Reproducibility in Psychological Science: When Do Psychological Phenomena Exist?

Seppo E Iso-Ahola

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00879

Abstract

Scientific evidence has recently been used to assert that certain psychological phenomena do not exist. Such claims, however, cannot be made because (1) scientific method itself is seriously limited (i.e., it can never prove a negative); (2) non-existence of phenomena would require a complete absence of both logical (theoretical) and empirical support; even if empirical support is weak, logical and theoretical support can be strong; (3) statistical data are only one piece of evidence and cannot be used to reduce psychological phenomena to statistical phenomena; and (4) psychological phenomena vary across time, situations and persons. The human mind is unreproducible from one situation to another. Psychological phenomena are not particles that can decisively be tested and discovered. Therefore, a declaration that a phenomenon is not real is not only theoretically and empirically unjustified but runs counter to the propositional and provisional nature of scientific knowledge. There are only “temporary winners” and no “final truths” in scientific knowledge. Psychology is a science of subtleties in human affect, cognition and behavior. Its phenomena fluctuate with conditions and may sometimes be difficult to detect and reproduce empirically. When strictly applied, reproducibility is an overstated and even questionable concept in psychological science. Furthermore, statistical measures (e.g., effect size) are poor indicators of the theoretical importance and relevance of phenomena (cf. “deliberate practice” vs. “talent” in expert performance), not to mention whether phenomena are real or unreal. To better understand psychological phenomena, their theoretical and empirical properties should be examined via multiple parameters and criteria. Ten such parameters are suggested.

Highlights

Despite these inherent difficulties of scientific inquiry, psychological science has made great progress not because of
The irony is that laypeople have known all along that psychological momentum is a real phenomenon as over 90% of them believe momentum to be a crucial determinant of different types of human performance, from sports to cleaning houses (Markman and Guenther, 2007; Iso-Ahola and Dotson, 2016)
Empirical findings could vary considerably as a function of participants’ conscious vs. non-conscious processing of task performance, which would in turn affect reproducibility of the findings and whether a phenomenon is declared real or unreal

Summary

INTRODUCTION

“The ego depletion effect” has recently been declared virtually dead or “indistinguishable from zero” (Carter et al, 2015), as has the actor-observer asymmetry in attributions for behavior (Malle, 2006). This, does not mean that choking disappears into the black hole of non-existent psychological phenomena For another example, studies (e.g., Jones and Stuth, 1997) have established that learning and practicing skills to visualize leads to improved performance, making imagery effects stronger with time and experiences. The theory’s tenets (i.e., hypotheses) can empirically be explored and tested, but even if some relationships predicted by the theory are not verified empirically in certain time and space, it does not mean that cognitive dissonance as a psychological phenomenon has ceased to exist and stop influencing human thought and behavior. Showing theoretically which ideas are more likely to be true has clear implications for alternative statistical hypotheses to be tested Another major problem for verification and refutation of psychological effects comes from the fact that research cannot discover single causes that are both absolutely necessary and absolutely sufficient to explain human behavior. It should be noted that none of this is meta-analysis’ fault per se, but a serious problem arises when a heavy use and misuse of this statistical technique constitutes the basis for declaring the non-existence of psychological phenomena

Summary

Findings

CONCLUSION