scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Posted ContentDOI

What limitations are reported in short articles in social and personality psychology?

01 Jul 2022-
TL;DR: This paper examined the types of limitations authors discuss in their published articles by categorizing them according to the four validities framework and investigated whether the field's attention to each of the four validity has shifted from 2010 to 2020.
Abstract: Every research project has limitations. The limitations that authors acknowledge in their articles offer a glimpse into some of the concerns that occupy a field’s attention. We examine the types of limitations authors discuss in their published articles by categorizing them according to the four validities framework and investigate whether the field’s attention to each of the four validities has shifted from 2010 to 2020. We selected one journal in social and personality psychology (Social Psychological and Personality Science; SPPS), the subfield most in the crosshairs of psychology’s replication crisis. We sampled 440 articles (with half of those articles containing a subsection explicitly addressing limitations) and we identified and categorized 831 limitations across the 440 articles. Articles with limitations sections reported more limitations than those without (avg. 2.6 vs. 1.2 limitations per article). Threats to external validity were the most common type of reported limitation (est. 52% of articles) and threats to statistical conclusion validity were the least common (est. 17% of articles). Authors reported slightly more limitations over time. Despite the extensive attention paid to statistical conclusion validity in the scientific discourse throughout psychology’s credibility revolution, our results suggest that concerns about statistics-related issues were not reflected in social and personality psychologists’ reported limitations. The high prevalence of limitations concerning external validity might suggest it is time that we improve our practices in this area, rather than apologizing for these limitations after the fact.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper , a threat to the development of law and psychology as a "public science" (i.e., one that goes beyond theory to address important issues in society), a failure to think critically about effect sizes.
Abstract: Abstract This comment examines a threat to the development of law and psychology as a “public science” (i.e., one that goes beyond theory to address important issues in society), a failure to think critically about effect sizes. Effect sizes estimate the strength or magnitude of the relationship between variables and therefore can help decision makers understand whether scientific results are relevant to some legal or policy outcome. Accordingly, I suggest that those conducting and reporting law and psychology research should: (1) justify why observed effect sizes are meaningful and report them candidly and transparently, (2) scrutinize effect sizes to determine if they are plausible, and (3) plan studies such that they fit with the researchers’ inferential goals. I explore these points by way of case studies on influential law and psychology studies, such as implicit bias in the courtroom. I end with suggestions for implementing my recommendations, including a metaresearch agenda for law and psychology.
Trending Questions (3)
What is the limitation of this article The British Journal of Psychiatry (2023) 222, 212–220. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2023.23?

The provided paper is not "The British Journal of Psychiatry (2023) 222, 212–220. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2023.23." Therefore, I cannot provide any information about the limitations of that specific article. The provided paper is about the types of limitations reported in short articles in social and personality psychology.

Research limitations in psychological studies?

The paper discusses the limitations reported in short articles in social and personality psychology. It categorizes the limitations according to the four validities framework and finds that threats to external validity are the most common type of reported limitation.

What limitations are in research?

The paper discusses the limitations reported in short articles in social and personality psychology. It categorizes the limitations according to the four validities framework and finds that threats to external validity are the most common type of reported limitation.