Northwestern University.
University of Texas at Austin.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015 Feb;108(2):275-97. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000007.
In recent years, a robust movement has emerged within psychology to increase the evidentiary value of our science. This movement, which has analogs throughout the empirical sciences, is broad and diverse, but its primary emphasis has been on the reduction of statistical false positives. The present article addresses epistemological and pragmatic issues that we, as a field, must consider as we seek to maximize the scientific value of this movement. Regarding epistemology, this article contrasts the false-positives-reduction (FPR) approach with an alternative, the error balance (EB) approach, which argues that any serious consideration of optimal scientific practice must contend simultaneously with both false-positive and false-negative errors. Regarding pragmatics, the movement has devoted a great deal of attention to issues that frequently arise in laboratory experiments and one-shot survey studies, but it has devoted less attention to issues that frequently arise in intensive and/or longitudinal studies. We illustrate these epistemological and pragmatic considerations with the case of relationship science, one of the many research domains that frequently employ intensive and/or longitudinal methods. Specifically, we examine 6 research prescriptions that can help to reduce false-positive rates: preregistration, prepublication sharing of materials, postpublication sharing of data, close replication, avoiding piecemeal publication, and increasing sample size. For each, we offer concrete guidance not only regarding how researchers can improve their research practices and balance the risk of false-positive and false-negative errors, but also how the movement can capitalize upon insights from research practices within relationship science to make the movement stronger and more inclusive.
近年来，心理学领域出现了一场旨在提高科学证据价值的强大运动。这场运动在整个经验科学领域都有类似的表现，它广泛而多样，但主要重点是减少统计上的假阳性。本文探讨了我们作为一个领域在寻求最大限度地提高这一运动的科学价值时必须考虑的认识论和实践论问题。就认识论而言，本文对比了错误减少（FPR）方法和错误平衡（EB）方法，后者认为，任何对最优科学实践的认真考虑都必须同时考虑假阳性和假阴性错误。就实践论而言，这一运动已经对实验室实验和一次性调查研究中经常出现的问题给予了大量关注，但对密集型和/或纵向研究中经常出现的问题关注较少。我们用关系科学的案例来说明这些认识论和实践论的考虑，关系科学是经常使用密集型和/或纵向方法的众多研究领域之一。具体来说，我们研究了 6 种可以帮助降低假阳性率的研究方法：预先登记、材料预发表分享、数据发表后分享、紧密复制、避免零散发表和增加样本量。对于每一种方法，我们不仅提供了具体的指导，说明研究人员如何改进研究实践并平衡假阳性和假阴性错误的风险，还提供了关于这一运动如何利用关系科学中的研究实践来增强运动的力量并使其更具包容性的建议。
