Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Why psychology is in peril as a scientific discipline - and how to save it. Psychological science has made extraordinary discoveries about the human mind, but can we trust everything its practitioners are telling us? In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that a lot of research in psychology is based on weak evidence, questionable practices, and sometimes even fraud. The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology diagnoses the ills besetting the discipline today and proposes sensible, practical solutions to ensure that it remains a legitimate and reliable science in the years ahead. In this unflinchingly candid manifesto, Chris Chambers draws on his own experiences as a working scientist to reveal a dark side to psychology that few of us ever see. Using the seven deadly sins as a metaphor, he shows how practitioners are vulnerable to powerful biases that undercut the scientific method, how they routinely torture data until it produces outcomes that can be published in prestigious journals, and how studies are much less reliable than advertised. He reveals how a culture of secrecy denies the public and other researchers access to the results of psychology experiments, how fraudulent academics can operate with impunity, and how an obsession with bean counting creates perverse incentives for academics. Left unchecked, these problems threaten the very future of psychology as a science - but help is here. Outlining a core set of best practices that can be applied across the sciences, Chambers demonstrates how all these sins can be corrected by embracing open science, an emerging philosophy that seeks to make research and its outcomes as transparent as possible.

Psychology --- Psychologie --- Research --- Methodology --- Recherche --- Méthodologie --- Psychology, Clinical. --- Methodology. --- Research. --- Philosophy of science --- Méthodologie --- Recherche. --- Méthodologie. --- Psychological research --- Psychology, Clinical --- Academic publishing. --- Adversarial collaboration. --- Alzheimer's disease. --- Ambiguity. --- American Psychological Association. --- Article processing charge. --- Author. --- Bayes' theorem. --- Bayesian. --- Blog. --- Calculation. --- Career. --- Center for Open Science. --- Cherry picking. --- Cognitive psychology. --- Confirmation bias. --- Counting. --- Criticism. --- Data set. --- Data. --- Edition (book). --- Editorial. --- Effect size. --- Estimation. --- Experiment. --- Experimental psychology. --- Explanation. --- Fallacy. --- False positive rate. --- Finding. --- Fraud. --- Funding. --- Guideline. --- Hypothetico-deductive model. --- Impact factor. --- Independent scientist. --- Institution. --- Jargon. --- John Bargh. --- Law of small numbers. --- Literature. --- Manuscript. --- Meta-analysis. --- Misconduct. --- Narrative. --- Null hypothesis. --- Open science. --- P-value. --- PLOS ONE. --- PLOS. --- Paperback. --- Participant. --- Paywall. --- Peer review. --- Percentage. --- Post hoc analysis. --- Postdoctoral researcher. --- Precognition. --- Prevalence. --- Probability. --- Psychiatry. --- Psychological Science. --- Psychological research. --- Psychologist. --- Psychology. --- Psychonomic Society. --- Publication bias. --- Publication. --- Publishing. --- Quantity. --- Raw data. --- Reprimand. --- Reproducibility. --- Reputation. --- Requirement. --- Result. --- Reuse. --- Sample Size. --- Sampling (statistics). --- Science. --- Scientific literature. --- Scientific method. --- Scientific misconduct. --- Scientist. --- Scrutiny (journal). --- Scrutiny. --- Sharing. --- Signature. --- Social psychology. --- Statistical hypothesis testing. --- Statistical power. --- Statistical significance. --- Statistician. --- Statistics. --- Suggestion. --- Tilburg University. --- Type I and type II errors. --- Whistleblower. --- Writing. --- Méthodologie.