The two previous “Solid Science” posts for this blog have covered important changes taking place in experimental psychology. If you have not read them, I recommend you do. In this post I report on another, larger change occurring in the field: the replication movement.
New scientific approaches often rise with the availability of new methods, and can stall when those methods do not evolve further. New methods can be particularly influential if they allow a wide range of application without demanding a lot of resources. In the hands of creative graduate students, such methods can quickly turn into productive tools.
Issue
In this blog post, I will report on the experiences of social psychologists, such as myself, with committing ourselves to detailed descriptions of the hypotheses and other specifics of experiments before we run them. In part 1, I briefly cover some basics about this so-called pre-registration and then I will discuss my own experience with a pre-registration in the online journal Frontiers about unconscious deception detection.
Where do all the studies come from? Behind every headline trumpeting a new finding in psychology, you can usually find an article in a peer-reviewed psychology journal. But how reliable are these findings? This is what many scientists have recently started to wonder. Because of this, journals in psychology are starting to insist on better reporting of research studies. In this first post of a two-part series, I will explain some of the standards that have typically been used to judge whether a study deserves publication or not.