Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-fx4k7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-22T01:43:49.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A checklist to facilitate objective hypothesis testing in social psychology research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2015

Anthony N. Washburn ,
G. Scott Morgan  and
Linda J. Skitka
Anthony N. Washburn
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607. awashbu1@uic.edu lskitka@uic.edu http://anwashburn.wordpress.com http://tigger.uic.edu/~lskitka
G. Scott Morgan
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Drew University, Madison, NJ 07940. smorgan@drew.edu https://sites.google.com/site/gscottmorgan3
Linda J. Skitka
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607. awashbu1@uic.edu lskitka@uic.edu http://anwashburn.wordpress.com http://tigger.uic.edu/~lskitka
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social psychology is not a very politically diverse area of inquiry, something that could negatively affect the objectivity of social psychological theory and research, as Duarte et al. argue in the target article. This commentary offers a number of checks to help researchers uncover possible biases and identify when they are engaging in hypothesis confirmation and advocacy instead of hypothesis testing.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 38 , 2015 , e161
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Berkowitz, L., Corwin, R. & Heironimus, M. (1963) Film violence and subsequent aggressive tendencies. Public Opinion Quarterly 27(2):217–29.Google Scholar
Feshbach, S. & Singer, R. D. (1971) Television and aggression: An experimental field study. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Hardin, C. D. & Higgins, E. T. (1996) Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In: Handbook of motivation and cognition, vol. 3: The interpersonal context, ed. Sorrentino, R. M. & Higgins, E., pp. 28–84. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108(3):480–98.Google Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (2004) A perspectivist approach to theory construction. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(2):173–82.Google Scholar
Mellers, B., Hertwig, R. & Kahneman, D. (2001) Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science 12(4):269–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pronin, E. & Kugler, M. B. (2007) Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43(4):565–78.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U. (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22(11):1359–66.Google Scholar
Skitka, L. J., Mullen, E., Griffin, T., Hutchinson, S. & Chamberlin, B. (2002) Dispositions, ideological scripts, or motivated reasoning? Understanding ideological differences in attributions for social problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83:470–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skitka, L. J. & Tetlock, P. E. (1993) Providing public assistance: Cognitive and motivational processes underlying liberal and conservative policy preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:1205–23.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995) What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3):371–84.Google Scholar