Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32451959›Full record

ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2020

Progress in Psychological Science. The Importance of Informed Ignorance and Curiosity-Driven Questions.

Lucas B Mazur

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. "Scientist as a Discoverer and Explorer of Unknown Lands": Quo Vadis?Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. From Clay Feet to New Psychology: Starting the Move.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Lucas B MazurJagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland. lucas.mazur@uj.edu.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7816-588X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent decades we have seen an exponential growth in the amount of data gathered within psychological research without a corresponding growth of theory that could meaningfully organize these research findings. For this reason, considerable attention today is given to discussions of such broader, higher-order concepts as theory and paradigm. However, another area important to consider is the nature of the questions psychologists are asking. Key to any discussion about the scientific status of psychology or about progress in the field (scientific or otherwise) is the nature of the questions that inspire psychological research. Psychologists concerned about scientific progress and the growth of theory in the field would be well served by more robust conversations about the nature of the questions being asked. Honest, curiosity-driven questions-questions that admit to our ignorance and that express an active and optimistic yearning for what we do not yet know-can help to propel psychology forward in a manner similar to the development of theory or paradigm. However, existing as it does in the "twilight zone" between the natural sciences and the humanities, psychology is fertile ground for questions of wide-ranging natures, and thus the nature of progress in the field can be variously understood, not all of which will be "scientific." Recent psychological research in three areas (cognition, memory, and disorders/differences of sex development) are discussed as examples of how curiosity-driven questions being asked from a position of informed ignorance can lead to progress in the field.

Indexed as

CognitionExploratory BehaviorClayCommunicationHumansPhilosophyClayIgnorancePhilosophy of scienceProgressQuestionsScienceTheory

Identifiers

PMID32451959
PMCPMC7375984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.