Literature DB >> 15012470

Biases in the interpretation and use of research results.

R J MacCoun1.   

Abstract

The latter half of this century has seen an erosion in the perceived legitimacy of science as an impartial means of finding truth. Many research topics are the subject of highly politicized dispute; indeed, the objectivity of the entire discipline of psychology has been called into question. This essay examines attempts to use science to study science: specifically, bias in the interpretation and use of empirical research findings. I examine theory and research on a range of cognitive and motivational mechanisms for bias. Interestingly, not all biases are normatively proscribed; biased interpretations are defensible under some conditions, so long as those conditions are made explicit. I consider a variety of potentially corrective mechanisms, evaluate prospects for collective rationality, and compare inquisitorial and adversarial models of science.

Year:  1998        PMID: 15012470     DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol        ISSN: 0066-4308            Impact factor:   24.137


  20 in total

1.  Blind analysis: Hide results to seek the truth.

Authors:  Robert MacCoun; Saul Perlmutter
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Good research conduct.

Authors:  J Grigg
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.791

Review 3.  Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence.

Authors:  Tom Jefferson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-10-28

4.  Bias in the research literature and conflict of interest: an issue for publishers, editors, reviewers and authors, and it is not just about the money.

Authors:  Simon N Young
Journal:  J Psychiatry Neurosci       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 6.186

5.  Nutritional epidemiology in practice: learning from data or promulgating beliefs?

Authors:  Michelle M Bohan Brown; Andrew W Brown; David B Allison
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 7.045

6.  Defining "quality of care" persuasively.

Authors:  Maya J Goldenberg
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2012-08

7.  White paper: statement on conflicts of interest.

Authors:  Julian Bion; Massimo Antonelli; LLuis Blanch; J Randall Curtis; Christiane Druml; Bin Du; Flavia R Machado; Charles Gomersall; Christiane Hartog; Mitchell Levy; John Myburgh; Gordon Rubenfeld; Charles Sprung
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Research-based knowledge in psychology: what, if anything, is its incremental value to the practitioner?

Authors:  Jan Smedslund; Lee Ross
Journal:  Integr Psychol Behav Sci       Date:  2014-12

9.  Psychologists update their beliefs about effect sizes after replication studies.

Authors:  Alex D McDiarmid; Alexa M Tullett; Cassie M Whitt; Simine Vazire; Paul E Smaldino; Jeremy E Stephens
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2021-11-22

10.  Confirmation bias in studies of nestmate recognition: a cautionary note for research into the behaviour of animals.

Authors:  Ellen van Wilgenburg; Mark A Elgar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-23       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.