How Do We Choose Our Giants? Perceptions of Replicability in Psychological Science
How Do We Choose Our Giants? Perceptions of Replicability in Psychological Science
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/25152459211018199
复制
发表时间：
2021-04-01
影响因子：
13.6
通讯作者：
Ballard, Timothy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alister, Manikya;Vickers-Jones, Raine;Ballard, Timothy
关于可复制性的判断对科学进步至关重要。“站在巨人的肩膀上”这个比喻概括了这样一个概念，即当新的发现建立在以前的发现基础上时，就会取得进步。然而，试图建立在不可复制的发现基础上可能意味着浪费大量时间、精力和金钱。鉴于最近心理科学的“信任危机”，准确判断研究结果的可复制性的能力可能比以往任何时候都更重要。在这份注册报告中，我们研究了影响心理科学家对研究结果可复制性的信心的因素。我们招募了2014年至2018年期间在心理学期刊上发表的文章的相应作者，以完成一项简短的调查，其中要求他们考虑76个可能影响发现可复制性的特定研究属性（例如，预登记、样本量、统计方法）。参与者被要求对每个属性的信息增加或减少他们对被复制的发现的信心的程度进行评级。我们研究了每个研究属性影响可复制性平均信心的程度。我们发现了六个影响这些判断的合理不同的潜在因素的证据，以及人们的判断受这些因素影响的程度的个体差异。结论揭示了某些研究实践如何影响其他研究人员对稳健性的看法。我们希望我们的发现将有助于鼓励使用促进可复制性的实践，并通过扩展，促进心理科学的累积进步。
Judgments regarding replicability are vital to scientific progress. The metaphor of "standing on the shoulders of giants" encapsulates the notion that progress is made when new discoveries build on previous findings. Yet attempts to build on findings that are not replicable could mean a great deal of time, effort, and money wasted. In light of the recent "crisis of confidence" in psychological science, the ability to accurately judge the replicability of findings may be more important than ever. In this Registered Report, we examine the factors that influence psychological scientists' confidence in the replicability of findings. We recruited corresponding authors of articles published in psychology journals between 2014 and 2018 to complete a brief survey in which they were asked to consider 76 specific study attributes that might bear on the replicability of a finding (e.g., preregistration, sample size, statistical methods). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which information regarding each attribute increased or decreased their confidence in the finding being replicated. We examined the extent to which each research attribute influenced average confidence in replicability. We found evidence for six reasonably distinct underlying factors that influenced these judgments and individual differences in the degree to which people's judgments were influenced by these factors. The conclusions reveal how certain research practices affect other researchers' perceptions of robustness. We hope our findings will help encourage the use of practices that promote replicability and, by extension, the cumulative progress of psychological science.