Dyskusja „po Stapelu”. Wokół rzetelności badań i publikacji w psychologii

Łukasz Budzicz


Post-Stapelian psychology. Discussions on the reliability of data and publications in psychology

In 2011, Diederik Stapel’s fraud was discovered. It turned out that not only did Stapel forge data but also journals failed to notice many obvious errors and encouraged distortions (e.g., not reporting studies with non-significant results). Simultaneously, Simmons et al. (2011) published an article dedicated to questionable research practices that could significantly increase the number of false-positive results through arbitrary decisions pertaining to data analysis and presentation. Shortly after, there appeared results of studies suggesting that a large number of researchers confess to such practices and that they are, in fact, commonly accepted. These events sparked off a wide debate about the reliability of data in psychology. The author of the present paper discusses the most important points of this debate, showing how the low level of theoretical maturity, the lack of consensus on the rules of applying research techniques and interpreting results, and the unrealistic demands of editors of empirical journals may have contributed to this crisis.


fraud in psychology; Diederik Stapel; “false-positive psychology;” publication bias

Full Text:

PDF (Język Polski)


Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149(1), 91-130.

Asch, S. E. (1952/1987). Social psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J. A., Fiedler, K., […] i Wicherts, J. M. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology: Re-commendations for increasing replicability. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 108-119.

Aveyard, P., Bellgrove, M., Bertamini, M., Bestmann, S., Bishop, D., Brembs, B., ... Wolfe, J. (2013). Trust in science would be improved by study pre-registration. Strona internetowa: http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jun/05/trust-in-science-study-pre-registration

Bakker, M., van Dijk, A. i Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 543-554.

Bakker, M. i Wicherts, J. M. (2011). The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 666-678.

Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407-425.

Bevan, W. (1991). Contemporary psychology: A tour inside the onion. American Psychologist, 46, 475-483.

Bhattacharjee, Y. (2013). The mind of a con man. The New York Times. Strona internetowa: http:// www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html?_r =0

Brzeziński, J. M. (2012). Co to znaczy, że wyniki przeprowadzonych przez psychologów badań naukowych poddawane są analizie statystycznej? Roczniki Psychologiczne, 15(3), 7-39.

Chambers, C. D. (2013). Registered reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex, 49, 609-610.

Elms, A. C. (1975). The crisis of confidence in social psychology. American Psychologist, 30(10), 967-976.

European Association of Social Psychology (2012). Statement EASP on Levelt December 2012. Strona internetowa: http://www.easp.eu/news/Statement%20EASP%20on%20Levelt_December_%202012.pdf

Fanelli, D. (2010). „Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One, 5, e10068.

Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Violent video games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. American Psychologist, 68(2), 57-74.

Fiedler, K. (2011). Voodoo correlations are everywhere – not only in neuroscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2), 163-171.

Francis, G. (2012). The psychology of replication and replication in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 585-594.

Francis, G. (2014). The frequency of excess success for articles in Psychological Science. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1180-1187.

Gelman, A. i Loken, E. (2013). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Strona internetowa: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf

Gervais, W. M. i Norenzayan, A. (2012). Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science, 336(6080), 493-496.

Greve, W., Bröder, A. i Erdfelder, E. (2013). Result-blind peer reviews and editorial decisions: A missing pillar of scientific culture. European Psychologist, 18(4), 286-294.

Ioanis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2(8), e124.

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G. i Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532.

Kepes, S. i McDaniel, M. A. (2013). How trustworthy is the scientific literature in Industrial and Organizational Psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(3), 252-268.

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196-217.

Klebaniuk, J. (2012). Profesor Stapel na dopingu. O upiększaniu psychologii społecznej. Psychologia Społeczna, 7, 213-217.

Kolfshooten, F. (2014). Fresh misconduct charges hit dutch social psychology. Science, 344, 566-567.

LeBel, E. P. i Peters, K. R. (2011). Fearing the future of empirical psychology: Bem’s (2011) evidence of psi as a case study of deficiencies in modal research practice. Review of General Psychology, 15(4), 371-379.

Leggett, N. C., Thomas, N. A., Loetscher, T. i Nicholls, M. R. (2013). The life of p: “Just significant” results are on the rise. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(12), 2303-2309.

Levelt Committee, Noort Committee, Drenth Committee (2012). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. Strona internetowa: https://www.commissielevelt.nl/wp-content/uploads_per_blog/commissielevelt/2013/01/finalreportLevelt1.pdf

Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(5), 631-651.

Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A. i Hegarty, B. (2012). Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 537-542.

Marszalek, J. M., Barber, C., Kohlhart, J. i Holmes, C. B. (2011). Sample size in psychological research over the past 30 years. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 112, 331-348.

Masicampo, E. J. i Lalande, D. R. (2012). A peculiar prevalence of p values just below .05. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(11), 2271-2279.

Maxwell, S. E. (2004). The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: Causes, consequences, and remedies. Psychological Methods, 9, 147-163.

Mitchell, G. (2012). What is wrong with social psychology? Dialogue. The Official Newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 12-17.

Murayama, K., Pekrun, R. i Fiedler, K. (2013). Research practices that can prevent an inflation of false-positive rates. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 107-118.

Nosek, B. A. i Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 217-243.

Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R. i Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615-631.

Olechowski, M. (2012). Kryzys psychologii, psychologia kryzysu. Psychologia Społeczna, 22, 227-233.

Pashlev, H. i Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528-530.

Rand, K. i Ilardi, S. (2005). Toward a consilient science of psychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 7-20.

Reich, E. S. (2009). Plastic fantastic: How the biggest fraud in physics shook the scientific world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ring, K. (1967). Experimental social psychology: Some sober questions about some frivolous values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 113-123.

Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Salomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 2-14.

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. i Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366.

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. i Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21-word solution. Dialogue. The Official Newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 4-7.

Simonsohn, U. (2013). Just post it: The lesson from two cases of fabricated data detected by statistics alone. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1875-1888.

Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D. i Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534-547.

Staats, A. (1999). Unifying psychology requires new infrastructure, theory, method, and a research agenda. Review of General Psychology, 3, 3-13.

Stapel, D. A. i Lindenberg, S. (2011). Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination. Science, 332, 251-252.

Stroebe, W., Postmes, T. i Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670-688.

Tressoldi, P. E. (2012). Replication unreliability in psychology: Elusive phenomena or “elusive” statistical power? Frontiers in Psychology, 3(218), doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00218.

Wicherts, J. M. i Bakker, M. (2012). Publish (your data) or (let the data) perish! Why not publish your data too? Intelligence, 40(2), 73-76.

Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M. i Molenaar, D. (2011). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS ONE, 6(11), e26828.

Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J. i Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61(7), 726-728.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18290/rpsych.2015.18.1-1pl


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Roczniki Psychologiczne/Annals of Psychology

ISSN: 1507-7888   e-ISSN: 2451-4306

© Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL & Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II – Wydział Nauk Społecznych

Articles are licensed under a Creative Commons  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)