The Impact of Complexity on Methods and Findings in Psychological Science

The study of human behavior is severely hampered by logistical problems, ethical and legal constraints, and funding shortfalls. However, the biggest difficulty of conducting social and behavioral research is the extraordinary complexity of the study phenomena. In this article, we review the impact of complexity on research design, hypothesis testing, measurement, data analyses, reproducibility, and the communication of findings in psychological science. The systematic investigation of the world often requires different approaches because of the variability in complexity. Confirmatory testing, multi-factorial designs, survey methods, large samples, and modeling are frequently needed to study complex social and behavioral topics. Complexity impedes the measurement of general constructs, the reproducibility of results and scientific reporting, and the general rigor of research. Many of the benchmarks established by classic work in physical science are not attainable in studies of more complex phenomena. Consequently, the standards used to evaluate scientific research should be tethered to the complexity of the study topic.

[1]  W. Johnston,et al.  Redefining Science: The Impact of Complexity on Theory Development in Social and Behavioral Research , 2019, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[2]  Thomas Schäfer,et al.  The Meaningfulness of Effect Sizes in Psychological Research: Differences Between Sub-Disciplines and the Impact of Potential Biases , 2019, Front. Psychol..

[3]  A. Gelman,et al.  Large-Scale Replication Projects in Contemporary Psychological Research , 2017, The American Statistician.

[4]  Reginald B. Adams,et al.  Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Sample and Setting , 2018 .

[5]  Hristos Doucouliagos,et al.  What Meta-Analyses Reveal About the Replicability of Psychological Research , 2018, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015 , 2018, Nature Human Behaviour.

[7]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  Psychology's Renaissance , 2018, Annual review of psychology.

[8]  Andrew Gelman Don't characterize replications as successes or failures. , 2018, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[9]  Alistair J. Wilson,et al.  Assessing the Rate of Replication in Economics , 2017 .

[10]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Meta-assessment of bias in science , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  Measurement error and the replication crisis , 2017, Science.

[12]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  When Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Is Unsuitable for Research: A Reassessment , 2016, bioRxiv.

[13]  Arturo Casadevall,et al.  Rigorous Science: a How-To Guide , 2016, mBio.

[14]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Conceptualizing and evaluating the replication of research results , 2016 .

[15]  J. Leek,et al.  What Should Researchers Expect When They Replicate Studies? A Statistical View of Replicability in Psychological Science , 2016, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[16]  Jay J Van Bavel,et al.  Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Gideon Nave,et al.  Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics , 2016, Science.

[18]  J. Vandekerckhove,et al.  A Bayesian Perspective on the Reproducibility Project: Psychology , 2016, PloS one.

[19]  M. Eronen,et al.  Heating up the measurement debate: What psychologists can learn from the history of physics , 2016 .

[20]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Questionable Research Practices Revisited , 2016 .

[21]  Andreas Ritter,et al.  Structural Equations With Latent Variables , 2016 .

[22]  Shannon M. Moore,et al.  Why a Confirmation Strategy Dominates Psychological Science , 2015, PloS one.

[23]  D. Simonton Psychology as a Science within Comte's Hypothesized Hierarchy: Empirical Investigations and Conceptual Implications , 2015 .

[24]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science , 2015, Science.

[25]  D. Trafimow,et al.  Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[26]  Angela L. Duckworth,et al.  Measurement Matters , 2015, Educational researcher.

[27]  Michael A. Clemens,et al.  The Meaning of Failed Replications: A Review and Proposal , 2015, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[28]  S. Maxwell,et al.  Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does "failure to replicate" really mean? , 2015, The American psychologist.

[29]  Simine Vazire,et al.  The N-Pact Factor: Evaluating the Quality of Empirical Journals with Respect to Sample Size and Statistical Power , 2014, PloS one.

[30]  Neil Malhotra,et al.  Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer , 2014, Science.

[31]  Jeffrey R. Spence,et al.  Expectations for Replications , 2014, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[32]  C. Sansone,et al.  Improving the Dependability of Research in Personality and Social Psychology , 2014, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[33]  W. Stroebe,et al.  The Alleged Crisis and the Illusion of Exact Replication , 2014, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[34]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences , 2013, PloS one.

[35]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology † , 2013 .

[36]  Gregory Francis,et al.  The Psychology of Replication and Replication in Psychology , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[37]  C. Ferguson,et al.  A Vast Graveyard of Undead Theories , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[38]  H. Pashler,et al.  Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[39]  Axel Cleeremans,et al.  Low Hopes, High Expectations , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[40]  George Sugihara,et al.  Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems , 2012, Science.

[41]  Lena C. Zuchowski,et al.  Disentangling Complexity from Randomness and Chaos , 2012, Entropy.

[42]  S. Fiedler,et al.  Is there evidence of publication biases in JDM research? , 2011, Judgment and Decision Making.

[43]  K. Fiedler Voodoo Correlations Are Everywhere—Not Only in Neuroscience , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[44]  Daniele Fanelli,et al.  Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries , 2011, Scientometrics.

[45]  Dustin B. Thoman,et al.  Inference Patterns in Theoretical Social Psychology: Looking Back as We Move Forward , 2010 .

[46]  D. Fanelli “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences , 2010, PloS one.

[47]  Sandra D. Mitchell Unsimple Truths: Science, Complexity, and Policy , 2009 .

[48]  C. Ferguson Is Psychological Research Really as Good as Medical Research? Effect Size Comparisons between Psychology and Medicine , 2009 .

[49]  Andrea M Hussong,et al.  Integrative data analysis: the simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. , 2009, Psychological methods.

[50]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Artifacts in Behavioral Research , 2009 .

[51]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  Was There Really a Hawthorne Effect at the Hawthorne Plant? An Analysis of the Original Illumination Experiments , 2009 .

[52]  Mark A. Bedau,et al.  Emergence : contemporary readings in philosophy and science , 2008 .

[53]  F. Mazzocchi Complexity in biology , 2008, EMBO reports.

[54]  J. Platt Strong Inference , 2007 .

[55]  Rowland H. Davis,et al.  Strong Inference: rationale or inspiration? , 2006, Perspectives in biology and medicine.

[56]  James Jaccard,et al.  Arbitrary metrics in psychology. , 2006, The American psychologist.

[57]  L. Finkelstein,et al.  Problems of measurement in soft systems , 2005 .

[58]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[59]  S. Posavac,et al.  Information Search in the Testing of Quantified Hypotheses: How “All,” “Most,” “Some,” “Few,” and “None” Hypotheses Are Tested , 2005, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[60]  In praise of soft science , 2005, Nature.

[61]  M. V. Regenmortel,et al.  Reductionism and complexity in molecular biology , 2004, HIV/AIDS: Immunochemistry, Reductionism and Vaccine Design.

[62]  S. Maxwell The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: causes, consequences, and remedies. , 2004, Psychological methods.

[63]  Dean Keith Simonton,et al.  Psychology's Status as a Scientific Discipline: Its Empirical Placement within an Implicit Hierarchy of the Sciences , 2004 .

[64]  Marc H V Van Regenmortel,et al.  Reductionism and complexity in molecular biology. Scientists now have the tools to unravel biological and overcome the limitations of reductionism. , 2004, EMBO reports.

[65]  D. Borsboom,et al.  The concept of validity. , 2004, Psychological review.

[66]  M. Grace A logical point of view , 2003, British Dental Journal.

[67]  Kathleen D. Vohs,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST DOES HIGH SELF-ESTEEM CAUSE BETTER PERFORMANCE, INTERPERSONAL SUCCESS, HAPPINESS, OR HEALTHIER LIFESTYLES? , 2022 .

[68]  J. Hemphill,et al.  Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. , 2003, The American psychologist.

[69]  John Stuart Mill,et al.  The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte , 2002 .

[70]  James Ladyman,et al.  Understanding Philosophy of Science , 2001 .

[71]  J. Buchanan,et al.  THE WEAKNESSES OF STRONG INFERENCE , 2001 .

[72]  Lisa A. Best,et al.  Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences: , 2000 .

[73]  J. Michell Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept. , 1999 .

[74]  Gerd Gigerenzer We need statistical thinking, not statistical rituals , 1998, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[75]  J. Michell Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology , 1997 .

[76]  Orley Ashenfelter,et al.  Theory and measurement , 1996 .

[77]  Sean A. Spence,et al.  Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain , 1995 .

[78]  Jacob Cohen The earth is round (p < .05) , 1994 .

[79]  Stephen Cole,et al.  Why sociology doesn't make progress like the natural sciences , 1994 .

[80]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[81]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. , 1992, British journal of psychology.

[82]  S. Schachter,et al.  Speech Disfluency and the Structure of Knowledge , 1991 .

[83]  J. Z. Shapiro,et al.  Are Retrenchment Decisions Rational? The Role of Information in Times of Budgetary Stress. , 1990 .

[84]  M. F. Fox Fraud, ethics, and the disciplinary contexts of science and scholarship , 1990 .

[85]  E. A. Locke,et al.  A theory of goal setting & task performance , 1990 .

[86]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Structural Equations with Latent Variables , 1989 .

[87]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[88]  C. Granger Causality, cointegration, and control , 1988 .

[89]  Larry V. Hedges,et al.  How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science? The empirical cumulativeness of research. , 1987 .

[90]  J. Klayman,et al.  Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Informa-tion in Hypothesis Testing , 1987 .

[91]  R E Kuttner,et al.  Fraud in science. , 1985, Science.

[92]  K. Stanovich How to think straight about psychology , 1985 .

[93]  William S. Cleveland,et al.  Graphs in Scientific Publications , 1984 .

[94]  Stephen Cole,et al.  The Hierarchy of the Sciences? , 1983, American Journal of Sociology.

[95]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Hypothesis Evaluation from a Bayesian Perspective. , 1983 .

[96]  Edward G. Carmines,et al.  Measurement in the Social Sciences: The Link Between Theory and Data , 1980, American Political Science Review.

[97]  R. Howell,et al.  Measurement in the social sciences , 1980 .

[98]  R. Rosenthal The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results , 1979 .

[99]  R. Wylie,et al.  Theory and research on selected topics , 1979 .

[100]  P. Meehl Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. , 1978 .

[101]  Imre Lakatos,et al.  The methodology of scientific research programmes: Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes , 1978 .

[102]  G. Marwell,et al.  Self-esteem : its conceptualization and measurement , 1976 .

[103]  N. Humphrey The Social Function of Intellect , 1976 .

[104]  L. Cronbach Beyond the Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology. , 1975 .

[105]  D. Rubin Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. , 1974 .

[106]  K. Gergen Social Psychology as History , 1973 .

[107]  D. Haslam,et al.  Psychology of Suffering , 1968, Nature.

[108]  N. Storer The hard sciences and the soft: some sociological observations. , 1967, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[109]  J. Platt Strong Inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. , 1964, Science.

[110]  M. Orne On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. , 1962 .

[111]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. , 1962, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[112]  L. Cronbach The two disciplines of scientific psychology. , 1957 .

[113]  Otto R. Spies,et al.  The aim and structure of physical theory , 1954 .

[114]  Mercer Jennifer Ann,et al.  PUBLICATION manual of the American Psychological Association. , 1952, Psychological bulletin.

[115]  E. B. Wilson Social Science , 1940, Nature.