Similarly, “choking” is a psychological phenomenon but a gender difference in the tendency to choke would not constitute a phenomenon, although it would clarify the phenomenon. However, gender bias is a psychological process that goes beyond simple gender effects on dependent variables and could therefore be labeled a phenomenon. Although gender as a demographic or attribute variable could affect many psychological variables or have mediating effects, such influences in themselves would not constitute phenomena. Any variable can have a significant effect on a criterion variable, but it would not automatically constitute a phenomenon. Sometimes the two, however, may be, and have been, used interchangeably. While a phenomenon and an effect can be closely related, they are not necessarily the same. When can we claim that a psychological phenomenon exists? Is it possible to declare that something does not exist? What are the criteria for concluding that something exists? These exchanges of criticism, however, are useful not only for clarifying the merits and limits of meta-analysis, but more importantly, for examination of the issue regarding the existence of psychological phenomena in general. For example, Cunningham and Baumeister’s (2016) and Inzlicht et al.’s ( 2016) analyses revealed deep conceptual, methodological and statistical flaws not only in Carter et al.’s (2015) meta-analysis but in the practice of meta-analysis itself. What happened in those 6 years? Is this what psychological phenomena are all about -they appear briefly and then vanish into black holes, or do we have a problem with methods and statistics used to determine phenomena’s existence? Although the purpose of this paper is not to analyze the existence/non-existence of ego depletion per se, but psychological phenomena’s existence and reproducibility in general, it should be noted that ego depletion’s demise is far from over. Then, 6 years later, ego depletion stopped breathing thanks to another meta-analysis ( Hagger et al., 2016). It is curious that since its birth in 1998 ( Baumeister et al., 1998), ego depletion was doing well until 2010 when one meta-analysis ( Hagger et al., 2010) deemed the phenomenon not only alive but strong (Effect Size, ES = 0.62). Is the demise of cognitive dissonance around the corner? What about anchoring effect, loss aversion, social comparison, confirmation bias, stereotype threat, self-affirmation, intrinsic motivation, psychological reactance, and countless other psychological phenomena? Are people about to stop “choking” as well? “The ego depletion effect” has recently been declared virtually dead or “indistinguishable from zero” ( Carter et al., 2015), as has the actor-observer asymmetry in attributions for behavior ( Malle, 2006). To better understand psychological phenomena, their theoretical and empirical properties should be examined via multiple parameters and criteria. “talent” in expert performance), not to mention whether phenomena are real or unreal. Furthermore, statistical measures (e.g., effect size) are poor indicators of the theoretical importance and relevance of phenomena (cf. When strictly applied, reproducibility is an overstated and even questionable concept in psychological science. Its phenomena fluctuate with conditions and may sometimes be difficult to detect and reproduce empirically. Psychology is a science of subtleties in human affect, cognition and behavior. There are only “temporary winners” and no “final truths” in scientific knowledge. Therefore, a declaration that a phenomenon is not real is not only theoretically and empirically unjustified but runs counter to the propositional and provisional nature of scientific knowledge. Psychological phenomena are not particles that can decisively be tested and discovered. The human mind is unreproducible from one situation to another. Such claims, however, cannot be made because (1) scientific method itself is seriously limited (i.e., it can never prove a negative) (2) non-existence of phenomena would require a complete absence of both logical (theoretical) and empirical support even if empirical support is weak, logical and theoretical support can be strong (3) statistical data are only one piece of evidence and cannot be used to reduce psychological phenomena to statistical phenomena and (4) psychological phenomena vary across time, situations and persons. Scientific evidence has recently been used to assert that certain psychological phenomena do not exist.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |