ReviewRoyal Society open science2022
Psychology needs to get tired of winning.
Review in Royal Society open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
- The Effects of Repeated Finger Flexion Movements on Self-Reported Affect and Reward System Activation Are Weak and Inconsistent.Journal of clinical psychology · 2025Trial
- Professional Responsibility of Psychologists in the Field of Mental Health in Spain.Actas espanolas de psiquiatria · 2024Article
- Neurodivergence, intersectionality, and eating disorders: a lived experience-led narrative review.Journal of eating disorders · 2024Review
- A multi-sample evaluation of the measurement structure and function of the modified monetary incentive delay task in adolescents.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2024Article
- Article
- Measuring the menu, not the food: "psychometric" data may instead measure "lingometrics" (and miss its greatest potential).Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Neurobiological Causal Models of Language Processing.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- The additional value of self-reflection and feedback on therapy outcome: a pilot study.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Child and adolescent mental health and psychosocial support interventions: An evidence and gap map of low- and middle-income countries.Campbell systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Revisiting the left ear advantage for phonetic cues to talker identification.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
- Is psychological science progressing? Explained variance in PsycINFO articles during the period 1956 to 2022.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychological science is on an extraordinary winning streak. A review of the published literature shows that nearly all study hypotheses are supported. This means that either all the theories are correct, or the literature is biased towards positive findings. Results from large-scale replication projects and the prevalence of questionable research practices indicate the latter. This is a problem because science progresses from being wrong. For decades, there have been calls for better theories and the adoption of a strong inference approach to science. However, there is little reason to believe that psychological science is ready to change. Although recent developments like the open science movement have improved transparency and replicability, they have not addressed psychological science's method-oriented (rather than problem-oriented) mindset. Psychological science still does not embrace the scientific method of developing theories, conducting critical tests of those theories, detecting contradictory results, and revising (or disposing of) the theories accordingly. In this article, I review why psychologists must embrace being wrong and how the Registered Report format might be one strategy for stopping psychology's winning streak.
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.