Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-l9twb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-09T15:52:36.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - From Idea to Reality: The Basics of Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2023

Edited by
Austin Lee Nichols  and
John Edlund
Austin Lee Nichols
Affiliation:
Central European University, Vienna
John Edlund
Affiliation:
Rochester Institute of Technology, New York
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
Volume 1: Building a Program of Research
 , pp. 1 - 176
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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.)

References

References

Al-Shawaf, L. (2020). Evolutionary psychology: Predictively powerful or riddled with just-so stories? Areo Magazine, October 20. Available at: https://areomagazine.com/2020/10/20/evolutionary-psychology-predictively-powerful-or-riddled-with-just-so-stories/.Google Scholar
Al-Shawaf, L. (2021). Evolution explains puzzling aspects of the human mind: Evolution helps explain anxiety, the hedonic treadmill, and other puzzles. Psychology Today, July 11.Google Scholar
Al-Shawaf, L., Conroy-Beam, D., Asao, K., & Buss, D. M. (2016). Human emotions: An evolutionary psychological perspective. Emotion Review, 8(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914565518Google Scholar
Al-Shawaf, L., Zreik, K. A., & Buss, D. M. (2018). Thirteen misunderstandings about natural selection. In Shackelford, T. K. & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 1–14). Springer.Google Scholar
Barrett, H. C. (2020). Deciding what to observe: Thoughts for a post-WEIRD generation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(5), 445–453.Google Scholar
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62853-7_2Google Scholar
Biswas-Diener, R. & Kashdan, T. B. (2021). Three lessons from Ed Diener. International Journal of Wellbeing, 11(2), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v11i2.1705Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., Dalege, J., Kievit, R., & Haig, B. (2020). Theory construction methodology: A practical framework for theory formation in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 756–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620969647Google Scholar
Boyer, P. (2018). Minds Make Societies: How Cognition Explains the World Humans Create. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235173Google Scholar
Burns, M. K. (2011). School psychology research: Combining ecological theory and prevention science. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2011.12087732Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coelho, M. T. P., Diniz‐Filho, J. A., & Rangel, T. F. (2019). A parsimonious view of the parsimony principle in ecology and evolution. Ecography, 42(5), 968–976. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04228Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31(3), 187–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1Google Scholar
Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000102Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1983). Universal Darwinism. In Bedau, M. A. & Cleland, C. E. (eds.), The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science (pp. 403–425). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Norton.Google Scholar
De Courson, B. & Nettle, D. (2021). Why do inequality and deprivation produce high crime and low trust? Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p2aedCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobzhansky, T. (1964). Biology, molecular and organismic. American Zoologist, 4(4), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/4.4.443Google Scholar
Doyle, A. C. (1887; electronic reprint 1995). A Study in Scarlet. J. H. Sears & Co.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1992). Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J. & Ketelaar, T. (2000). On the natural selection of alternative models: Evaluation of explanations in evolutionary psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 11(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1101_03Google Scholar
Epstein, J. M. (2008). Why model? Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 11(4), Article 12. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/4/12.htmlGoogle Scholar
Fried, E. I. (2020). Theories and models: What they are, what they are for, and what they are about. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1854011Google Scholar
Gainsburg, I., Pauer, S., Abboub, N., Aloyo, E. T., Mourrat, J. C., & Cristia, A. (2022). How effective altruism can help psychologists maximize their impact. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221079596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J. (1999). What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences. Polity, 31(3), 357–393.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00058.xGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Surrogates for theory. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 22, 21–23.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Personal reflections on theory and psychology. Theory & Psychology 20(6), 733–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310378184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2017). A theory integration program. Decision, 4, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2020). How to explain behavior? Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(4), 1363–1381. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12480CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goetz, A. T. & Shackelford, T. K. (2006). Modern application of evolutionary theory to psychology: Key concepts and clarifications. American Journal of Psychology, 119, 567–584. https://doi.org/10.2307/20445364CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfrey Smith, P. (2003). Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory theory. In Hirschfeld, L. A. & Gelman, S. (eds.), Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture (pp. 257–293). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752902.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, K. (2017). How to map theory: Reliable methods are fruitless without rigorous theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 731–741.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986). Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review, 93(2), 216–229.Google Scholar
Guest, O. & Martin, A. E. (2021). How computational modeling can force theory building in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 789–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970585Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T. (2020). Discovering the next big question in evolutionary psychology: A few guidelines. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 14(4), 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ketelaar, T. & Ellis, B. J. (2000). Are evolutionary explanations unfalsifiable? Evolutionary psychology and the Lakatosian philosophy of science. Psychological Inquiry, 11(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1976). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Harding, S. G. (ed.), Can Theories Be Refuted? (pp. 205–259). Springer.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. M. G., Al-Shawaf, L., Conroy-Beam, D., Asao, K., & Buss, D. M. (2017). Evolutionary psychology: A how-to guide. American Psychologist, 72(4), 353–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2010). Can psychology become a science? Personality and Individual Differences, 49(4), 281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loehle, C. (1987). Hypothesis testing in ecology: Psychological aspects and the importance of theory maturation. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 62(4), 397–409.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134(3489), 1501–1506.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, G. (2000). How to keep our metatheories adaptive: Beyond Cosmides, Tooby, and Lakatos. Psychological Inquiry, 11(1), 42–46.Google Scholar
Muthukrishna, M. & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 221–229.Google Scholar
Nesse, R. M. (2013). Tinbergen’s four questions, organized: A response to Bateson and Laland. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(12), 681–682.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. (2021). Theories and models are not the only fruit. Blog post. Available at: https://leonidtiokhin.medium.com/theories-and-models-are-not-the-only-fruit-a05c7cf188f6.Google Scholar
Norris, D. & Cutler, A. (2021). More why, less how: What we need from models of cognition. Cognition, 213, 104688. 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104688CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pietraszewski, D. (2021). Towards a computational theory of social groups: A finite set of cognitive primitives for representing any and all social groups in the context of conflict. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, April 27, 1–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X21000583Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1905). Science and Hypothesis. Science Press.Google Scholar
Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 2–14.Google Scholar
Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M., & Lakens, D. (2020). Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4): 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691620966795Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. & Pilcher, J. J. (2004). Evaluating evidence of psychological adaptation: How do we know one when we see one? Psychological Science, 15(10), 643–649.Google Scholar
Schooler, L. J. & Hertwig, R. (2005). How forgetting aids heuristic inference. Psychological Review, 112(3), 610–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.610Google Scholar
Smaldino, P. E. (2020). How to translate a verbal theory into a formal model. Social Psychology, 51(4), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symons, D. (1992). On the use and misuse of Darwinism in the study of human behavior. In Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture (pp. 137–159). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20(4), 410–433.Google Scholar
Tiokhin, L. (2021). Models are for transparency. Blog post. Availabale at: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11024.53767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, C., & Tooby, J. (eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture (pp. 19–136). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (2015). The theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology. In Buss, D. M. (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Second Edition. Volume 1: Foundations. (pp. 3–87). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine.Google Scholar
Tybur, J. M., Bryan, A. D., & Hooper, A. E. C. (2012). An evolutionary perspective on health psychology: New approaches and applications. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(5), 855–867.Google Scholar
van Rooij, I. & Baggio, G. (2021). Theory before the test: How to build high-verisimilitude explanatory theories in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 682–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970604CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Hippel, W. & Buss, D. M. (2017). Do ideological driven scientific agendas impede understanding and acceptance of evolutionary principles in social psychology? In Crawford, J. T. & Jussim, L. (eds.), The Politics of Social Psychology (pp. 7–25). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Yarkoni, T. & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393Google Scholar

References

Barrett, M. (2006). Practical and ethical issues in planning research. In Breakwell, G., Hammond, S. M., Fife-Schaw, C., & Smith, J. A. (eds.), Research Methods in Psychology, 3rd ed. (pp. 24–48). Sage.Google Scholar
Bell, E. & Bryman, A. (2007). The ethics of management research: An exploratory content analysis. British Journal of Management, 18(1), 63–77.Google Scholar
Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Hastings Center Report, 8(6), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
British Psychological Society (2021). Code of Human Research Ethics. British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
Caruth, G. D. (2015). Toward a conceptual model of ethics in research. Journal of Management Research, 15, 23–33.Google Scholar
Dan-Cohen, M. (2012). Introduction: Dignity and its (dis)content. In Waldron, J. (ed.), Dignity, Rank, and Rights (pp. 3–10). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, G. F. (2015). Editorial essay: What is organizational research for? Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickert, N., Emanuel, E., & Grady, C. (2002). Paying research subjects: An analysis of current policies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 136(5), 368–373.Google Scholar
Dingwall, R., Iphofen, R., Lewis, J, Oates, J., & Emmerich, N. (2017). Towards common principles for social science research ethics. A discussion document for the Academy of Social Sciences. In Iphofen, R. (ed.), Finding Common Ground: Consensus in Research Ethics Across the Social Sciences (ch. 10). Emerald Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Dotterweich, D. P. & Garrison, S. (1997). Research ethics of business academic researchers at AACSB institutions. Teaching Business Ethics, 1(4), 431–447.Google Scholar
Drenth, P. J. (2012). A European code of conduct for research integrity. In Meyer, T. & Steneck, N. (eds.), Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (pp. 161–168). World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., Lange, K. M., Sevene, A. M., et al. (2017). Participant crosstalk: Issues when using the mechanical Turk. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 13(3), 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ERC (European Research Council) (2021). ERC work programme 2021. Available at: https://erc.europa.eu/content/erc-2021-work-programme.Google Scholar
European Council (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016.Google Scholar
General Assembly of the World Medical Association (2014). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. The Journal of the American College of Dentists, 81(3), 14.Google Scholar
Grady, C. (2005). Payment of clinical research subjects. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 115(7), 1681–1687.Google Scholar
Grimes, J. M., Fleischman, K. R., & Jaeger, P. T. (2009). Virtual guinea pigs: Ethical implications of human subjects research in virtual worlds. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 2(1), 38–56.Google Scholar
Grinyer, A. (2009). The anonymity of research participants: Assumptions, ethics, and practicalities. Pan-Pacific Management Review, 12, 49–58.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. (2013). Fraud and misconduct in clinical research: A concern. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 4(2), 144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammersley, M. & Gomm, R. (1997). Bias in social research. Sociological Research Online, 2(1), 7–19.Google Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (2011). Do we need a special ethics for research? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(1), 21–29.Google Scholar
Hiney, M. (2015). Research Integrity: What It Means, Why Is So Important and How We Might Protect It. Science Europe.Google Scholar
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572.Google Scholar
Houston, M. (2016). The Ethics of Research in the Social Sciences: An Overview. University of Glasgow. Available at: https://dafre.rutgers.edu/documents/Articles_Ethics_research_%20social_sciences.pdf.Google Scholar
Iphofen, R. (2011). Ethical decision making in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 443–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M. (2014). Research Ethics and Integrity for Social Scientists: Beyond Regulatory Compliance. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Kanungo, R. N. (1992). Alienation and empowerment: Some ethical imperatives in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5–6), 413–422.Google Scholar
Kaźmierska, K. (2020). Ethical aspects of social research: Old concerns in the face of new challenges and paradoxes. A reflection from the field of biographical method. Qualitative Sociology Review, 16(3),118–135.Google Scholar
Kirilova, D. & Karcher, S. (2017). Rethinking data sharing and human participant protection in social science research: Applications from the qualitative realm. Data Science Journal, 16, 43.Google Scholar
Kopp, O. (2006). Historical review of unethical experimentation in humans. Ethics in the Professions, 2. Available at: https://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/documents/ethics/2007facultyproceedings_g5small.pdf#page=16.Google Scholar
Lock, S. (1995). Research ethics. A brief historical review to 1965. Journal of Internal Medicine, 238(6), 513–520.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, B. (2010). Researching with Integrity: The Ethics of Academic Enquiry. Routledge.Google Scholar
McNeal, G. (2014). Facebook manipulated user news feeds to create emotional responses. Forbes, June 28. Available at: www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-user-news-feeds-to-create-emotional-contagion/?sh=2e007a1d39dc.Google Scholar
McNeill, P. (1997). Paying people to participate in research: Why not? Bioethics, 11(5), 390–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘Accountability’: An ever‐expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555–573.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2021). What maximizes productivity and impact in political science research? European Political Science, 20(1), 34–57.Google Scholar
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) (2007) Global Science Forum: Best practices for ensuring scientific integrity and preventing misconduct. Available at: www.oecd.org/science/inno/40188303.pdf.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. B. (2011). What is ethics in research & why is it important? The National. May.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. B. & Shamoo, A. E. (2011). The Singapore Statement on research integrity. Accountability in Research, 18(2), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
RRBM (Responsible Research in Business & Management) (2017). A vision of responsible research in business and management: Striving for useful and credible knowledge. Available at: www.rrbm.network/position-paper (accessed February 27, 2018).Google Scholar
Ruyter, K. W. (ed.) (2003). Forskningsetikk: beskyttelse av enkeltpersoner og samfunn. Gyldendal akademisk.Google Scholar
Shamoo, A. E. & Resnik, D. B. (2015). Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sison, A., Ferrero, I., & Guitián, G. (2016). Human dignity and the dignity of work: Insights from catholic social teaching. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(4), 503–528.Google Scholar
Social Research Association (2003) Ethical guidelines. Available at: https://the-sra.org.uk/common/Uploaded%20files/ethical%20guidelines%202003.pdf.Google Scholar
Social Research Association (2009) Social Policy Association Guidelines on Research Ethics. Availabale at: https://social-policy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/SPA_code_ethics_jan09.pdf.Google Scholar
Sulmasy, D. (2008). Dignity and bioethics. History, theory, and selected applications. In Human Dignity and Bioethics (pp. 469–501). The President’s Council on Human Dignity and Bioethics.Google Scholar
Sutrop, M. & Florea, C. (2010). Guidance Note for Researchers and Evaluators of Social Sciences and Humanities Research. European Commission.Google Scholar
UK Data Service (2021). Research data management. Available at: https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/learning-hub/research-data-management (accessed November 3, 2021).Google Scholar
Villaronga, E. F., Kieseberg, P., & Li, T. (2018). Humans forget, machines remember: Artificial intelligence and the right to be forgotten. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 304–313.Google Scholar
Wible, J. R. (2016). Scientific misconduct and the responsible conduct of research in science and economics. Review of Social Economy, 74(1), 7–32.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, T. M. (2002). Last rights: The ethics of research on the dead. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 19(1), 31–41.Google Scholar
Zimbardo, P. G., Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Jaffe, D. (1971). The Stanford prison experiment. Available at: https://web.stanford.edu/dept/spec_coll/uarch/exhibits/Narration.pdf.Google Scholar

References

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76, 76–87.Google Scholar
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood–creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012815Google Scholar
Bahns, A. J., Crandall, C. S., Gillath, O., & Preacher, K. J. (2017). Similarity in relationships as niche construction: Choice, stability, and influence within dyads in a free choice environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 329–355.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E. (1992). A glance back at a quarter century of social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.525Google Scholar
Beveridge, W. I. B. (1957). The Art of Scientific Investigation. Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1974). Evolutionary epistemology. In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper (vol. 1, pp. 413–463). Open Court.Google Scholar
Casadevall, A. & Fang, F. C. (2016). Rigorous science: A how-to guide. mBio, 7, e01902–e01916. https://doi.org/10.1128/MBIO.01902-16Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (1980). Full-cycle social psychology. In Bickman, L. (ed.), Applied Social Psychology Annual, Volume 1 (pp. 21–47). SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Business.Google Scholar
Clark, L. A. & Watson, D. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31, 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Happiness and creativity. The Futurist, 31, S8–S12.Google Scholar
Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 309–344.Google Scholar
Dialogue (2002). Which scientific problem to pursue? Eminent social/personality psychologists reveal their secrets of scientific success to the editors of Dialogue. Dialogue, 17(2), 12–15. https://spsp.org/sites/default/files/dialogue172.pdfGoogle Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. New Left.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2017). What constitutes strong psychological science? The (neglected) role of diagnosticity and a priori theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616654458Google Scholar
García Márquez, G. (1995). Of Love and Other Demons. Knopf. (Originally published as Del amor y otros demonios by Mondadori. Translated by Edith Grossman.)Google Scholar
Gervais, W. M. (2021). Practical methodological reform needs good theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 827–843. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620977471Google Scholar
Grahek, I., Schaller, M., & Tackett, J. L. (2021). Anatomy of a psychological theory: Integrating construct validation and computational modeling methods to advance theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966794Google Scholar
Gray, K. (2017). How to map theory: Reliable methods are fruitless without rigorous theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 731–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617691949Google Scholar
Gray, K. & Wegner, D. M. (2013). Six guidelines for interesting research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 549–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613497967CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grene, M. (1985). Perception, interpretation, and the sciences. In Depew, D. J & Weber, B. H (eds.), Evolution at a Crossroads: The New Biology and the New Philosophy of Science. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jaremka, L. M., Ackerman, J. M., Gawronski, B., et al. (2020). Common academic experiences no one talks about: Repeated rejection, impostor syndrome, and burnout. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 519–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619898848CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, S. B. (2014). What can recent replication failures tell us about the theoretical commitments of psychology? Theory & Psychology, 24, 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354314529616Google Scholar
Lam, T. W. H. & Chiu, C.-Y. (2002). The motivational function of regulatory focus in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2002.tb01061.xGoogle Scholar
Leung, A. K.-Y., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.169CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Maddux, W. W. & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1047–1061. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014861CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGuire, W. J. (1997). Creative hypothesis generating in psychology: Some useful heuristics. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.1Google Scholar
Morewedge, C. K., Shu, L. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2009). Bad riddance or good rubbish: Ownership and not loss aversion cause the endowment effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 947–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.05.014Google Scholar
Murray, D. R. & Schaller, M. (2016). The behavioral immune system: Implications for social cognition, social interaction, and social influence. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 75–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthukrishna, M. & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behavior, 3, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (2019). Scientific progress. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/scientific-progress/.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. (1990). The anti-creativity letters: Advice from a senior tempter to a junior tempter. American Psychologist, 45, 1078–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noah, T., Schul, Y., & Mayo, R. (2018). When both the original study and its failed replication are correct: Feeling observed eliminates the facial-feedback effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(5), 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000121Google Scholar
Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1596–1618. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2Google Scholar
Perry-Smith, J. & Mannucci, P. V. (2015). Social networks, creativity, and entrepreneurship. In Shalley, C. E., Hitt, M. A., & Zhou, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship (pp. 205–224). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1959/2005). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge. (Originally published in 1934 as Logik der Forschung by Verlag von Julius Springer.)Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Keagan Paul.Google Scholar
Root-Bernstein, R. & Root-Bernstein, M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (eds.), Creativity: From Potential to Realization (pp. 127–151). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Schaller, M. (2016). The empirical benefits of conceptual rigor: Systematic articulation of conceptual hypotheses can reduce the risk of non-replicable results (and facilitate novel discoveries too). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (2019). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. Appleton-Century. (First published by Appleton-Century Company in 1938).Google Scholar
Smaldino, P. E. (2017). Models are stupid, and we need more of them. In Vallacher, R., Read, S., & Nowak, A. (eds.), Computational Social Psychology (pp. 311–331). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315173726-14Google Scholar
Smaldino, P. E. (2020). How to translate a verbal theory into a formal model. Social Psychology, 51, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000425Google Scholar
Sosa, M. E. (2011). Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks. Organization Science, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0519Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. & Fiske, S. T. (2019) Interview with Shelley E. Taylor. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-041818-040645Google Scholar
Thagard, P. R. (1978). Why astrology is pseudoscience, PSA, 1, 223–234.Google Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). What we should expect from theories in social psychology: Truth, abstraction, progress, and applicability as standards (TAPAS). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312453088Google Scholar
Whillans, A. V., Weidman, A. C., & Dunn, E. W. (2016). Valuing time over money is associated with greater happiness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615623842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yong, E. (2012). Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature, 485, 298–300.Google Scholar

References

Boote, D. N. & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, C. S. (1994). Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 217–229.Google Scholar
Cooper, H. M. (1984). The Integrative Research Review: A Systematic Approach. Sage.Google Scholar
Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge synthesis: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1, 104–126.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. (2015). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 5th ed. Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
Galvan, J. (2006). Writing Literature Reviews: A Guide for Students of the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed. Pyrczak Publishing.Google Scholar
Garrard, J. (2017). Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy: The Matrix Method. Jones and Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. Sage.Google Scholar
Heinrich, K. T. (2001). Mind-mapping: A successful technique for organizing a literature review. Nurse Author & Editor, 11(2), 7–8.Google Scholar
Hochrein, S. & Glock, C. (2012). Systematic literature reviews in purchasing and supply management research: A tertiary study. International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, 7(4), 215–245.Google Scholar
Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques. Sage.Google Scholar
Krathwohl, D. R. (1998). Methods of Educational and Social Science Research: An Integrated Approach, 2nd ed. Longman.Google Scholar
Levy, Y. & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9, 181–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyden, J. R., Zickmund, S. L., Bhargava, T. D., et al. (2013). Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality, 35(5), 47–57.Google Scholar
McCabe, T. (2005) How to conduct an effective literature search. Nursing Standard, 20(11), 41–47.Google Scholar
Mertler, C. A. & Charles, C. M. (2011). Introduction to Educational Research. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols. System Review, 4, article1.Google Scholar
Nobre, M. R, Bernardo, W. M., & Jatene, F. B. (2003). Evidence based clinical practice. Part 1 – well-structured clinical questions. Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira, 49(4), 445–9.Google Scholar
Oliver, P. (2012). Succeeding with Your Literature Review: A Handbook for Students. Hill Education.Google Scholar
Rhoades, E. A. (2011). Literature reviews. The Volta Review, 111(1), 61–71.Google Scholar
Rowley, J. & Slack, F. (2004). Conducting a literature review. Management Research News, 27(4), 31–39.Google Scholar
Siddiqi, S. & Sharan, A., (2015). Keyword and keyphrase extraction techniques: A literature review. International Journal of Computer Applications, 109(2), 18–23.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11, 221–233.Google Scholar
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.Google Scholar
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Torraco, J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples, Human Resource Development Review, 4, 356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J. & Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.Google Scholar

References

Archer, J. & Lloyd, B. (2002). Sex and Gender. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bakker, J. I. (2010). Interpretivism. Encyclopaedia of Case Study Research, 1, 486–493.Google Scholar
Bell, D. M. & Pahl, K. (2018). Co-production: Towards a utopian approach. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(1), 105–117.Google Scholar
Blaikie, N. & Priest, J. (2019). Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2014). Thematic analysis. In t. Teo (ed.). Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology (pp. 1947–1952). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Breakwell, G. M. (2014). The Psychology of Risk. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breakwell, G. M. & Fife-Schaw, C. R. (1994). Using longitudinal cohort sequential designs to study changes in sexual behaviour. In Boulton, M. (ed.), Challenge and Innovation: Methodological Advances in Social Research on HIV/AIDS (pp. 25–38). Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Breakwell, G. M., Wright, D. B., & Barnett, J. (2020) Research questions, design, strategy and choice of methods. In Breakwell, G. M., Wright, D. B., & Barnett, J. (eds.), Research Methods in Psychology, 5th ed. (pp. 1–30). Sage.Google Scholar
Doise, W. & Valentim, J. P. (2015). Levels of analysis in social psychology. In Wright, J. D. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 899–903). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fife-Schaw, C. (2020). Quasi-experimental designs (including observational methods). In Breakwell, G. M., Wright, D. B., & Barnett, J. (eds.), Research Methods in Psychology, 5th ed. (pp. 161–180). Sage,Google Scholar
Gaito, J. (1980). Measurement scales and statistics: Resurgence of an old misconception. Psychological Bulletin, 87(3), 564–567.Google Scholar
Hole, G. (2020). Experimental design. In Breakwell, G. M., Wright, D. B., & Barnett, J. (eds.), Research Methods in Psychology, 5th ed. (pp. 182–216). Sage.Google Scholar
Jaspal, R. (2020). Content analysis, thematic analysis and discourse analysis. In Breakwell, G. M., Wright, D. B., & Barnett, J. (eds.), Research Methods in Psychology, 5th ed. (pp. 285–312). Sage.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A. & Errington, T. M. (2020). What is replication? PLoS Biol 18(3), e3000691. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691.Google Scholar
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counselling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52(2), 126.Google Scholar
Rylance, R. (2015) Grant giving: Global funders to focus on interdisciplinarity. Nature News, 525(7569), 313.Google Scholar
Semino, E. (2017). Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In Dancygier, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 463–476). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Braun, W. & White, H. J. (1953). The Mars Project. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and Health, 15(2), 215–228.Google Scholar

References

Aberson, C. L. (2019). Applied Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Anscombe, F. J. (1954). Fixed-sample-size analysis of sequential observations. Biometrics, 10, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001665Google Scholar
Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66(6), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020412Google Scholar
Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459060CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., van Assen, M. A. L. M., et al. (2020). Ensuring the quality and specificity of preregistrations. PLOS Biology, 18(12), e3000937. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000937Google Scholar
Barnard, G. A. (1946). Sequential tests in industrial statistics. Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 8(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/2983610Google Scholar
Bredenkamp, J. (1972). Der Signifikanztest in der psychologischen Forschung [The Test of Significance in Psychological Research]. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Bredenkamp, J. (1980). Theorie und Planung psychologischer Experimente [Theory and Planning of Psychological Experiments]. Steinkopff.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(16), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brysbaert, M. & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040950Google Scholar
Campbell, J. I. D. & Thompson, V. A. (2012). MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 1255–1265. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0Google Scholar
Chambers, C. D. & Tzavella, L. (2020). The past, present, and future of registered reports [Preprint]. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/43298Google Scholar
Champely, S. (2020). pwr: Basic functions for power analysis [Manual]. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cooper, E. H. & Pantle, A. J. (1967). The total-time hypothesis in verbal learning. Psychological Bulletin, 68(4), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025052Google Scholar
Craik, F. I. M. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-XGoogle Scholar
Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966Google Scholar
Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70(3), 193–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044139Google Scholar
Erdfelder, E. (1984). Zur Bedeutung und Kontrolle des beta-Fehlers bei der inferenzstatistischen Prüfung log-linearer Modelle [On importance and control of beta errors in statistical tests of log-linear models]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 15, 18–32.Google Scholar
Erdfelder, E. (1994). Erzeugung und Verwendung empirischer Daten [Generation and Use of Empirical Data]. In Herrmann, T. & Tack, W. (eds.), Methodologische Grundlagen der Psychologie (Vol. 1, pp. 47–97). Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Erdfelder, E. & Bredenkamp, J. (1994). Hypothesenprüfung [Hypothesis Testing]. In Herrmann, T. & Tack, W. (eds.), Methodologische Grundlagen der Psychologie (Vol. 1, pp. 604–648). Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203630Google Scholar
Falk, A. & Heckman, J. J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326(5952), 535–538. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1168244Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, E. D. & Deardorff, A. (2017). Open Science Framework (OSF). Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(2), 203–206. https://doi.org/10.5195/JMLA.2017.88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, Q., Hoijtink, H., & Moerbeek, M. (2021). Sample-size determination for the Bayesian t test and Welch’s test using the approximate adjusted fractional Bayes factor. Behavior Research Methods, 53(1), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01408-1Google Scholar
Gelman, A. & Carlin, J. (2014). Beyond power calculations: Assessing type S (sign) and type M (magnitude) errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 641–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614551642Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (1993). The superego, the ego, and the id in statistical reasoning. In Keren, G. & Lewis, C. (eds.), A Handbook for Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences (pp. 311–339). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Mindless statistics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 33(5), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.033Google Scholar
Green, P., & MacLeod, C. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, W., Bröder, A., & Erdfelder, E. (2013). Result-blind peer reviews and editorial decisions: A missing pillar of scientific culture. European Psychologist, 18(4), 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000144Google Scholar
Guven, C. & Lee, W.-S. (2015). Height, aging and cognitive abilities across Europe. Economics & Human Biology, 16, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2013.12.005Google Scholar
Hays, W. L. (1963). Statistics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Heck, D. W. & Erdfelder, E. (2019). Maximizing the expected information gain of cognitive modeling via design optimization. Computational Brain & Behavior, 2(3–4), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-019-00035-0Google Scholar
Highhouse, S. & Gillespie, J. Z. (2009). Do samples really matter that much? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (eds.), Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Doctrine, Verity and Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences (pp. 247–265). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Jager, J., Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2017). More than just convenient: The scientific merits of homogeneous convenience samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(2), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12296Google Scholar
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2013). Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 573–603. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029146Google Scholar
Kumle, L., Võ, M. L.-H., & Draschkow, D. (2021). Estimating power in (generalized) linear mixed models: An open introduction and tutorial in R. Behavior Research Methods, 53, 2528–2543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01546-0Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakens, D. (2021). The practical alternative to the p value is the correctly used p value. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(3), 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620958012Google Scholar
Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), 33267. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakens, D. & Caldwell, A. R. (2021). Simulation-based power analysis for factorial analysis of variance designs. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 251524592095150. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920951503Google Scholar
Lakens, D., Adolfi, F. G., Albers, C. J., et al. (2018). Justify your alpha. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(3), 168–171. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0311-xGoogle Scholar
Lakens, D., Pahlke, F., & Wassmer, G. (2021). Group sequential designs: A tutorial [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/x4azmGoogle Scholar
Landers, R. N. & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, mechanical turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 142–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.13Google Scholar
Leatherdale, S. T. (2019). Natural experiment methodology for research: A review of how different methods can support real-world research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1488449Google Scholar
Lin, H., Werner, K. M., & Inzlicht, M. (2021). Promises and perils of experimentation: The mutual-internal-validity problem. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 854–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620974773CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayo, D. G. (2018). Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: How to Get Beyond the Statistics Wars. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meiser, T. (2011). Much pain, little gain? Paradigm-specific models and methods in experimental psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611400241CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. & Ulrich, R. (2020). A simple, general, and efficient method for sequential hypothesis testing: The independent segments procedure. Psychological Methods, 26(4), 486–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000350Google Scholar
Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., Verhagen, J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). Why hypothesis tests are essential for psychological science: A comment on Cumming (2014). Psychological Science, 25, 1289–1290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614525969Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114Google Scholar
Pashler, H. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253Google Scholar
Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., & Costantini, G. (2014). Safeguard power as a protection against imprecise power estimates. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528519Google Scholar
Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., & Costantini, G. (2018). A practical primer to power analysis for simple experimental designs. International Review of Social Psychology, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 3rd ed. Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Reiber, F., Schnuerch, M., & Ulrich, R. (2020). Improving the efficiency of surveys with randomized response models: A sequential approach based on curtailed sampling. Psychological Methods, 27(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000353CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11656-000Google Scholar
Roberts, S. & Pashler, H. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107(2), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.358Google Scholar
Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2016). The interplay between subjectivity, statistical practice, and psychological science. Collabra, 2, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.28Google Scholar
Rouder, J. N., Schnuerch, M., Haaf, J. M., & Morey, R. D. (2022). Principles of model specification in ANOVA designs. Computational Brain & Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-022-00132-7Google Scholar
Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R. & Larson, J. Jr. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Volume 1, 2nd ed. (pp. 419–489). Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Sagarin, B. J., Ambler, J. K., & Lee, E. M. (2014). An ethical approach to peeking at data. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528214Google Scholar
Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J., & Lakens, D. (2021). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 251524592110074. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467Google Scholar
Schimmack, U. (2020). A meta-psychological perspective on the decade of replication failures in social psychology. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 61(4), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000246Google Scholar
Schnuerch, M. & Erdfelder, E. (2020). Controlling decision errors with minimal costs: The sequential probability ratio t test. Psychological Methods, 25(2), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000234Google Scholar
Schnuerch, M., Erdfelder, E., & Heck, D. W. (2020). Sequential hypothesis tests for multinomial processing tree models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 95, 102326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2020.102326Google Scholar
Schönbrodt, F. D. & Stefan, A. M. (2019). BFDA: An R package for Bayes factor design analysis (version 0.5.0) [Manual]. Available at: https://github.com/nicebread/BFDA.Google Scholar
Schönbrodt, F. D., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Zehetleitner, M., & Perugini, M. (2017). Sequential hypothesis testing with Bayes factors: Efficiently testing mean differences. Psychological Methods, 22(2), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000061Google Scholar
Schram, A. (2005). Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780500086081Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632Google Scholar
Ulrich, R., Miller, J., & Erdfelder, E. (2018). Effect size estimation from t-statistics in the presence of publication bias: A brief review of existing approaches with some extensions. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 226, 56–80. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000319Google Scholar
Vanpaemel, W. (2010). Prior sensitivity in theory testing: An apologia for the Bayes factor. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54(6), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2010.07.003Google Scholar
Vanpaemel, W. & Lee, M. D. (2012). Using priors to formalize theory: Optimal attention and the generalized context model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(6), 1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0300-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463078Google Scholar
Wald, A. (1947). Sequential Analysis. Wiley.Google Scholar
Wetherill, G. B. (1975). Sequential Methods in Statistics, 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar

Further Reading

Most of the material this chapter is common to all recent accounts of statistical analysis in the social sciences. We therefore have not provided references in the text. However, an interested reader will wish for pointers to more reading. The following texts are recommended for more in-depth accounts of many of the topics covered:

Barford, N.C. (1985). Experimental Measurements: Precision, Error and Truth, 2nd ed. Wiley.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the New Statistics. Routledge.Google Scholar
Edlund, J & Nichols, A.L (2019). Advanced Research Methods for the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Efron, B. & Hastie, T. (2016). Computer Age Statistical Inference. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-Analysis, and the Interpretation of Research Results. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hand, D. J. (2008). Statistics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Stegier, J. H. (eds.) (2016). What If There Were No Significance Testing? Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, B. (2018). A Student’s Guide to Bayesian Statistics. Sage.Google Scholar
Pawitan, Y. (2013). In All Likelihood. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple general purpose display of magnitude and experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166–169.Google Scholar
Rosnow, R. L. & Rosenthal, R. (1997). People Studying People: Artefacts and Ethics in Behavioural Research. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Watt, R. J. & Collins, E. C. (2019). Statistics for Psychology: A Guide for Beginners. Sage.Google Scholar

References

Amabile, T. M. (1983). Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(2), 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90034-3Google Scholar
Baglione, L. A. (2020). Writing a Research Paper in Political Science: A Practical Guide to Inquiry, Structure, & Methods, 4th ed. Sage.Google Scholar
Becker, H. S. (2008). Above all, write with clarity and precision. Sociological Inquiry, 78(3), 412–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00247.xGoogle Scholar
Becker, H. S. (2020). Writing for Social Scientists, 3rd ed. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bem, D. J. (1987). Writing the empirical journal article. In Zanna, M. P. & Darley, J. M. (eds.), The Compleat Academic (pp. 171–201). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bem, D. J. (2000). Writing an empirical article. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), Guide to Publishing in Psychology Journals (pp. 3–16). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bem, D. J. (2004). Writing the empirical journal article. In Darley, J. M., Zanna, M. P., & Roediger, H. L. (eds.), The Compleat Academic, 2nd ed. (pp. 185–220). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Boice, R. (1993). Writing blocks and tacit knowledge. Journal of Higher Education, 64(1), 19–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1993.11778407Google Scholar
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017868Google Scholar
Chai, P. R., Carreiro, S., Carey, J. L., et al. (2019). Faculty member writing groups support productivity. The Clinical Teacher, 16(6), 565–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12923Google Scholar
Dovidio, J. F. (2010). Publishing myths. Dialogue, 25(1), 8–9.Google Scholar
Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. (2007). Communicating basic behavioral science beyond the discipline: Reflections from social psychology. In Welch-Ross, M. & Fasig, L. G. (eds.), Handbook on Communicating and Disseminating Behavioral Science (pp. 93–110). Sage.Google Scholar
Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2020). Confirmatory bias in peer review. Scientometrics, 123, 517–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03357-0Google Scholar
Grant, H. & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Personal Psychology, 85(3), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, S. A., Halpern, D. F., & Tan, S. J. (2007). Beyond university walls: Communicating and disseminating science outside the academy. In Welch-Ross, M. & Fasig, L. G. (eds.), Handbook on Communicating and Disseminating Behavioral Science (pp. 111–127). Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152XGoogle Scholar
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4Google Scholar
Kim, K. & Johnson, M. K. (2015). Distinct neural networks support the mere ownership effect under different motivational contexts. Social Neuroscience, 10(4), 376–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2014.999870Google Scholar
Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978020301049Google Scholar
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784Google Scholar
Moore, D. A. & Schatz, D. (2017). The three faces of overconfidence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11, e12331. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12331Google Scholar
Morewedge, C. K. & Giblin, C. E. (2015). Explanations of the endowment effect: An integrative review. Trends in Cognitive Science, 19(6), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.004Google Scholar
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2019). Psychology’s renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Beck, E. D., Campbell, L., et al. (2019). Preregistration is hard, and worthwhile. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10), 815–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.009Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12(6), 238–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014Google Scholar
Petty, R. E. & Brinol, P. (2011). The elaboration likelihood model. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (eds.), Handbook of Theories in Social Psychology, Volume 1 (pp. 224–245). Sage.Google Scholar
Rocco, T. S. & Hatcher, T. (2011). The Handbook of Scholarly Writing and Publishing. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. III (2007). Twelve tips for authors. APS Observer. Available at: www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/twelve-tips-for-authors.Google Scholar
Simmons, J., Nelson, L., & Simonsohn, U. (2010). A 21-word solution. Dialogue, 26(2), 4–7.Google Scholar
Simmons, J., Nelson, L., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632Google Scholar
Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1993). How to win acceptances by psychology journals: 21 tips for better writing. APS Observer. Available at: www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/how-to-win-acceptances-by-psychology-journals-21-tips-for-better-writing.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. & Sternberg, K. (2010). A Psychologist’s Companion: A Guide to Writing Scientific Papers for Students and Researchers, 5th ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, W. (2019). Good Habits, Bad Habits: The Science of Making Positive Changes That Stick. Picador.Google Scholar