1 Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam.
2 Department of Economic Psychology, University of Basel.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018 Jul;13(4):418-427. doi: 10.1177/1745691618771357.
Over the years, researchers in psychological science have documented and investigated a host of powerful cognitive fallacies, including hindsight bias and confirmation bias. Researchers themselves may not be immune to these fallacies and may unwittingly adjust their statistical analysis to produce an outcome that is more pleasant or better in line with prior expectations. To shield researchers from the impact of cognitive fallacies, several methodologists are now advocating preregistration-that is, the creation of a detailed analysis plan before data collection or data analysis. One may argue, however, that preregistration is out of touch with academic reality, hampering creativity and impeding scientific progress. We provide a historical overview to show that the interplay between creativity and verification has shaped theories of scientific inquiry throughout the centuries; in the currently dominant theory, creativity and verification operate in succession and enhance one another's effectiveness. From this perspective, the use of preregistration to safeguard the verification stage will help rather than hinder the generation of fruitful new ideas.
多年来,心理学研究人员记录并研究了许多强大的认知偏差,包括后视偏差和确认偏差。研究人员自己也可能无法免受这些偏差的影响,并且可能会在不知不觉中调整他们的统计分析,以产生更令人愉快或更好地符合先前预期的结果。为了使研究人员免受认知偏差的影响,现在有几位方法论学家提倡预先注册,即在收集数据或进行数据分析之前创建详细的分析计划。然而,有人可能会认为,预先注册与学术现实脱节,阻碍了创造力,阻碍了科学进步。我们提供了一个历史概述,以表明创造力和验证之间的相互作用塑造了几个世纪以来的科学探究理论;在目前占主导地位的理论中,创造力和验证依次进行,并增强彼此的有效性。从这个角度来看,使用预先注册来保护验证阶段将有助于而不是阻碍富有成效的新思想的产生。