ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2017
Four Bad Habits of Modern Psychologists.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Levels of Burnout and Risk Factors in Medical Area Nurses: A Meta-Analytic Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Pooled it
- Observation Oriented Modeling: Principles and Tools for Person-Oriented Research.Journal for person-oriented research · 2026Article
- Psychology's Questionable Research Fundamentals (QRFs): Key problems in quantitative psychology and psychological measurement beyond Questionable Research Practices (QRPs).Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Capturing the Heterogeneity of Word Learners by Analyzing Persons.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Why the Single-N Design Should Be the Default in Affective Neuroscience.Affective science · 2024Review
- Balance of power: The choice between trial and participant numbers to optimise the detection of phase-dependent effects.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Prosocial behavior in competitive fish: the case of the archerfish.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Remarkably reproducible psychological (memory) phenomena in the classroom: some evidence for generality from small-N research.BMC psychology · 2022Article
- Does excessive use of smartphones and apps make us more impulsive? An approach from behavioural economics.Heliyon · 2021Article
- Statements About the Pervasiveness of Behavior Require Data About the Pervasiveness of Behavior.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Review
- Small is beautiful: In defense of the small-N design.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Four data sets from studies included in the Reproducibility Project were re-analyzed to demonstrate a number of flawed research practices (i.e., "bad habits") of modern psychology. Three of the four studies were successfully replicated, but re-analysis showed that in one study most of the participants responded in a manner inconsistent with the researchers' theoretical model. In the second study, the replicated effect was shown to be an experimental confound, and in the third study the replicated statistical effect was shown to be entirely trivial. The fourth study was an unsuccessful replication, yet re-analysis of the data showed that questioning the common assumptions of modern psychological measurement can lead to novel techniques of data analysis and potentially interesting findings missed by traditional methods of analysis. Considered together, these new analyses show that while it is true replication is a key feature of science, causal inference, modeling, and measurement are equally important and perhaps more fundamental to obtaining truly scientific knowledge of the natural world. It would therefore be prudent for psychologists to confront the limitations and flaws in their current analytical methods and research practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.