The current crisis in psychological research involves issues of fraud, replication, publication bias, and false positive results. I argue that this crisis follows the failure of widely adopted solutions to psychology’s similar crisis of the 1970s. The untouched root cause is an information-economic one: Too many studies divided by too few publication outlets equals a bottleneck. Articles cannot pass through just by showing theoretical meaning and methodological rigor; their results must appear to support the hypothesis perfectly. Consequently, psychologists must master the art of presenting perfect-looking results just to survive in the profession. This favors aesthetic criteria of presentation in a way that harms science’s search for truth. Shallow standards of statistical perfection distort analyses and undermine the accuracy of cumulative data; narrative expectations encourage dishonesty about the relationship between results and hypotheses; criteria of novelty suppress replication attempts. Concerns about truth in research are emerging in other sciences and may eventually descend on our heads in the form of difficult and insensitive regulations. I suggest a more palatable solution: to open the bottleneck, putting structures in place to reward broader forms of information sharing beyond the exquisite art of present-day journal publication.
BakkerM.van DijkA.WichertsJ. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554.
2.
BegleyC. G.EllisL. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483, 531–533.
3.
BemD. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425.
4.
BonesA. K. (2012). We knew the future all along: Scientific hypothesizing is much more accurate than other forms of precognition—A satire in one part. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 307–309.
5.
BornmannL.MarxW. (2012). The Anna Karenina principle: A way of thinking about success in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 2037–2051.
6.
BowerG. H.MayerJ. D. (1985). Failure to replicate mood-dependent retrieval. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 39–42.
7.
CasadevallA.FangF.MorrisonR. P. (2012). Reforming science: Methodological and cultural reforms. Infection and Immunity, 80, 891–896.
8.
CarpenterD. (2007). Institutional review boards, regulatory incentives, and some modest proposals for reform. Northwestern University Law Review, 101, 687–706.
9.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.
10.
ChamberlinJ. (2000). A student publishing tradition. APA Monitor, 31, 36.
11.
CohenJ. (1994). The earth is round (p < . 05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.
12.
CollinsH. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London, England: Sage.
13.
DastonL.GalisonP. (1992). The image of objectivity. Representations, 40, 81–128.
14.
DiracP. A. M. (1963). The evolution of the physicist’s picture of nature. Scientific American, 208, 45–53.
15.
EcoU. (1985). Innovation and repetition: Between modern and post-modern aesthetics. Daedalus, 114, 161–184.
16.
ElmsA. C. (1975). The crisis of confidence in social psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 967–976.
17.
EnglerG. (1990). Aesthetics in science and in art. British Journal of Aesthetics, 30, 24–34.
18.
EpsteinS. (1980). The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psychological research. American Psychologist, 35, 790–806.
19.
FrancisG. (2012). Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 1–6.
20.
GigerenzerG. (2004). Mindless statistics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 587–606.
21.
GillieO. (1977). Did Sir Cyril Burt fake his research on heritability of intelligence? Part I. The Phi Delta Kappan, 58, 469–471.
22.
GreenwaldA. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 1–20.
23.
GriceJ. W.SeelyE. (2000). The evolution of sex differences in jealousy: Failure to replicate previous results. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 348–356.
24.
HurlbertS. H.LombardiC. M. (2009). Final collapse of the Neyman-Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 46, 311–349.
25.
IoannidisJ. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124.
26.
IoannidisJ. P. A.TrikalinosT. A. (2007). An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clinical Trials, 4, 245–253.
JudsonH. F. (2004). The great betrayal: Fraud in science. London, England: Harcourt.
29.
KaiserC. R. (2012). Campaign for real data. Dialogue, 26, 8–10.
30.
KerrN. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.
31.
KlauerK. C.MuschJ. (2001). Does sunshine prime loyal? Affective priming in the naming task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 54, 727–751.
32.
LeBelE. P.PetersK. R. (2011). Fearing the future of empirical psychology: Bem’s (2011) evidence of psi as a case study of deficiencies in modal research practice. Review of General Psychology, 15, 371–379.
33.
LedgerwoodA.ShermanJ. W. (2012). Short, sweet, and problematic? The rise of the short report in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 60–66.
34.
LombardiC. M.HurlbertS. H. (2009). Misprescription and misuse of one-tailed tests. Austral Ecology, 34, 447–468.
35.
LykkenD. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151–159.
36.
MackintoshN. J. (Ed.). (1995). Cyril Burt: Fraud or framed?Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
37.
MillerN.PollockV. E. (1994a). Meta-analysis and some science-compromising problems of social psychology. In ShadishW. R.FullerS. (Eds.), The social psychology of science (pp. 230–261). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
38.
MillerN.PollockV. E. (1994b). Meta-analytic synthesis for theory development. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 457–483). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
PenningtonN.HastieR. (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The Story Model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519–557.
41.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.
42.
PrinzF.SchlangeT.AsadullahK. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?Nature Reviews: Drug Discovery, 10, 712.
43.
Quiñones-VidalE.López-GarcíaJ. J.Peñaranda-OrtegaM.Tortosa-GilF. (2004). The nature of social and personality psychology as reflected in JPSP: 1965-2000. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 435–452.
44.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382.
45.
ReisH. T.StillerJ. (1992). Publication trends in JPSP: A three-decade review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 465–472.
46.
RhodesG. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.
47.
RitchieS. J.WisemanR.FrenchC. C. (2012). Replication, replication, replication. The Psychologist, 25, 346–348.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1969). Artifact in behavioral research. New York, NY: Academic Press.
50.
RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (Eds.). (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
51.
SamelsonF. (1980). JB Watson’s Little Albert, Cyril Burt’s twins, and the need for a critical science. American Psychologist, 35, 619–625.
52.
SamelsonF. (1997). What to do about fraud charges in science; or, will the Burt affair ever end?Genetica, 99, 145–151.
53.
SapolskyA. (1964). An effort at studying Rorschach content symbolism: The frog response. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 469–472.
54.
SarewitzD. (2012). Beware the creeping cracks of bias. Nature, 485, 149.
55.
SayetteM. A.LoewensteinG.GriffinK. M.BlackJ. J. (2008). Exploring the cold-to-hot empathy gap in smokers. Psychological Science, 19, 926–932.
56.
ShermanR. C.BuddieA. M.DraganK. L.EndC. M.FinneyL. J. (1999). Twenty years of PSPB: Trends in content, design, and analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 177–187.
57.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False- ositive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.
58.
SluckinW.HargreavesD. J.ColmanA. M. (1983). Novelty and human aesthetic preferences. In ArcherJ.BirkeL. (Eds.), Exploration in animals and humans (pp. 245–269). Wokingham, England: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
SterlingT. D.RosenbaumW. L.WeinkamJ. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. American Statistician, 49, 108–112.
61.
SturmT.MülbergerA. (2012). Crisis discussions in psychology: New historical and philosophical perspectives. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 425–433.
62.
TurnerE. H.MatthewsA. M.LinardatosE.TellR. A.RosenthalR. (2008). Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 252–260.
63.
VossJ. F.WileyJ.SandakR. (1999). On the use of narrative as argument. In GoldmanS. R.GraesserA. C.van den BroekP. W. (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 235–252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
64.
WagenmakersE. J.WetzelsR.BorsboomD.van der MaasH. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 426–432.
65.
WickerA. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41–78.
66.
WilkinsonL., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.
