heard these concerns raised by scientists who hold policymaking positions in societies and journals. A recent article by Ed Yong talks about this concern in the present political climate.
In this environment, many are concerned that attempts to improve science could be judo-flipped into ways of decrying or defunding it. “It’s been on our minds since the first week of November,” says Stuart Buck, Vice President of Research Integrity at the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, which funds attempts to improve reproducibility.
The worry is that policy-makers might ask why so much money should be poured into science if so many studies are weak or wrong? Or why should studies be allowed into the policy-making process if they’re inaccessible to public scrutiny? At a recent conference on reproducibility run by the National Academies of Sciences, clinical epidemiologist Hilda Bastian says that she and other speakers were told to consider these dangers when preparing their talks.One possible conclusion is that this means we should slow down science’s movement toward greater openness and reproducibility. As Yong writes, “Everyone I spoke to felt that this is the wrong approach. Continue reading
Joe Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn have written a 5-years-later retrospective on their “false-positive psychology” paper. It is for an upcoming issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science dedicated to the most-cited articles from APS publications. A preprint is now available. It’s a short and snappy read with some surprises and gems. For example, footnote 2 notes that the Journal of Consumer Research declined to adopt their disclosure recommendations because they might “dull … some of the joy scholars may find in their craft.” No, really. For the youngsters out there, they do a good job of capturing in a sentence a common view of what we now call p-hacking: “Everyone knew it was wrong, but they thought it was wrong the way it’s wrong to jaywalk. We decided to write ‘False-Positive Psychology’ when simulations revealed it was wrong the way it’s wrong to rob a bank.” The retrospective also contains a review of how the paper has been cited in 3 top psychology journals. About half of the citations are from researchers following the original paper’s recommendations, but typically only a subset of them. The most common citation practice is to justify having barely more than 20 subjects per cell, which they now describe as a “comically low threshold” and take a more nuanced view on. Continue reading
PSY 607: Everything is Fucked
Prof. Sanjay Srivastava
Class meetings: Mondays 9:00 – 10:50 in 257 Straub
Office hours: Held on Twitter at your convenience (@hardsci)
In a much-discussed article at Slate, social psychologist Michael Inzlicht told a reporter, “Meta-analyses are fucked” (Engber, 2016). What does it mean, in science, for something to be fucked? Fucked needs to mean more than that something is complicated or must be undertaken with thought and care, as that would be trivially true of everything in science. In this class we will go a step further and say that something is fucked if it presents hard conceptual challenges to which implementable, real-world solutions for working scientists are either not available or routinely ignored in practice.
The format of this seminar is as follows: Each week we will read and discuss 1-2 papers that raise the question of whether something is fucked. Our focus will be on things that may be fucked in research methods, scientific practice, and philosophy of science. The potential fuckedness of specific theories, research topics, etc. will not be the focus of this class per se, but rather will be used to illustrate these important topics. To that end, each week a different student will be assigned to find a paper that illustrates the fuckedness (or lack thereof) of that week’s topic, and give a 15-minute presentation about whether it is indeed fucked.
20% Attendance and participation
30% In-class presentation
50% Final exam
Don’t change your family-friendly tenure extension policy just yet – Sanjay Srivastava (The Hardest Science)
If you are an academic and on social media, then over the last weekend your feed was probably full of mentions of an article by economist Justin Wolfers in the New York Times titled “A Family-Friendly Policy That’s Friendliest to Male Professors.” It describes a study by three economists of the effects of parental tenure extension policies, which give an extra year on the tenure clock when people become new parents. The conclusion is that tenure extension policies do make it easier for men to get tenure, but they unexpectedly make it harder for women. The finding has a counterintuitive flavor – a policy couched in gender-neutral terms and designed to help families actually widens a gender gap. Except there are a bunch of odd things that start to stick out when you look more closely at the details, and especially at the original study. Let’s start with the numbers in the NYT writeup:
The policies led to a 19 percentage-point rise in the probability that a male economist would earn tenure at his first job. In contrast, women’s chances of gaining tenure fell by 22 percentage points. Before the arrival of tenure extension, a little less than 30 percent of both women and men at these institutions gained tenure at their first jobs.Two things caught my attention when I read this. Continue reading
Over the last five years psychologists have been paying more and more attention to issues that could be diminishing the quality of our published research — things like low power, p-hacking, and publication bias. We know these things can affect reproducibility, but it can be hard to gauge their practical impact. The Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RPP), published last year in Science, was a massive, coordinated effort to produce an estimate of where several of the field’s top journals stood in 2008 before all the attention and concerted improvement began. The RPP is not perfect, and the paper is refreshingly frank about its limitations and nuanced about its conclusions. But all science proceeds on fallible evidence (there isn’t any other kind), and it has been welcomed by many psychologists as an informative examination of the reliability of our published findings. Welcomed by many, but not welcomed by all. In a technical commentary released today in Science, Dan Gilbert, Gary King, Stephen Pettigrew, and Tim Wilson take exception to the conclusions that the RPP authors and many scientists who read it have reached. They offer re-analyses of the RPP, some incorporating outside data. They maintain that the RPP authors’ conclusions are wrong, and on re-examination the data tell us that “the reproducibility of psychological science is quite high.” (The RPP authors published a reply.) What should we make of it? Continue reading