The Significance Problem of Social-Psychological Research Results
One of the topical problems of social psychology is the significance of the research results. After experiments are retried using published techniques, more than a half of these experiments have no confirmation. The verification of the Zimbardo “prison” experiment is one of the most famous examples. Flimsy evidence calls into doubt the predictive function of science and creates difficulties for the practical application of results. The article discusses some sources of flimsy evidence, such as problems of certainty of the theory underlying the study, selection of the object of the study, non-compliance with the experiment, confirmation bias. The influence of the social set patterns leads to a decrease in the level of objectivity of the reliability of study significance when materials are published. A possible source of uncertainty is the inadequate use of mathematical statistics during research data processing. The difficulties of disclosing the social-psychological research of the phenomenon under consideration reduce the accuracy. Another aspect is the problem of the principle of determinism observance. The emphasis on neurophysiological arguments often provides unjustified advantages to materialistic determinism over psychological and logical ones. Some of the aspects are illustrated with references to specific studies in which a decrease in confidence may occur.
1. Reicher St., Haslam S. A. Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2006, vol. 45, pp. 1–40.
2. Blum B. The most famous psychology study of all time was a sham. Why can’t we escape the Stanford Prison Experiment? Available at: https://medium.com/s/trustissues/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62 (accessed 25 November 2018).
3. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science Open Science Collaboration. Science, 2015, vol. 349, iss. 6251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
4. Snyder M., Cantor N. Testing hypotheses about other people: The use of historical knowledge. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1979, vol. 15, iss. 4, рp. 330–342.
5. Bail Ch., Argyle L., Brown T., Bumpus J., Chen H., Hunzaker M.B., Lee J., Mann M., Merhout F., Volfovsky A. Exposure to Opposing Views can Increase Political Polarization: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment on Social Media. Available at: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/4ygux/2018 (accessed 25 November 2018).
6. Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship. Available at: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-andthe-co... ; https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-45751968 (accessed 25 November 2018).
7. Johnson Valen E. Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013, vol. 110, no. 48, pp. 19313–19317.
8. Kitcher P., Salmon W. Scientifi c explanation. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1989. 543 рр.
9. Fraassen van B. С. The Scientifi c Image. New York, Oxford University Press, 1980. 248 р.
10. Machamer P., Darden L., Craver C. Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 2000, vol. 67, pp. 1–25.
11. Leviczkij S. A. Tragediya svobody [Tragedy of Freedom]. Moscow, 1995. 512 р. (in Russian).
12. Joel K. Der freie Wille: eine Entwicklung in Gesprachen. Munchen, Bruckmann, 1908. 756 S.
13. Rakitov A. I. Kurs lekcij po logike nauki [A course of lectures on the logic of science]. Moscow, 1971. 176 p. (in Russian).
14. Gaab J., Kossowsky J., Ehlert Ul., Locher C., Effects and Components of Placebos with a Psychological Treatment Rationale – Three Randomized-Controlled Studies. Scientifi c Reports, 2019, vol. 9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37945-1 (accessed 25 November 2018).
15. Baus Cr., McAleer Ph., Marcoux K., Belin P., Costa A. Forming social impressions from voices in native and foreign languages. Scientifi c Reports, 2019, vol. 9, article no. 414. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36518-6 (accessed 25 November 2018).