Some of you might be asking why I’m bothering to do this. In the parlance of our time, some of you might be wondering if I am speaking in a braggadocious manner, showing off. If I am coming off this way, dear readers, please allow me this. In the past few months, I’ve revealed some skeletons in my closet, wallowed in self-pity, had fuck associated with my name, and divulged how I lost faith. So, please allow me this brief moment of pride.
More than having faith in individual findings, tools, or persons, practicing scientists need to have faith in the paradigm—the entire constellation of beliefs, values, and established ways of doing things. Without such faith, the entire enterprise falls apart. Without faith in past work, science can’t really make progress, needing to start anew with each new practicing scientist.
During my dark moments, I feel like social psychology needs a redo, a fresh start. Where to begin, though? What am I mostly certain about and where can my skepticism end? I feel like there are legitimate things we have learned, but how do we separate wheat from chaff?
I would love to have a measure of replicability without bothering to replicate papers. I would also love a ranking of journals based on replicability; or a ranking of department’s rate of replicability for that matter. I just don't think such a measure exists just yet.
Filter By Keyword
- anterior cingulate cortex
- cognitive control
- ego depletion
- stereotype threat
- emotion regulation
- political psychology
- alpha asymmetry
- minority status
- motor resonance
- cognitive dissonance
- mu suppression
- intergroup bias
Harvard Business Review discusses the changing landscape of research on self-control, including covering work by Michael Inzlicht, who suggests that self-control is not similar to a fuel tank that becomes emptied with use. Instead, Michael suggests that self-control is better understood as a motivational construct, with features that make it resemble an emotion.
Michael Inzlicht talks to Science for the People about what bad science looks like, why good scientists with good intentions often use techniques of bad science in their work, and how we may be unintentionally selecting for bad science over good science in our culture.
Vox covers the psychology of self-control, suggesting that effortful forms of control are over-hyped. Part of the article covers work from the lab indicating that self-control does not predict goal progress.
- Joshua Aronson, New York University
- Avi Ben-Zeev, San Francisco State University
- Bruce Bartholow, University of Missouri
- Elliot Berkman, University of Oregon
- Kirk Brown, Virginia Commonwealth University
- Daryl Cameron
- Belle Derks, Utrecht University
- Jennifer Gutsell, Brandeis University
- Eddie Harmon-Jones, University of New South Wales
- Steven Heine, University of British Columbia
- Jacob Hirsh, University of Toronto
- Sonia Kang, University of Toronto
- Michael Larson
- Lisa Legault, Clarkson University
- Ian McGregor, York University
- Sukhvinder Obhi
- Liz Page-Gould, University of Toronto
- Greg Hajcak Proudfit, Stony Brook University
- Travis Proulx, Tilburg University
- Toni Schmader, University of British Columbia
- Brandon Schmeichel, Texas A&M University
- Zindel Segal
- Shona Tritt, New York University
- Alexa Tullett, University of Alabama
University of Toronto
- Association for Psychological Science
- Canadian Psychological Association
- Canada Foundation for Innovation
- International Social Cognition Network
- International Society for Research on Emotion
- National Academy of Education
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Social and Affective Neuroscience Society
- Social Psychology Network
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
- Society for Personality and Social Psychology
- Society for Psychophysiological Research
- Spencer Foundation