Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T18:54:11.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consensus meetings will outperform integrative experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

Maximilian A. Primbs Open the ORCID record for Maximilian A. Primbs [Opens in a new window] ,
Leonie A. Dudda Open the ORCID record for Leonie A. Dudda [Opens in a new window] ,
Pia K. Andresen Open the ORCID record for Pia K. Andresen [Opens in a new window] ,
Erin M. Buchanan Open the ORCID record for Erin M. Buchanan [Opens in a new window] ,
Hannah K. Peetz Open the ORCID record for Hannah K. Peetz [Opens in a new window] ,
Miguel Silan Open the ORCID record for Miguel Silan [Opens in a new window]  and
Daniël Lakens Open the ORCID record for Daniël Lakens [Opens in a new window]
Maximilian A. Primbs
Affiliation:
Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands max.primbs@ru.nl hannah.peetz@ru.nl, https://max-primbs.netlify.app/
Leonie A. Dudda
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands l.a.dudda@umcutrecht.nl University Medical Center Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Pia K. Andresen
Affiliation:
Department of Methodology & Statistics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands p.k.andresen@uu.nl
Erin M. Buchanan
Affiliation:
Harrisburg University of Science and Technology, Harrisburg, PA, USA ebuchanan@harrisburgu.edu, https://www.aggieerin.com/
Hannah K. Peetz
Affiliation:
Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands max.primbs@ru.nl hannah.peetz@ru.nl, https://max-primbs.netlify.app/
Miguel Silan
Affiliation:
Annecy Behavioral Science Lab, Menthon Saint Bernard, France MiguelSilan@gmail.com Développement, individu, processus, handicap, éducation (DIPHE), Université Lumière Lyon 2, Bron Cedex, France
Daniël Lakens*
Affiliation:
Human–Technology Interaction Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands D.Lakens@tue.nl, https://sites.google.com/site/lakens2
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We expect that consensus meetings, where researchers come together to discuss their theoretical viewpoints, prioritize the factors they agree are important to study, standardize their measures, and determine a smallest effect size of interest, will prove to be a more efficient solution to the lack of coordination and integration of claims in science than integrative experiments.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e56
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.)

References

Coles, N. A., March, D. S., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Larsen, J. T., Arinze, N. C., Ndukaihe, I. L. G., … Liuzza, M. T. (2022). A multi-lab test of the facial feedback hypothesis by the Many Smiles Collaboration. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(12), 1731–1742. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01458-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511524059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M., & Brook, R. H. (1984). Consensus methods: Characteristics and guidelines for use. American Journal of Public Health, 74(9), 979–983. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.74.9.979CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glymour, C., Zhang, K., & Spirtes, P. (2019). Review of causal discovery methods based on graphical models. Frontiers in Genetics, 10, 524. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00524CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamaker, E. L., Mulder, J. D., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2020). Description, prediction and causation: Methodological challenges of studying child and adolescent development. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 46, 100867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100867CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orben, A., & Lakens, D. (2020). Crud (re)defined. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(2), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920917961CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearl, J. (1995). Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika, 82(4), 669–688. https://doi.org/10.2307/2337329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primbs, M. A., Pennington, C. R., Lakens, D., Silan, M. A. A., Lieck, D. S. N., & Forscher, P. S., … Westwood, S. J. (2023). Are small effects the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science? A reply to Götz et al. (2022). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(2), 508–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221100420CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Primbs, M. A., Rinck, M., Holland, R., Knol, W., Nies, A., & Bijlstra, G. (2022). The effect of face masks on the stereotype effect in emotion perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 103, Article 104394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shmueli, G. (2010). To explain or to predict? Statistical Science, 25(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-sts330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steegen, S., Tuerlinckx, F., Gelman, A., & Vanpaemel, W. (2016). Increasing transparency through a multiverse analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 702–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616658637CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vohs, K. D., Schmeichel, B. J., Lohmann, S., Gronau, Q. F., Finley, A. J., Ainsworth, S. E., … Albarracín, D. (2021). A multisite preregistered paradigmatic test of the ego-depletion effect. Psychological Science, 32(10), 1566–1581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797621989733CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed