Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-02T22:53:38.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An accelerating crisis: Metascience is out-reproducing psychological science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2022

Patrick D. Watson Open the ORCID record for Patrick D. Watson [Opens in a new window]
Patrick D. Watson*
Affiliation:
Minerva Schools at the Keck Graduate Institute, San Francisco, CA94103, USA. [email protected]; https://www.patrickdkwatson.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scientific claims are selected in part for their ability to survive. Scientists can pursue an r-strategy of broad, easy-to-spread ideas, or a K-strategy of stress-tested, bulletproof statements. The “generalizability crisis” is an exquisite mutation that allows dull, K-strategic methodology articles to spread nearly as quickly as the fast-breeding, r-strategic memes of pop-psychology.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e36
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Giovanni, S., Deniz Aksayli, N., Semir Tatlidil, K., Tatsumi, T., Gondo, Y., & Gobet, F. (2019). Near and far transfer in cognitive training: A second-order meta-analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.203.Google Scholar
Glickstein, M. (2006). Golgi and Cajal: The neuron doctrine and the 100th anniversary of the 1906 Nobel Prize. Current Biology, 16(5), R147–R151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.02.053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83; discussion 83–135. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X. Epub 2010 Jun 15. PMID: 20550733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koen, J. D., Aly, M., Wang, W. C., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2013). Examining the causes of memory strength variability: Recollection, attention failure, or encoding variability? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1726.Google ScholarPubMed
Pianka, E. (1970). On r- and K-selection. The American Naturalist, 104(940), 592–597. Retrieved February 25, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2459020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., … Engle, R. W. (2013). No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 359–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P., & Pashler, H. (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(3), 274–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wundt, W. H. (1883). Ueber psychologische methoden. (On psychological methods). Philosophische Studien, 1, 1–38.Google Scholar