Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-2tv5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T03:37:56.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assume a can opener

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

Cory J. Clark Open the ORCID record for Cory J. Clark [Opens in a new window] ,
Calvin Isch ,
Paul Connor  and
Philip E. Tetlock
Cory J. Clark*
Affiliation:
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA cjclark@sas.upenn.edu; https://www.coryjclark.com tetlock@wharton.upenn.edu https://www.sas.upenn.edu/tetlock/ School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA paulrobertconnor@gmail.com; https://www.paulconnorpsych.com
Calvin Isch
Affiliation:
Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA calvin.isch@gmail.com; https://www.asc.upenn.edu/people/graduate-student/calvin-isch
Paul Connor
Affiliation:
School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA paulrobertconnor@gmail.com; https://www.paulconnorpsych.com
Philip E. Tetlock
Affiliation:
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA cjclark@sas.upenn.edu; https://www.coryjclark.com tetlock@wharton.upenn.edu https://www.sas.upenn.edu/tetlock/ School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA paulrobertconnor@gmail.com; https://www.paulconnorpsych.com
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose a friendly amendment to integrative experiment design (IED), adversarial-collaboration IED, that incentivizes research teams from competing theoretical perspectives to identify zones of the design space where they possess an explanatory edge. This amendment is especially critical in debates that have high policy stakes and carry a strong normative-political charge that might otherwise prevent free exchange of ideas.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e36
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Abele, A. E., Ellemers, N., Fiske, S. T., Koch, A., & Yzerbyt, V. (2021). Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychological Review, 128(2), 290–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boulding, K. E. (1970). Economics as a science. McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Bowes, S., Clark, C. J., Conway, L. G. III, Costello, T. H., Osborne, D., Tetlock, P., & van Prooijen, J. (2023). An adversarial collaboration on the rigidity-of-the-right, rigidity-of-extremes, or symmetry: The answer depends on the question. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4wmx2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M., & von Hippel, W. (2018). Psychological barriers to evolutionary psychology: Ideological bias and coalitional adaptations. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), 148–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, C. J., Costello, T., Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2022). Keep your enemies close: Adversarial collaborations will improve behavioral science. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 11(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, C. J., Fjeldmark, M., Lu, L., Baumeister, R. F., Ceci, S., German, K., … Tetlock, P. E. (2023, February 24). Taboos and self-censorship among psychology professors (Conference presentation). Society for Open Inquiry in Behavioral Science, Behavioral Science Speakeasy, Atlanta, GA, USA.Google Scholar
Clark, C. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2023). Adversarial collaboration: The next science reform. In Frisby, C. L., Redding, R. E., O’Donohue, W. T., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (Eds.), Ideological and political bias in psychology: Nature, scope, and solutions. Springer.Google Scholar
Clark, C. J., & Winegard, B. M. (2020). Tribalism in war and peace: The nature and evolution of ideological epistemology and its significance for modern social science. Psychological Inquiry, 31(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H. (2016). When passionate advocates meet research on diversity, does the honest broker stand a chance?. Journal of Social Issues, 72(1), 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harden, K. P. (2021). The genetic lottery: Why DNA matters for social equality. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003). Experiences of collaborative research. American Psychologist, 58(9), 723–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Killingsworth, M. A., Kahneman, D., & Mellers, B. (2023). Income and emotional well-being: A conflict resolved. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120(10), e2208661120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 12(4), 269–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merton, R. K. (1942/1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nemeth, C., Brown, K., & Rogers, J. (2001). Devil's advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6), 707–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1994). Political psychology or politicized psychology: Is the road to scientific hell paved with good moral intentions?. Political Psychology, 15, 509–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed