10-2 Discussion: Scientific Integrity in Psychology

Describe your reaction to the readings this week (ONE ATTACHED, ONE IS LINK BELOW). More specifically, what, if anything, did you find particularly interesting or surprising? What do you think is the biggest threat to scientific integrity in psychology, and what are some ways that it could be remedied?

When responding to your classmates, provide your perspective on scientific integrity and offer other suggestions for how the identified threat could be remedied.

To complete this assignment, review the Discussion Rubric document.




This week’s reading was very interesting, I was wondering about this topic earlier when I was doing research for my hypothesis. When conducting research it is easy to conduct biased research, meaning only finding and citing sources that work in your paper’s favor rather than also citing sources to challenge or questions the hypothesis. With this thought, I also thought about how the research may be biased because of people conducting research experiments in their favor as well. It is easy to interview or survey people who you know will answer in support or against a perspective, this is why random sampling or larger sampling pools are needed. We like to thing all of the peer-reviewed journals, research and experiments are reliable. However, as we learned in this wee’s reading they are not. Psychologists should be honest, moral and ethical to share information to better the world and people, however they are faced with challenges and put in positions where they may make questionable decisions. “QRPs are the steroids of scientific competition, artificially enhancing performance and producing a kind of arms race in which researchers who strictly play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage” (John, Loewenstein & Prelec, 2012, p. 524). QRP means questionable research practices, this quote really made me think because the field of psychology is extremely competitive. Everyone wants to publish an experiment, make a difference, prove a point, add to science, help people, share their knowledge, etc. However, not everyone gets to. Experiments need funding, hypotheses need proof, research needs to be relevant and of interest and so on. Which is why some people may use questionable research practices or even completely falsify public statements, to get attention and more resources to keep researching. It is not right, however as we learned it is common because that is how the playing field works to have an advantage or a chance to get somewhere in their careers.


John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953


John, Loewenstein and Prelec have an interesting study. They surveyed 2,000 psychologists to ask about questionable research practices QRPs (2012). It was astonishing to read this because I thought about what a study would be like if researchers asked lawyers if they felt they helped someone get out of jail time even if they knew they were guilty, or a doctor if they feel they were involved in malpractice but never reported or never were convicted. The authors reported that approximately 94% of the participants admitted to one QRP (2012). Alok Jha’s journal states that 72% participants reported colleagues had questionable research practices (2012). This was rather surprising to see how inflated some of the results were to support a hypothesis. John, Loewenstein and Prelec’s study reported that “failing to report all dependent measures, collecting more data after seeing whether results were significant, and selectively reporting studies that “worked”” were among the three highest QRPs (2012, p. 527).

It appears that researchers are influencing their results by gathering more data to support their claim, failing to report dependent measures that would dispute their claim or using a selective process to justify their hypothesis. In terms of the “biggest threat to scientific integrity in psychology”, it is difficult to say which QRP will have the largest impact on research. Consider how people react to social media, political statements, or celebrities. It does not matter the exact cause; people try to find ways to diminish the work of others even if there was only one violator or if the offense minor. Gaining trust back is difficult once lost. To remedy the situation, it calls for stricter review of data and reports. Scrutinization of journals through proper vetting is the only way to ensure these QRP do not occur again through deterring violations.


Alok Jha, S. C. (2012). False positives: Fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research. Retrieved July 31, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/13/sc…

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


15 Responses to “10-2 Discussion: Scientific Integrity in Psychology”

  1. Sex says:

    449391 272281Cheap Gucci Handbags Is generally blogengine a lot far better than wp for reasons unknown? Ought to be which is turning out to be popluar today. 802937

  2. 498840 63849I very delighted to uncover this web website on bing, just what I was looking for : D besides saved to bookmarks . 455352

  3. 785764 591212This post post produced me feel. I will write something about this on my weblog. 770998

  4. 925698 271099I undoubtedly did not realize that. Learnt something new nowadays! Thanks for that. 964574

  5. 152674 16974I notice there is certainly lots of spam on this weblog. Do you need to have support cleaning them up? I may possibly aid between courses! 463599

  6. 373923 535102I like this website so considerably, saved to favorites . 610249

  7. 500876 663729The digital cigarette makes use of a battery and a small heating element the vaporize the e-liquid. This vapor can then be inhaled and exhaled 343000

  8. bandar togel says:

    478896 147423Very good day. Quite cool blog!! Man .. Superb .. Wonderful .. Ill bookmark your internet site and take the feeds additionallyI am glad to locate numerous useful information right here within the post. Thank you for sharing.. 522374

  9. 723938 989343Hello super schner Webblog den ihr da habt. Bin gerade ber die Google Suche darber gestolpert. Gefllt mir echt super gut. macht weiter so. MFG Martina 146704

  10. 강남홀덤 says:

    520064 299982Exceptional post. I was checking constantly this blog and Im impressed! Really useful details specially the last part I care for such info much. I was seeking this specific information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck. 148726

  11. 937619 998704Take a peek at the following guidelines what follows discover perfect approach to follow such a mainly because you structure your small business this afternoon. earn dollars 848012

  12. 183424 792049What platform and theme are you using if I may possibly ask? Where can I buy them? x 509394

  13. So don’t write half the motion to write this type.

  14. Cell Phone 925 flows through the site.Gambling concrete.

  15. 557648 472205you use a great weblog here! do you need to make some invite posts on my blog? 3244

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: buy backlinks | Thanks to webdesign berlin, House Plans and voucher codes