{"title":"优化研究成果:如何改进心理学研究方法?","authors":"Jeff Miller, Rolf Ulrich","doi":"10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-094927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent evidence suggests that research practices in psychology and many other disciplines are far less effective than previously assumed, which has led to what has been called a \"crisis of confidence\" in psychological research (e.g., Pashler & Wagenmakers 2012). In response to the perceived crisis, standard research practices have come under intense scrutiny, and various changes have been suggested to improve them. The burgeoning field of metascience seeks to use standard quantitative data-gathering and modeling techniques to understand the reasons for inefficiency, to assess the likely effects of suggested changes, and ultimately to tell psychologists how to do better science. We review the pros and cons of suggested changes, highlighting the many complex research trade-offs that must be addressed to identify better methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":8010,"journal":{"name":"Annual review of psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":23.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimizing Research Output: How Can Psychological Research Methods Be Improved?\",\"authors\":\"Jeff Miller, Rolf Ulrich\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-094927\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recent evidence suggests that research practices in psychology and many other disciplines are far less effective than previously assumed, which has led to what has been called a \\\"crisis of confidence\\\" in psychological research (e.g., Pashler & Wagenmakers 2012). In response to the perceived crisis, standard research practices have come under intense scrutiny, and various changes have been suggested to improve them. The burgeoning field of metascience seeks to use standard quantitative data-gathering and modeling techniques to understand the reasons for inefficiency, to assess the likely effects of suggested changes, and ultimately to tell psychologists how to do better science. We review the pros and cons of suggested changes, highlighting the many complex research trade-offs that must be addressed to identify better methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8010,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual review of psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":23.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual review of psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-094927\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/10/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual review of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-094927","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Optimizing Research Output: How Can Psychological Research Methods Be Improved?
Recent evidence suggests that research practices in psychology and many other disciplines are far less effective than previously assumed, which has led to what has been called a "crisis of confidence" in psychological research (e.g., Pashler & Wagenmakers 2012). In response to the perceived crisis, standard research practices have come under intense scrutiny, and various changes have been suggested to improve them. The burgeoning field of metascience seeks to use standard quantitative data-gathering and modeling techniques to understand the reasons for inefficiency, to assess the likely effects of suggested changes, and ultimately to tell psychologists how to do better science. We review the pros and cons of suggested changes, highlighting the many complex research trade-offs that must be addressed to identify better methods.
期刊介绍:
The Annual Review of Psychology, a publication that has been available since 1950, provides comprehensive coverage of the latest advancements in psychological research. It encompasses a wide range of topics, including the biological underpinnings of human behavior, the intricacies of our senses and perception, the functioning of the mind, animal behavior and learning, human development, psychopathology, clinical and counseling psychology, social psychology, personality, environmental psychology, community psychology, and much more. In a recent development, the current volume of this esteemed journal has transitioned from a subscription-based model to an open access format as part of the Annual Reviews' Subscribe to Open initiative. As a result, all articles published in this volume are now freely accessible to the public under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.