Abstract
There are many factors that contribute to the present crisis of confidence in psychology, among them epistemological causes: Under pressure to ‘publish or perish’ and to ‘get visible or vanish’ in order to survive in an increasingly globalized academic job market, psychologists may often be too eager to find their hypotheses confirmed by empirical data. They may also not pay enough attention to alternative theories and consequently often miss opportunities to learn from their failures to obtain the expected results in their studies. In this paper, I propose to start asking two questions physicist John Platt had proposed in 1964 on a regular basis in the field of psychology as a means of fostering critical thinking or to encourage a critical approach to the growth of scientific knowledge: Are there reasons to expect a different outcome, and what consequence is it going to have if the study does not yield the expected results? I explore what potential these two questions have for ensuring epistemological progress by asking them with respect to social-priming research, which is one of the research programmes that have recently been criticized in the course of the ‘reproducibility debate’.
Highlights
There are many factors that contribute to the present crisis of confidence in psychology, among them epistemological causes: Under pressure to ‘publish or perish’ and to ‘get visible or vanish’ in order to survive in an increasingly globalized academic job market, psychologists may often be too eager to find their hypotheses confirmed by empirical data
I propose to start asking two questions physicist John Platt had proposed in 1964 on a regular basis in the field of psychology as a means of fostering critical thinking or to encourage a critical approach to the growth of scientific knowledge: Are there reasons to expect a different outcome, and what consequence is it going to have if the study does not yield the expected results? I explore what potential these two questions have for ensuring epistemological progress by asking them with respect to social-priming research, which is one of the research programmes that have recently been criticized in the course of the ‘reproducibility debate’
In this paper I will argue that the reasons for the present ‘crisis’ in psychology can be attributed in part to epistemological deficiencies: Psychologists are too eager to find their theories corroborated by empirical evidence, they do not consider competing theories often enough, and they often do not pay enough attention to the inferences that can be drawn from not finding the expected results
Summary
There are many factors that contribute to the present crisis of confidence in psychology, among them epistemological causes: Under pressure to ‘publish or perish’ and to ‘get visible or vanish’ in order to survive in an increasingly globalized academic job market, psychologists may often be too eager to find their hypotheses confirmed by empirical data They may not pay enough attention to alternative theories and often miss opportunities to learn from their failures to obtain the expected results in their studies.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
