Viewing entries tagged
replication crisis
Ego-depletion theory quickly became one of the hottest concepts in psychology. “The idea really took social psychology by storm. It’s not an exaggeration to say that for a while it was at the center of the field,” says Michael Inzlicht, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. Inzlicht himself was swept up in the ego-depletion furor and published work that supported its existence and significance.
“But then some cracks started to appear,” he says.
In 2011, an American psychologist named Daryl Bem proved the impossible. He showed that precognition — the ability to sense the future — is real. His study was explosive, and shook the very foundations of psychology. University of Toronto psychologist Michael Inzlicht was shocked to find that research papers in his own area of research no longer held water. They could not be replicated under the filter of more rigorous methodology.
In the last decade, behavioral scientists concluded that their field had taken a wrong turn. Efforts to root out false findings and bad practices spurred a crisis now poised to transform the landscape of psychology. Psychology Today profiles four scientists who are leading the charge.
"[Pre-registration] is really gratifying. It's frustrating, too, because you realize how hard science is," Michael Inzlicht says. "There are a lot of null results out there. I've got a lot of bad ideas, it turns out. But because I want the results I publish to lean toward the truth, I'm happy with that."
Social psychologist Michael Inzlicht launched his academic career on the study of “ego depletion.” His research suggested it was real. Then came doubts.
Back in 1995, Claude Steele published a study that showed that negative stereotypes could have a detrimental effect on students' academic performance. But the big surprise was that he could make that effect disappear with just a few simple changes in language. In this podcast, Radiolab revisits the topic of stereotype threat in light of the roil of replications and self-examination in the field of social psychology. Radioab speaks to Michael Inzlicht about his own experiences with the topic, including why he now has doubts about the robustness of the phenomenon.
A 10-year-old girl watches YouTube with a friend during their after-school program. An ad pops up. A two-minute quiz can tell her if she has ADHD. She takes it, of course. And just like that, she comes home to talk to her child psychiatrist dad about how she has ADHD.
This story is not unique. Mental health awareness has become one of Canada’s most visible public health projects. The messaging is everywhere: Bell Let’s Talk, school wellness e-mails, workplace campaigns, social media initiatives.
Yet despite these efforts, population-level mental health keeps declining. Medication use is increasing. How can this be?
Professor Michael Inzlicht is featured in a recent Toronto Star article about Toronto’s growing “edutainment” scene.
The article says that there is a growing appetite for bringing lectures into local bars, where young professionals gather to learn, connect, and share ideas over food and drinks. Events like Brains & Barstools blend casual socializing with talks from experts on topics ranging from AI empathy to literature and politics. With weekly sellouts, these gatherings highlight a rising interest for community, curiosity, and meaningful conversation.
Asked why he was interested in participating in the event, Professor Inzlicht is quoted as saying: "I like beer, and I like talking to people." Adding: "I suspect there were fewer people here on their phones than in a typical lecture of mine."
When researchers asked people whether they’d rather get an empathetic response from a human or from AI, human responses won by a wide margin. When the same researchers actually showed them the responses, AI won by a wider one. People who said they preferred human responses rated the AI replies as more empathetic, more validating, and even better at making them feel heard.
The most recent evidence comes from a Penn State and University of Toronto team led by Joshua Wenger, published in January in Communications Psychology. Across four studies, participants were given the choice between receiving an empathetic response from a human or from ChatGPT. They picked humans 57% to 62% of the time.
Read More