Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720; email:
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104; email:
Annu Rev Psychol. 2018 Jan 4;69:511-534. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836. Epub 2017 Oct 25.
In 2010-2012, a few largely coincidental events led experimental psychologists to realize that their approach to collecting, analyzing, and reporting data made it too easy to publish false-positive findings. This sparked a period of methodological reflection that we review here and call Psychology's Renaissance. We begin by describing how psychologists' concerns with publication bias shifted from worrying about file-drawered studies to worrying about p-hacked analyses. We then review the methodological changes that psychologists have proposed and, in some cases, embraced. In describing how the renaissance has unfolded, we attempt to describe different points of view fairly but not neutrally, so as to identify the most promising paths forward. In so doing, we champion disclosure and preregistration, express skepticism about most statistical solutions to publication bias, take positions on the analysis and interpretation of replication failures, and contend that meta-analytical thinking increases the prevalence of false positives. Our general thesis is that the scientific practices of experimental psychologists have improved dramatically.
在 2010 年至 2012 年期间，一些大致巧合的事件促使实验心理学家意识到，他们收集、分析和报告数据的方法使得发表虚假阳性结果变得过于容易。这引发了一段方法论反思时期，我们在此进行回顾，并称之为心理学的复兴。我们首先描述了心理学家对发表偏倚的关注是如何从担心被归档的研究转变为担心被篡改分析的。然后，我们回顾了心理学家提出并在某些情况下接受的方法学变革。在描述复兴的发展过程中，我们试图公正地描述不同的观点，但不是中立地描述，以便确定最有前途的前进道路。在这样做的过程中，我们支持披露和预先注册，对解决发表偏倚的大多数统计解决方案表示怀疑，对复制失败的分析和解释采取立场，并认为元分析思维会增加假阳性的普遍性。我们的总体论点是，实验心理学家的科学实践已经有了显著的改善。
