3 ms·
Coming from a psychology major myself, scientific studies should never be cited before being reproduced, especially not psychology studies.
by QuiDortDine 2y ago
Coming from a psychology major myself, scientific studies should never be cited before being reproduced, especially not psychology studies.
- nadermx 2y agoAren't there only like four laws in psychology?
- QuiDortDine 2y agoOnly if psychology is applied physics!
- Eisenstein 2y agoIt seems a lot of the (pop) psychology taken for granted is based on single, flawed studies.
- Rinzler89 2y agoExactly. Just like that one study saying how cyclists wearing helmets in trafic are more in danger than those without because car drivers supposedly are more careful with the non helmet wearing crowd, that peers here keep bringing up as a reason to cycle without a helmet. Tip from my SO who does ER work at the hospital: wear a helmet to give her less work
- dwighttk 2y agoShould at least eat lunch before deciding to cite them if you’re not going to wait for replication.
- QuiDortDine 2y agoUnreviewed studies say yes
- jballanc 2y agoWithout having read in-depth either original paper, it seems like the issue here is much simpler than reproduction (though reproduction is the gold standard as is totally under-appreciated these days). Rather, it seems the authors made a much simpler mistake: hypotheses can only be refuted by evidence, not confirmed. So, in this case, if the hypothesis is "judges act more harshly when hungry", what they should have been doing is looking for evidence disproving that statement. Instead, they seem to have presented a correlation and a suggestion, which is not the same thing as a scientific finding.