Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Brent W. Roberts

Elise Kalokerinos @elisekalo.bsky.social · 5h

In this behemoth effort led by @anhhtran.bsky.social, we reanalysed 11 experience-sampling datasets, and found limited evidence that context (intensity, controllability, and social features) meaningfully shaped everyday emotion regulation strategy use.

PsyArXivBot @psyarxivbot.bsky.social · 2d

Context Matters, Doesn't It? The Role of Context in Everyday Emotion Regulation Strategy Use: https://osf.io/axzk6

3 8

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 1d

The problem is testing whether effects exist and the theories that predict them is boring and runs counter to the dopamine treadmill of new discoveries that drives our status system. Come to think of it, we were doing click-bait before Tik Tok even existed....

1 2

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 1d

I mean, the fact that we have "theory" journals that require that every new paper burps up a new theoretical contribution reflects a perverse self-loathing against our own efforts. Really? Year in, year out, with every issue we got something new? 3/

1 1

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 1d

Having said that, I totally agree with the sentiment that our grubby obsession with "finding an effect" or cooking up a new theory is our Achilles heal. By definition, we can't be a cumulative science as our goal is to cast off whatever came before us 2/

1 1

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 1d

Having spent more and more time with other science guilds, I'd say there is no reason to single out psychology. Medicine, Kinesiology, Political Science, Anthropology, Sociology, the B-school types...oh, the B-school types--they all practice the p-value dark arts of discovery. 1/

2 1

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 2d

And the "niceness" norms to not share bad news about someone's idea (and thus that person), and you will get the impulse to start up replication journals that will then not get much traffic. I hope I'm wrong. It is a lot of work to do this type of thing. 3/

2 4

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 2d

And, prophetically, that journal folded due to lack of interest. I have a sinking feeling this effort will suffer the same fate. We still value the publication over the ideas contained therein. Combine that with the continued overvaluing of "finding something" (i.e., p<.05) 2/

1 3

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 2d

It is sad and nice isn't it? It is not the first. When we failed to replicate the MacBeth effect we ended up publishing it in the "Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis" the go-to 4th tier journal at that time for failures to replicate: www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/rpgtj... 1/

www.dropbox.com

1 1 5

Reposted by Brent W. Roberts

Lukas Röseler @aufdroeseler.bsky.social · 3d

ReplicationResearch.org is now open for submissions!

Submit replications and reproductions from many different fields, as well as conceptual contributions. With diamond OA, open and citable peer review reports, and reproducibility checks, we push the boundaries of open and fair publishing.

3 47 72

Reposted by Brent W. Roberts

Andreas Ortmann @impartialspectator.bsky.social · 2d

I'd lie if I said I am surprised.

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 3d

New DP @i4replication.bsky.social: Meta-analysis on green nudges correcting for publication bias. "Behavioral interventions on households and individuals are unlikely to deliver material climate benefits." www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10...

1 2 3

Reposted by Brent W. Roberts

Valeria Ferraretto @vferraretto.bsky.social · 5d

Entry into adulthood is being postponed, but when do young adults intend and deem ideal to experience events? 💭A joint work w/ K. Schwanitz @utu.fi, @francescorampazzo.com & @agnese-vitali.bsky.social reveals mismatches btw ideals and reality ⬇️:

comparativepopulationstudies.de/index.php/CP...

1 4 10

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 4d

Kudos for pushing this through to publication. Null findings are always interesting if the questions you ask are interesting, like this one. And, in terms of a null being constructive, think of all the future researchers who won't go down this path and will instead test a different idea.

1 2

Reposted by Brent W. Roberts

Matt Southward @mattsouthward.bsky.social · 5d

When we measure personality multiple times in a study, does it matter if we ask people about their personality *in general* or *since the last time point*?

Turns out: yes!

We found differences in internal consistency, Ms, & SDs but not in the underlying constructs 🧵

doi.org/10.31234/osf...

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tb94v_v1🧵

1 9 43

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 7d

Don't tell me. I want to believe...

1 2

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 7d

The tour was great. The company and conversation better.

2

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 7d

I went to Rotterdam for a reproducibility therapy session with @lakens.bsky.social. I am happy to report that the patient is doing much better—maybe due to a placebo effect. Who knows.

2 1 28

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 10d

No irony in the fact that the best way to convince people to use OS is to have 1) a compelling spokesperson, 2) a stimulating anecdote, 3) a convincing data point, and 4) an overgeneralization. We are, after all, human. (That, btw, is the Gladwell formula).

2

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 10d

Once the story is published, god forbid you would tell them the method was flawed since it already worked for them once. Then you find the PI arguing for the method regardless of what is right. 3/

2

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 10d

Smart people can get all or most of the fancy models to work on the data whether it makes sense to or not. Once you've done that and little asterisks float to the surface, the PI takes a microsecond to glom onto them and write a story. 2/

1 1

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 10d

And, having been in your position before, I know that if you come back to them with the fact that their inspiration to use CLPM or some other model is unfounded, you soon find yourself not included on the next grant/paper. 1/

1 1

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 10d

Don't make me blog again...it is not doomerism in this case, it is simply the typical way we employ stats which is in a thoughtless fashion. There are some places where CLPM is entirely appropriate as well as RI-CLPM. It's just that we almost never do studies that fit with the models.

2 2

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 10d

Sean you took the bait! For the most part, no model is viable, largely because the problem is not with the statistical models it is with the data, our methods, our research questions and how they don't align with any of the statistical models to address the questions we really want to answer.

2 4

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 10d

Good scientific practices get in the way of a clean narrative. A clean narrative is everything.

1 9

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 10d

We are bad storytellers who use anecdata to hide our stilted prose.

1 4

Brent W. Roberts @bwroberts.bsky.social · 10d

RI-CLPM is just as intellectually bankrupt as CLPM. Don’t be fooled by the fact that some think it is more acceptable.

1