Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T13:47:34.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Replications can cause distorted belief in scientific progress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2018

Michał Białek
Michał Białek*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada. mbialek@uwaterloo.cahttp://mbialek.com.pl Centre for Economic Psychology and Decision Sciences, Kozminski University, 03-301 Warsaw, Poland.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If we want psychological science to have a meaningful real-world impact, it has to be trusted by the public. Scientific progress is noisy; accordingly, replications sometimes fail even for true findings. We need to communicate the acceptability of uncertainty to the public and our peers, to prevent psychology from being perceived as having nothing to say about reality.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Aklin, M. & Urpelainen, J. (2014) Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environmental Science and Policy 38:173–77. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.006.Google Scholar
Dudo, A., Dunwoody, S. & Scheufele, D. A. (2011) The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in US newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 88:55–75. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/107769901108800104.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, W. R., Gramling, R. & Davidson, D. J. (2008) Scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs): Science and the politics of doubt. Sociological Inquiry 78:2–38. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219.x.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., King, G., Pettigrew, S, & Wilson, T. D. (2016) Comment on “estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.” Science 351(6277):1037. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad7243.Google Scholar
Koehler, D. J. (2016) Can journalistic “false balance” distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 22(1):24–38. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000073.Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251):aac4716. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.Google Scholar
Pitt, J. C. (1990) The myth of science education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 10:7–17. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00367684Google Scholar