The Practice of Psychological Science: Searching for Cronbach's Two Streams in Social-Personality Psychology

Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 5.08). 07/2009; 96(6):1206-25. DOI: 10.1037/a0015173
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The present research surveyed a group of editors and editorial board members of personality and social psychology journals to examine the practice of psychological science in their field. Findings demonstrate that (a) although personality and social researchers tend to use many of the same approaches, methods, and procedures, they nonetheless show average differences in each of these domains, as well as in their overarching theoretical aims and perspectives; (b) these average differences largely conform to social and personality researchers' stereotypes about each subgroup; (c) despite their methodological and philosophical differences, the 2 subgroups study many of the same research topics; and (d) the structure of social-personality research practices can be characterized as having 2 independent factors, which closely correspond to L. J. Cronbach's (1957) correlational and experimental "streams of research."

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors evaluate the quality of research reported in major journals in social-personality psychology by ranking those journals with respect to their N-pact Factors (NF)-the statistical power of the empirical studies they publish to detect typical effect sizes. Power is a particularly important attribute for evaluating research quality because, relative to studies that have low power, studies that have high power are more likely to (a) to provide accurate estimates of effects, (b) to produce literatures with low false positive rates, and (c) to lead to replicable findings. The authors show that the average sample size in social-personality research is 104 and that the power to detect the typical effect size in the field is approximately 50%. Moreover, they show that there is considerable variation among journals in sample sizes and power of the studies they publish, with some journals consistently publishing higher power studies than others. The authors hope that these rankings will be of use to authors who are choosing where to submit their best work, provide hiring and promotion committees with a superior way of quantifying journal quality, and encourage competition among journals to improve their NF rankings.
    PLoS ONE 10/2014; 9(10):e109019. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0109019 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Starting in the 1960s, many of the critiques of psychological science offered by feminist psychologists focused on its methods and epistemology. This article evaluates the current state of psychological science in relation to this feminist critique. The analysis relies on sources that include the PsycINFO database, the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association, 2010), and popular psychology methods textbooks. After situating the feminist critique within the late-20th-century shift of science from positivism to postpositivism, the inquiry examines feminists' claims of androcentric bias in (a) the underrepresentation of women as researchers and research participants and (b) researchers' practices in comparing women and men and describing their research findings. In most of these matters, psychology manifests considerable change in directions advocated by feminists. However, change is less apparent in relation to some feminists' criticisms of psychology's reliance on laboratory experimentation and quantitative methods. In fact, the analyses documented the rarity in high-citation journals of qualitative research that does not include quantification. Finally, the analysis frames feminist methodological critiques by a consideration of feminist epistemologies that challenge psychology's dominant postpositivism. Scrutiny of methods textbooks and journal content suggests that within psychological science, especially as practiced in the United States, these alternative epistemologies have not yet gained substantial influence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    American Psychologist 07/2014; 69(7). DOI:10.1037/a0037372 · 6.87 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The scientific study of morality has blossomed in the past decade, yielding key insights into the psychological processes underlying moral judgments. This blossoming has generally taken place along two streams of research: one concerning cultural and individual differences in these processes, and one concerning their situational determinants. Although these two streams often examine the same factors (e.g., the role of contamination in moral judgment), they have not systematically built on each other’s findings, and their empirical approaches remain distinct. In this article, we describe how these streams have begun to converge in recent empirical work, highlighting work on political ideology as one example. We then discuss the benefits an integrated research approach can have for moral psychology, especially in (a) delineating the links between moral judgment and moral behavior and (b) expanding the range of moral behaviors studied in order to more fully represent everyday moral life.
    Current Directions in Psychological Science 12/2012; 21(6):373-377. DOI:10.1177/0963721412456842 · 3.93 Impact Factor