期刊
SYNTHESE
卷 198, 期 SUPPL 23, 页码 5745-5772出版社
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-019-02456-7
关键词
Replication crisis; Scientific learning; Preregistration
资金
- Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [406-17-568]
Distinguishing between hypothesis-generating research and hypothesis-testing research can help improve the replicability of findings in experimental psychology. While preregistration is a fair method to prevent biases, it may hinder researchers' flexibility in data analysis. Blinded analyses offer a solution by maintaining flexibility while preventing bias.
The replicability of findings in experimental psychology can be improved by distinguishing sharply between hypothesis-generating research and hypothesis-testing research. This distinction can be achieved by preregistration, a method that has recently attracted widespread attention. Although preregistration is fair in the sense that it inoculates researchers against hindsight bias and confirmation bias, preregistration does not allow researchers to analyze the data flexibly without the analysis being demoted to exploratory. To alleviate this concern we discuss how researchers may conduct blinded analyses (MacCoun and Perlmutter in Nature 526:187-189, 2015). As with preregistration, blinded analyses break the feedback loop between the analysis plan and analysis outcome, thereby preventing cherry-picking and significance seeking. However, blinded analyses retain the flexibility to account for unexpected peculiarities in the data. We discuss different methods of blinding, offer recommendations for blinding of popular experimental designs, and introduce the design for an online blinding protocol.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据