1 / 33

Integrity and human factors in behavioral research

Integrity and human factors in behavioral research. Moving beyond Questionable Research Practices Jelte M. Wicherts. Integrity in black and white. ?. Dr. Evil. Good. Interested in prestige Critical of results of others Unreliable and sloppy Secretive and dishonest

hadar
Download Presentation

Integrity and human factors in behavioral research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Integrity and human factors in behavioral research Moving beyond Questionable Research Practices Jelte M. Wicherts

  2. Integrity in black and white ? Dr. Evil Good Interested in prestige Critical of results of others Unreliable and sloppy Secretive and dishonest Interested in quantity Seeks support for own theories Uninterested in prestige Critical of own results Reliable and rigorous Open and honest Interested in quality Seeks “truth”

  3. Integrity in 50 shades of grey

  4. A former professor: “I was getting better and better in using techniques to improve poor results. […] What I did was not as white as snow, but it was not pitch-dark either. It was grey and it was common. How else could all the others get all those beautiful results? […] After years of balancing on the cliff, the grey became darker black, and finally I fell all the way down.” “Ik werd er ook steeds bedrevener in gebruik te maken van technieken die matige resultaten konden oppompen. […] Wat ik deed, was niet keurig wit, maar ook niet pikzwart. Het was grijs en het was usance. Hoe kwamen al die anderen anders aan al die schitterende resultaten? […] Na jaren van voor en op het randje balanceren werd het grijs steeds donkerder zwart, en uiteindelijk donderde ik naar beneden.“ Source: D. Stapel, 2012, p. 143-144; mytranslation

  5. Blackboard in room with PhD students

  6. The “bump” below p=.05 Based on 3,627 p values from 2008 issues of Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Psychological Science. Source: Masicampo, E. J. & Lalande, D. R. (2012). A peculiar prevalence of p values just below .05. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 2271-2279.

  7. Social neuroscience p = .05 for N=18 Vulet al. documented correlations between evoked blood oxygenation level dependent response and behavioral measures of individual differences in 55 fMRI studies that appear inflated. Source: Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P., & Pashler, H. (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 274-290.

  8. Sociology and Political Science Gerber, A. S., & Malhotra, N. (2008). Do statistical reporting standards affect what is published? Publication bias in two leading political science journals. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3, 313-326. Gerber, A. S., & Malhotra, N. (2008). Publication bias in empirical sociological research - Do arbitrary significance levels distort published results? Sociological Methods & Research, 37, 3-30.

  9. Success rates (too high?) With med. power < .50 Source: Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PloS one, 5(4), e10068.

  10. Norms vs. Counternorms • Survey among 3,247 US scientists, asking: • Whether they subscribed to norms of “good science” • Whether they behaved according to these norms • Whether their typical colleague behaved according tothese norms Universalism: Scientists evaluate research only on its merit, i.e., according to accepted standards of the field. Particularism: Scientists assess new knowledge […] based on reputation […] of the individual or research group. Commonality: Scientists openly share findings with colleagues. Secrecy: Scientists protect their newest findings to ensure priority in publishing [..] Source: Anderson, M.S., Martinson, B. C., & De Vries, R. (2007). Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2 (4), 3-14

  11. Governance: Scientists are responsible for the direction and control of science through governance, self-regulation and peer review. Administration:Scientists rely on administrators to direct the scientific enterprise through management decisions. Quality:Scientists judge each others’ contributions to science primarily on the basis of quality. Quantity: Scientists assess each others’ work primarily on the basis of numbers of publications and grants. Disinterestedness: Scientists are motivated by the desire for knowledge and discovery. Self-Interestedness: Scientists compete with others in the same field for funding and recognition of their achievements. Organized Skepticism: Scientists consider all new evidence, hypotheses, theories, and innovations, even those that challenge or contradict their own work. Organized Dogmatism: Scientists invest their careers in promoting their own most important findings, theories, or innovation. Source: Anderson, M.S., Martinson, B. C., & De Vries, R. (2007). Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2 (4), 3-14

  12. Do regard their colleagues highly? norm>counternorm norm=counternorm norm<counternorm Source: Anderson, M.S., Martinson, B. C., & De Vries, R. (2007). Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2 (4), 3-14

  13. Do researchers share? “Forty-seven percent of [1240 surveyed] geneticists [from 100 US universities] who asked other faculty for additional information, data, or materials regarding published research reported that at least 1 of their requests had been denied in the preceding 3 years.” Of 200 authors who indicated that additional information of their paper in economy & business “was available upon request”… only 44% actually shared the information. Source: Campbell, E. G et al. (2002). Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 473-480. Krawczyk, M. & Reuben, E. (2012). Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 19, 175-186.

  14. Do researchers follow journal policy? • 50 journals with highest IFs in science • 44 journals had a “data sharing policy” in 2009 • From the 351 articles that were subject to data sharing rules, data from 143 articles (40.7%) were published • None of the datasets of 149 articles that were not subject to sharing policy were published Bron: Alsheikh-Ali, A. A., Qureshi, W., Al-Mallah, M. H., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2011). Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals. PLoS One, 6, e24357. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024357

  15. Do researchers share data upon request? In 2005, we requested the raw data from 141 papers published in four APA journals for use in a study of the effects of outliers on the outcome of data analyses. Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61, 726-728.

  16. Responses • This is an ongoing project, our IRB cannot allow it • I have no time to do this…I’m up for tenure • My research assistant/postdoc/student left • I recently moved, I have a new computer! • “I am afraid your request is not possible” • This will take me some time, I’ll get back to you • I’ll send you the data within a few days

  17. Are statistical results checked by (co-)authors and reviewers? Method: a representative sample of 257 papers Recomputed 4720 p-values from NHST and checked for consistency p = .06 Results: 128 papers (50%) contained at least one error 39 papers (15%) contained at least one error related to p = .05 Conclusion: Errors predominantly led to “better” results Bakker, M. & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). (Mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals.Behavior Research Methods, 43, 666-678.

  18. Reporting errors in papers from which data were or were not shared DATA NOT SHARED (N=28) DATA SHARED (N=21) Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2011). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS ONE, 6, e 26828.

  19. Gross reporting errors (around p=.05) DATA NOT SHARED (N=28) DATA SHARED (N=21) Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2011). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS ONE, 6, e 26828.

  20. Errors and data sharing Haphazard data documentation plays a role in reluctance to share and occurrence of errors. Poor data documentation also suggest that authors hardly share data with co-authors.

  21. A former professor: “So when it finally happened, it was really, really easy. I was always alone. No one ever checked me. They trusted me. I did everything myself. […] Every psychologist has a tool box full of statistical and methodological procedures for when things don’t work out well. I used these procedures to erase ugly findings and to shine up mediocre results.” Dustoen het eenmaalzover was, was het heel, heel, heel makkelijk. Ik was altijdalleen. Niemand die me ooitcontroleerde. Zevertrouwden me. Ik deed alleszelf. […] Elkepsycholoogheefteengereedschapskistvol met statistische en methodologischeprocedures voorals het even tegenzit. Ikgebruiktedeze procedures omlelijkebevindingenwegtegummen en matigeresultaten op tepoetsen. Source: D. Stapel, 2012, p. 164-165.

  22. Shalvi et al., 2011, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

  23. Call this a “failedstudy” Performnew study Removeoutliers (Z > |2|) Grey zone map P>.05 ? P>.05 P<.05 Add 10 cases P<.05 P>.05 Redoanalysiswithadapted dependent var. P<.05 Effect! ? P>.05 Planned analysis P<.05 Write paper Bakker, M., van Dijk, A, & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543-554. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology. Psychological Science, 22, 1359 –1366.

  24. Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence Data shared? non-significant significant 10 errors! Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2011). PLoS ONE, 6, e 26828.

  25. Do researchers act strategically? Suppose you have resources for N=100. What do you do when you expect d = .40? • Run one large study with power =.508 • Run five small studies (of N=20 each) with power .135

  26. Size matters Bakker, M., van Dijk, A, & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543-554.

  27. Size matters Bakker, M., van Dijk, A, & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543-554.

  28. Habituation to stimuli and later IQ Distribution under H0 for N = 50 Distribution under HA for N=50 Excess of significant results: Χ2 = 6.21, p =.013 Asymmetric funnel plot: Z = 2.24, p = .025

  29. Bakker, M., van Dijk, A, & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543-554.

  30. Are researchers only human! This one SHOULD really be higher! If not my reviewers will kill my paper And I can forget about getting tenure … And I cannot buy the house I wanted

  31. Tragedy of the commons

  32. To sum up ✔ • Are researchers ambitious & successful? • Do they regard their colleagues highly? • Do researchers share information and data? • Are statistical results checked by (co-)authors and reviewersand are data shared with co-authors? • Do researchers act strategically? • Do they feel justified to do so? • Do they publish all of their hard work? • Do they debate choices during data analyses? ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✗

  33. Some solutions • Let your co-authors (or colleagues) replicate your analyses (the co-pilot model) • Openness concerning analytic choices • Team up & replicate • Publish the data • Pre-registration ofstudies & protocols • Power-up main study • Ban the term “failed study” Bakker, M., van Dijk, A, & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543-554. Wicherts, J. M. (2011). Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case. Nature, 480, 7. Wicherts, J. M. & Bakker, M. (2012). Publish (your data) or (let the data) perish! Why not publish your data too? Intelligence, 40, 73-76.

More Related