Suppr超能文献

研究结果解读与应用中的偏差。

Biases in the interpretation and use of research results.

作者信息

MacCoun R J

机构信息

Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-7320, USA.

出版信息

Annu Rev Psychol. 1998;49:259-87. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259.

Abstract

The latter half of this century has seen an erosion in the perceived legitimacy of science as an impartial means of finding truth. Many research topics are the subject of highly politicized dispute; indeed, the objectivity of the entire discipline of psychology has been called into question. This essay examines attempts to use science to study science: specifically, bias in the interpretation and use of empirical research findings. I examine theory and research on a range of cognitive and motivational mechanisms for bias. Interestingly, not all biases are normatively proscribed; biased interpretations are defensible under some conditions, so long as those conditions are made explicit. I consider a variety of potentially corrective mechanisms, evaluate prospects for collective rationality, and compare inquisitorial and adversarial models of science.

摘要

本世纪后半叶,科学作为一种寻求真理的公正手段,其公认的合法性受到了侵蚀。许多研究课题成为高度政治化争议的主题;事实上,心理学整个学科的客观性都受到了质疑。本文探讨了利用科学来研究科学的尝试:具体而言,是实证研究结果的解释和使用中的偏差。我研究了一系列导致偏差的认知和动机机制的理论与研究。有趣的是,并非所有偏差都在规范上被禁止;在某些条件下,只要这些条件明确,有偏差的解释就是合理的。我考虑了各种可能的纠正机制,评估了集体理性的前景,并比较了科学的审问式和对抗式模式。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验