On the Limitations of Manipulation Checks: An Obstacle Toward Cumulative Science
| Autor: | Emilie Retsin, Aurore Lemonnier, Marie-Pierre Fayant, Theodore Alexopoulos, Harold Sigall |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale Menaces et Société (LPS - EA 4471), Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5), University of Maryland [College Park], University of Maryland System, Risques environnementaux et Menaces sociales (REMS), Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et l'Apprentissage (CeRCA), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Tours-Université de Poitiers, Université de Poitiers-Université de Tours (UT)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Poitiers-Université de Tours-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
Engineering
manipulation check Social Psychology construct validity lcsh:BF1-990 050109 social psychology Test validity 050105 experimental psychology [SHS]Humanities and Social Sciences experimentation Manipulation checks Argument Order (exchange) best research practices 0501 psychology and cognitive sciences psychology social psychology ComputingMilieux_MISCELLANEOUS Statistical hypothesis testing business.industry 05 social sciences Causal effect Construct validity lcsh:Psychology Obstacle business Social psychology Cognitive psychology |
| Zdroj: | Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale = International review of social psychology Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale = International review of social psychology, Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 2017, 30 (1), pp.125. ⟨10.5334/irsp.102⟩ International Review of Social Psychology, Vol 30, Iss 1, Pp 125-130 (2017) International Review of Social Psychology; Vol 30, No 1 (2017); 125-130 |
| ISSN: | 0992-986X 2119-4130 2397-8570 |
| DOI: | 10.5334/irsp.102⟩ |
| Popis: | Manipulation checks do not allow ruling out or accepting alternative explanations of causal effects (Sigall & Mills, 1998). In order to gauge the influence of this argument on current research practices, we surveyed the views of researchers on manipulation checks. Results confirmed that a manipulation check still stands as a totem of experimental rigor. Except in rare circumstances, such as when pilot testing, manipulation checks do not provide information relevant to construct validity. While it seems cost free to include seemingly informative manipulation checks, we claim it is actually costly because it wrongly enhances subjective confidence in the validity of research findings. We conclude that manipulation checks may hinder efforts to adopt a cumulative culture and practice of hypothesis testing. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|