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 01/2014; 9(10):e109019. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Proper characterization of each individual's unique pattern of strengths and weaknesses requires good measures of diverse abilities. Here, we advocate combining our growing understanding of neural and cognitive mechanisms with modern psychometric methods in a renewed effort to capture human individuality through a consideration of specific abilities. We articulate five criteria for the isolation and measurement of specific abilities, then apply these criteria to face recognition. We cleanly dissociate face recognition from more general visual and verbal recognition. This dissociation stretches across ability as well as disability, suggesting that specific developmental face recognition deficits are a special case of a broader specificity that spans the entire spectrum of human face recognition performance. Item-by-item results from 1,471 web-tested participants, included as supplementary information, fuel item analyses, validation, norming, and item response theory (IRT) analyses of our three tests: (a) the widely used Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT); (b) an Abstract Art Memory Test (AAMT), and (c) a Verbal Paired-Associates Memory Test (VPMT). The availability of this data set provides a solid foundation for interpreting future scores on these tests. We argue that the allied fields of experimental psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and vision science could fuel the discovery of additional specific abilities to add to face recognition, thereby providing new perspectives on human individuality.
    Cognitive Neuropsychology 07/2012; 29(5-6):360-92. · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Journal of Research in Personality - J RES PERSONAL. 01/2009; 43(2):272-273.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 23, 2014