Scientific progress relies on the dialectics of loosening and tightening processes. Although most gripping accomplishments in psychological science testify to the critical role of creative and innovative theorizing (loosening), the ongoing debate on the quality of psychological science is focused almost totally on a restrictive sense of tightening, revolving around statistical hypothesis testing (tightening). A discussion of the imbalance between the conspicuous neglect of theory and the overstated importance of the sacred cow of significance testing raises a skeptical question: Do we seriously believe that stricter compliance rules, exact p values, effect size calculations, new statistics, and monitoring of research practices will foster the growth of excellent science? A more effective strategy would be to start a positive debate that focuses on the best exemplars of strong theorizing and fascinating findings, replacing the focus on insufficient science and unwanted practices.
CampbellD. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400.
2.
CialdiniR. B. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72, 263–268.
3.
CraikF. I.LockhartR. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
4.
DasguptaS. (2004). Is creativity a Darwinian process?Creativity Research Journal, 16, 403–413.
5.
EarpB. D.TrafimowD. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 621. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621
6.
ErevI.WallstenT. S.BudescuD. V. (1994). Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psychological Review, 101, 519–527.
7.
FiedlerK. (2004). Tools, toys, truisms, and theories: Some thoughts on the creative cycle of theory formation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 123–131.
8.
FiedlerK. (2017). What constitutes strong psychological science? The (neglected) role of diagnosticity and a priori theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 46–61.
9.
FiedlerK.HarrisC.SchottM. (2018). Unwarranted inferences from statistical mediation tests—An analysis of articles published in 2015. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.008
10.
FiedlerK.PragerJ. (2018). The regression trap and other pitfalls of replication science—Illustrated by the report of the Open Science Collaboration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/01973533.2017.1421953
11.
GoldbergL. R. (1970). Man versus model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence, for a method of improving on clinical inferences. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 422–432.
12.
HalberstadtJ. (2006). The generality and ultimate origins of the attractiveness of prototypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 166–183.
13.
HardinG. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.
14.
KellyG. A. (1955a). The psychology of personal constructs: Vol. 1. Theory and personality. Oxford, England: Norton.
15.
KellyG. A. (1955b). The psychology of personal constructs: Vol. 2. Clinical diagnosis and psychotherapy. Oxford, England: Norton
16.
KoriatA.BjorkR. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 187–194.
17.
KruegerJ. (2001). Null hypothesis significance testing: On the survival of a flawed method. American Psychologist, 56, 16–26.
18.
KruegerJ. (2017). Reverse inference. In LilienfeldS. O.WaldmanI. D. (Eds.), Psychological science under scrutiny: Recent challenges and proposed solutions (pp. 108–122). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
19.
LewisM. (2017). The undoing project: A friendship that changed our minds. New York, NY: Norton.
20.
LilienfeldS. O.WaldmanI. D. (Eds.). (2017). Psychological science under scrutiny: Recent challenges and proposed solutions. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
21.
MooreD. A.HealyP. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115, 502–517.
22.
MoscoviciS. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209–239). New York, NY: Academic Press.
23.
NagengastB.MarshH. W. (2012). Big fish in little ponds aspire more: Mediation and cross-cultural generalizability of school-average ability effects on self-concept and career aspirations in science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1033–1053.
24.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716.
25.
ReichenbachH. (1952). Experience and prediction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1938)
26.
SedlmeierP.HertwigR.GigerenzerG. (1998). Are judgments of the positional frequencies of letters systematically biased due to availability?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 754–770.
27.
SimontonD. K. (2010). Creative thought as blind-variation and selective retention: Combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of Life Reviews, 7, 156–179.
28.
StanleyD. J.SpenceJ. R. (2014). Expectations for replications: Are yours realistic?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 305–318.
29.
SternbergR. J. (2016). A triangular theory of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 50–67.
30.
SwetsJ. A.DawesR. M.MonahanJ. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1–26.
31.
TrafimowD. (2003). Hypothesis testing and theory evaluation at the boundaries: Surprising insights from Bayes’s theorem. Psychological Review, 110, 526–535.
32.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.
33.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1130.
34.
WalasekL.StewartN. (2015). How to make loss aversion disappear and reverse: Tests of the decision by sampling origin of loss aversion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 7–11.
35.
WellsG. L.WindschitlP. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115–1125.
