[citation needed]

I’ve written a few posts on this blog about how the development of better online infrastructure could help address and even solve many of the problems psychologists and other scientists face (e.g., the low reliability of peer review, the ‘fudge factor’ in statistical reporting, the sheer size of the scientific literature, etc.). Actually, that general question–how we can use technology to do better science–occupies a good chunk of my research these days (see e.g., Neurosynth). One question I’ve been interested in for a long time is how to keep track not only of ‘successful’ studies (i.e., those that produce sufficiently interesting effects to make it into the published literature), but also replication failures (or successes of limited interest) that wind up in researchers’ file drawers. A couple of years ago I went so far as to build a prototype website for tracking replication attempts in psychology. Unfortunately, it never went anywhere, partly (okay, mostly) because the site really sucked, and partly because I didn’t really invest much effort in drumming up interest (mostly due to lack of time). But I still think the idea is a valuable one in principle, and a lot of other people have independently had the same idea (which means it must be right, right?).

Anyway, it looks like someone finally had the cleverness, time, and money to get this right. Hal Pashler, Sean Kang*, and colleagues at UCSD have been developing an online database for tracking attempted replications of psychology studies for a while now, and it looks like it’s now in beta. PsychFileDrawer is a very slick, full-featured platform that really should–if there’s any justice in the world–provide the kind of service everyone’s been saying we need for a long time now. If it doesn’t work, I think we’ll have some collective soul-searching to do, because I don’t think it’s going to get any easier than this to add and track attempted replications. So go use it!

*Full disclosure: Sean Kang is a good friend of mine, so I’m not completely impartial in plugging this (though I’d do it anyway). Sean also happens to be amazingly smart and in search of a faculty job right now. If I were you, I’d hire him.

Andrew Gelman discusses a “puzzle that’s been bugging [him] for a while“:

Pop economists (or, at least, pop micro-economists) are often making one of two arguments:

1. People are rational and respond to incentives. Behavior that looks irrational is actually completely rational once you think like an economist.

2. People are irrational and they need economists, with their open minds, to show them how to be rational and efficient.

Argument 1 is associated with “why do they do that?” sorts of puzzles. Why do they charge so much for candy at the movie theater, why are airline ticket prices such a mess, why are people drug addicts, etc. The usual answer is that there’s some rational reason for what seems like silly or self-destructive behavior.

Argument 2 is associated with “we can do better” claims such as why we should fire 80% of public-schools teachers or Moneyball-style stories about how some clever entrepreneur has made a zillion dollars by exploiting some inefficiency in the market.

The trick is knowing whether you’re gonna get 1 or 2 above. They’re complete opposites!

Personally what I find puzzling isn’t really how to reconcile these two strands (which do seem to somehow coexist quite peacefully in pop economists’ writings); it’s how anyone–economist or otherwise–still manages to believe people are rational in any meaningful sense (and I’m not saying Andrew does; in fact, see below).

There are at least two non-trivial ways to define rationality. One is in terms of an ideal agent’s actions–i.e., rationality is what a decision-maker would choose to do if she had unlimited cognitive resources and knew all the information relevant to a given decision. Well, okay, maybe not an ideal agent, but at the very least a very smart one. This is the sense of rationality in which you might colloquially remark to your neighbor that buying lottery tickets is an irrational thing to do, because the odds are stacked against you. The expected value of buying a lottery ticket (i.e., the amount you would expect to end up with in the long run) is generally negative, so in some normative sense, you could say it’s irrational to buy lottery tickets.

This definition of irrationality is probably quite close to the colloquial usage of the term, but it’s not really interesting from an academic standpoint, because nobody (economists included) really believes we’re rational in this sense. It’s blatantly obvious to everyone that none of us really make normatively correct choices much of the time. If for no other reason than we are all somewhat lacking in the omniscience department.

What economists mean when they talk about rationality is something more technical; specifically, it’s that people manifest stationary preferences. That is, given any set of preferences an individual happens to have (which may seem completely crazy to everyone else), rationality implies that that person expresses those preferences in a consistent manner. If you like dark chocolate more than milk chocolate, and milk chocolate more than Skittles, you shouldn’t like Skittles more than dark chocolate. If you do, you’re violating the principle of transitivity, which would effectively make it impossible to model your preferences formally (since we’d have no way of telling what you’d prefer in any given situation). And that would be a problem for standard economic theory, which is based on the assumption that people are fundamentally rational agents (in this particular sense).

The reason I say it’s puzzling that anyone still believes people are rational in even this narrower sense is that decades of behavioral economics and psychology research have repeatedly demonstrated that people just don’t have consistent preferences. You can radically influence and alter decision-makers’ behavior in all sorts of ways that simply aren’t predicted or accounted for by Rational Choice Theory (RCT). I’ll give just two examples here, but there are any number of others, as many excellent books attest (e.g., Dan Ariely‘s Predictably Irrational, or Thaler and Sunstein’s Nudge).

The first example stems from famous work by Madrian and Shea (2001) investigating the effects of savings plan designs on employees’ 401(k) choices. By pretty much anyone’s account, decisions about savings plans should be a pretty big deal for most employees. The difference between opting into a 401(k) and opting out of one can easily amount to several hundred thousand dollars over the course of a lifetime, so you would expect people to have a huge incentive to make the choice that’s most consistent with their personal preferences (whether those preferences happen to be for splurging now or saving for later). Yet what Madrian and Shea convincingly showed was that most employees simply go with the default plan option. When companies switch from opt-in to opt-out (i.e., instead of calling up HR and saying you want to join the plan, you’re enrolled by default, and have to fill out a form if you want to opt out), nearly 50% more employees end up enrolled in the 401(k).

This result (and any number of others along similar lines) makes no sense under rational choice theory, because it’s virtually impossible to conceive of a consistent set of preferences that would explain this type of behavior. Many of the same employees who won’t take ten minutes out of their day to opt in or out of their 401(k) will undoubtedly drive across town to save a few dollars on their groceries; like most people, they’ll look for bargains, buy cheaper goods rather than more expensive ones, worry about leaving something for their children after they’re gone, and so on and so forth. And one can’t simply attribute the discrepancy in behavior to ignorance (i.e., “no one reads the fine print!”), because the whole point of massive incentives is that they’re supposed to incentivize you to do things like look up information that could be relevant to, oh, say, having hundreds of thousands of extra dollars in your bank account in forty years. If you’re willing to look for coupons in the sunday paper to save a few dollars, but aren’t willing to call up HR and ask about your savings plan, there is, to put it frankly, something mildly inconsistent about your preferences.

The other example stems from the enormous literature on risk aversion. The classic risk aversion finding is that most people require a higher nominal payoff on risky prospects than on safe ones before they’re willing to accept the risky prospect. For instance, most people would rather have $10 for sure than $50 with 25% probability, even though the expected value of the latter is 25% higher (an amazing return!). Risk aversion is a pervasive phenomenon, and crops up everywhere, including in financial investments, where it is known as the equity premium puzzle (the puzzle being that many investors prefer bonds to stocks even though the historical record suggests a massively higher rate of return for stocks over the long term).

From a naive standpoint, you might think the challenge risk aversion poses to rational choice theory is that risk aversion is just, you know, stupid. Meaning, if someone keeps offering you $10 with 100% probability or $50 with 25% probability, it’s stupid to keep making the former choice (which is what most people do when you ask them) when you’re going to make much more money by making the latter choice. But again, remember, economic rationality isn’t about preferences per se, it’s about consistency of preferences. Risk aversion may violate a simplistic theory under which people are supposed to simply maximize expected value at all times; but then, no one’s really believed that for  several hundred years. The standard economist’s response to the observation that people are risk averse is to observe that people aren’t maximizing expected value, they’re maximizing utility. Utility has a non-linear relationship with expected value, so that people assign different weight to the Nth+1 dollar earned than to the Nth dollar earned. For instance, the classical value function identified by Kahneman and Tversky in their seminal work (for which Kahneman won the Nobel prize in part) looks like this:

The idea here is that the average person overvalues small gains relative to larger gains; i.e., you may be more satisfied when you receive $200 than when you receive $100, but you’re not going to be twice as satisfied.

This seemed like a sufficient response for a while, since it appears to preserve consistency as the hallmark of rationality. The idea is that you can have people who have more or less curvature in their value and probability weighting functions (i.e., some people are more risk averse than others), and that’s just fine as long as those preferences are consistent. Meaning, it’s okay if you prefer $50 with 25% probability to $10 with 100% probability just as long as you also prefer $50 with 25% probability to $8 with 100% probability, or to $7 with 100% probability, and so on. So long as your preferences are consistent, your behavior can be explained by RCT.

The problem, as many people have noted, is that in actuality there isn’t any set of consistent preferences that can explain most people’s risk averse behavior. A succinct and influential summary of the problem was provided by Rabin (2000), who showed formally that the choices people make when dealing with small amounts of money imply such an absurd level of risk aversion that the only way for them to be consistent would be to reject uncertain prospects with an infinitely large payoff even when the certain payoff was only modestly larger. Put differently,

if a person always turns down a 50-50 lose $100/gain $110 gamble, she will always turn down a 50-50 lose $800/gain $2,090 gamble. … Somebody who always turns down 50-50 lose $100/gain $125 gambles will turn down any gamble with a 50% chance of losing $600.

The reason for this is simply that any concave function that crosses the points expressed by the low-magnitude prospects (e.g., a refusal to take a 50-50 bet with lose $100/gain $110 outcomes) will have to asymptote fairly quickly. So for people to have internally consistent preferences, they would literally have to be turning down infinite but uncertain payoffs for certain but modest ones. Which of course is absurd; in practice, you would have a hard time finding many people who would refuse a coin toss where they lose $600 on heads and win $$$infinity dollarz$$$ on tails. Though you might have a very difficult time convincing them you’re serious about the bet. And an even more difficult time finding infinity trucks with which to haul in those infinity dollarz in the event you lose.

Anyway, these are just two prominent examples; there are literally hundreds of other similar examples in the behavioral economics literature of supposedly rational people displaying wildly inconsistent behavior. And not just a minority of people; it’s pretty much all of us. Presumably including economists. Irrationality, as it turns out, is the norm and not the exception. In some ways, what’s surprising is not that we’re inconsistent, but that we manage to do so well despite our many biases and failings.

To return to the puzzle Andrew Gelman posed, though, I suspect Andrew’s being facetious, and doesn’t really see this as much of a puzzle at all. Here’s his solution:

The key, I believe, is that “rationality” is a good thing. We all like to associate with good things, right? Argument 1 has a populist feel (people are rational!) and argument 2 has an elitist feel (economists are special!). But both are ways of associating oneself with rationality. It’s almost like the important thing is to be in the same room with rationality; it hardly matters whether you yourself are the exemplar of rationality, or whether you’re celebrating the rationality of others.

This seems like a somewhat more tactful way of saying what I suspect Andrew and many other people (and probably most academic psychologists, myself included) already believe, which is that there isn’t really any reason to think that people are rational in the sense demanded by RCT. That’s not to say economics is bunk, or that it doesn’t make sense to think about incentives as a means of altering behavior. Obviously, in a great many situations, pretending that people are rational is a reasonable approximation to the truth. For instance, in general, if you offer more money to have a job done, more people will be willing to do that job. But the fact that the tenets of standard economics often work shouldn’t blind us to the fact that they also often don’t, and that they fail in many systematic and predictable ways. For instance, sometimes paying people more money makes them perform worse, not better. And sometimes it saps them of the motivation to work at all. Faced with overwhelming empirical evidence that people don’t behave as the theory predicts, the appropriate response should be to revisit the theory, or at least to recognize which situations it should be applied in and which it shouldn’t.

Anyway, that’s a long-winded way of saying I don’t think Andrew’s puzzle is really a puzzle. Economists simply don’t express their own preferences and views about consistency consistently, and it’s not surprising, because neither does anyone else. That doesn’t make them (or us) bad people; it just makes us all people.

A provocative and very short Opinion piece by Julien Mayor (Are scientists nearsighted gamblers? The misleading nature of impact factors) was recently posted on the Frontiers in Psychology website (open access! yay!). Mayor’s argument is summed up nicely in this figure:

The left panel plots the mean versus median number of citations per article in a given year (each year is a separate point) for 3 journals: Nature (solid circles), Psych Review (squares), and Psych Science (triangles). The right panel plots the number of citations each paper receives in each of the first 15 years following its publication. What you can clearly see is that (a) the mean and median are very strongly related for the psychology journals, but completely unrelated for Nature, implying that a very small number of articles account for the vast majority of Nature citations (Mayor cites data indicating that up to 40% of Nature papers are never cited); and (b) Nature papers tend to get cited heavily for a year or two, and then disappear, whereas Psych Science, and particularly Psych Review, tend to have much longer shelf lives. Based on these trends, Mayor concludes that:

From this perspective, the IF, commonly accepted as golden standard for performance metrics seems to reward high-risk strategies (after all your Nature article has only slightly over 50% chance of being ever cited!), and short-lived outbursts. Are scientists then nearsighted gamblers?

I’d very much like to believe this, in that I think the massive emphasis scientists collectively place on publishing work in broad-interest, short-format journals like Nature and Science is often quite detrimental to the scientific enterprise as a whole. But I don’t actually believe it, because I think that, for any individual paper, researchers generally do have good incentives to try to publish in the glamor mags rather than in more specialized journals. Mayor’s figure, while informative, doesn’t take a number of factors into account:

• The type of papers that gets published in Psych Review and Nature are very different. Review papers, in general, tend to get cited more often, and for a longer time. A better comparison would be between Psych Review papers and only review papers in Nature (there’s not many of them, unfortunately). My guess is that that difference alone probably explains much of the difference in citation rates later on in an article’s life. That would also explain why the temporal profile of Psych Science articles (which are also overwhelmingly short empirical reports) is similar to that of Nature. Major theoretical syntheses stay relevant for decades; individual empirical papers, no matter how exciting, tend to stop being cited as frequently once (a) the finding fails to replicate, or (b) a literature builds up around the original report, and researchers stop citing individual studies and start citing review articles (e.g., in Psych Review).
• Scientists don’t just care about citation counts, they also care about reputation. The reality is that much of the appeal of having a Nature or Science publication isn’t necessarily that you expect the work to be cited much more heavily, but that you get to tell everyone else how great you must be because you have a publication in Nature. Now, on some level, we know that it’s silly to hold glamor mags in such high esteem, and Mayor’s data are consistent with that idea. In an ideal world, we’d read all papers ultra-carefully before making judgments about their quality, rather than using simple but flawed heuristics like what journal those papers happen to be published in. But this isn’t an ideal world, and the reality is that people do use such heuristics. So it’s to each scientist’s individual advantage (but to the field’s detriment) to take advantage of that knowledge.
• Different fields have very different citation rates. And articles in different fields have very different shelf lives. For instance, I’ve heard that in many areas of physics, the field moves so fast that articles are basically out of date within a year or two (I have no way to verify if this is true or not). That’s certainly not true of most areas of psychology. For instance, in cognitive neuroscience, the current state of the field in many areas is still reasonably well captured by highly-cited publications that are 5 – 10 years old. Most behavioral areas of psychology seem to advance even more slowly. So one might well expect articles in psychology journals to peak later in time than the average Nature article, because Nature contains a high proportion of articles in the natural sciences.
• Articles are probably selected for publication in Nature, Psych Science, and Psych Review for different reasons. In particular, there’s no denying the fact that Nature selects articles in large part based on the perceived novelty and unexpectedness of the result. That’s not to say that methodological rigor doesn’t play a role, just that, other things being equal, unexpected findings are less likely to be replicated. Since Nature and Science overwhelmingly publish articles with new and surprising findings, it shouldn’t be surprising if the articles in these journals have a lower rate of replication several years on (and hence, stop being cited). That’s presumably going to be less true of articles in specialist journals, where novelty factor and appeal to a broad audience are usually less important criteria.

Addressing these points would probably go a long way towards closing, and perhaps even reversing, the gap implied  by Mayor’s figure. I suspect that if you could do a controlled experiment and publish the exact same article in Nature and Psych Science, it would tend to get cited more heavily in Nature over the long run. So in that sense, if citations were all anyone cared about, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for scientists to try to publish in the most prestigious journals–even though, again, I think the pressure to publish in such journals actually hurts the field as a whole.

Of course, in reality, we don’t just care about citation counts anyway; lots of other things matter. For one thing, we also need to factor in the opportunity cost associated with writing a paper up in a very specific format for submission to Nature or Science, knowing that we’ll probably have to rewrite much or all of it before it gets published. All that effort could probably have been spent on other projects, so one way to put the question is: how many lower-tier publications in the hand is a top-tier publication in the bush worth?

Ultimately, it’s an empirical matter; I imagine if you were willing to make some strong assumptions, and collect the right kind of data, you could come up with a meaningful estimate of the actual value of a Nature publication, as a function of important variables like the number of other publications the authors had, the amount of work invested in rewriting the paper after rejection, the authors’ career stage, etc. But I don’t know of any published work to that effect; it seems like it would probably be more trouble than it was worth (or, to get meta: how many Nature manuscripts can you write in the time it takes you to write a manuscript about how many Nature manuscripts you should write?). And, to be honest, I suspect that any estimate you obtained that way would have little or no impact on the actual decisions scientists make about where to submit their manuscripts anyway, because, in practice, such decisions are driven as much by guesswork and wishful thinking as by any well-reasoned analysis. And on that last point, I speak from extensive personal experience…

Let’s suppose you were charged with the important task of naming all the various subdisciplines of neuroscience that have anything to do with the field of research we now know as psychology. You might come up with some or all of the following terms, in no particular order:

• Neuropsychology
• Biological psychology
• Neurology
• Cognitive neuroscience
• Cognitive science
• Systems neuroscience
• Behavioral neuroscience
• Psychiatry

That’s just a partial list; you’re resourceful, so there are probably others (biopsychology? psychobiology? psychoneuroimmunology?). But it’s a good start. Now suppose you decided to make a game out of it, and threw a dinner party where each guest received a copy of your list (discipline names only–no descriptions!) and had to guess what they thought people in that field study. If your nomenclature made any sense at all, and tried to respect the meanings of the individual words used to generate the compound words or phrases in your list, your guests might hazard something like the following guesses:

• Neuropsychology: “That’s the intersection of neuroscience and psychology. Meaning, the study of the neural mechanisms underlying cognitive function.”
• Biological psychology: “Similar to neuropsychology, but probably broader. Like, it includes the role of genes and hormones and kidneys in cognitive function.”
• Neurology: “The pure study of the brain, without worrying about all of that associated psychological stuff.”
• Cognitive neuroscience: “Well if it doesn’t mean the same thing as neuropsychology and biological psychology, then it probably refers to the branch of neuroscience that deals with how we think and reason. Kind of like cognitive psychology, only with brains!”
• Cognitive science: “Like cognitive neuroscience, but not just for brains. It’s the study of human cognition in general.”
• Systems neuroscience: “Mmm… I don’t really know. The study of how the brain functions as a whole system?”
• Behavioral neuroscience: “Easy: it’s the study of the relationship between brain and behavior. For example, how we voluntarily generate actions.”
• Psychiatry: “That’s the branch of medicine that concerns itself with handing out multicolored pills that do funny things to your thoughts and feelings. Of course.”

If this list seems sort of sensible to you, you probably live in a wonderful world where compound words mean what you intuitively think they mean, the subject matter of scientific disciplines can be transparently discerned, and everyone eats ice cream for dinner every night terms that sound extremely similar have extremely similar referents rather than referring to completely different fields of study. Unfortunately, that world is not the world we happen to actually inhabit. In our world, most of the disciplines at the intersection of psychology and neuroscience have funny names that reflect accidents of history, and tell you very little about what the people in that field actually study.

Here’s the list your guests might hand back in this world, if you ever made the terrible, terrible mistake of inviting a bunch of working scientists to dinner:

• Neuropsychology: The study of how brain damage affects cognition and behavior. Most often focusing on the effects of brain lesions in humans, and typically relying primarily on behavioral evaluations (i.e., no large magnetic devices that take photographs of the space inside people’s skulls). People who call themselves neuropsychologists are overwhelmingly trained as clinical psychologists, and many of them work in big white buildings with a red cross on the front. Note that this isn’t the definition of neuropsychology that Wikipedia gives you; Wikipedia seems to think that neuropsychology is “the basic scientific discipline that studies the structure and function of the brain related to specific psychological processes and overt behaviors.” Nice try, Wikipedia, but that’s much too general. You didn’t even use the words ‘brain damage’, ‘lesion’, or ‘patient’ in the first sentence.
• Biological psychology: To be perfectly honest, I’m going to have to step out of dinner-guest character for a moment and admit I don’t really have a clue what biological psychologists study. I can’t remember the last time I heard someone refer to themselves as a biological psychologist. To an approximation, I think biological psychology differs from, say, cognitive neuroscience in placing greater emphasis on everything outside of higher cognitive processes (sensory systems, autonomic processes, the four F’s, etc.). But that’s just idle speculation based largely on skimming through the chapter names of my old “Biological Psychology” textbook. What I can definitively confidently comfortably tentatively recklessly assert is that you really don’t want to trust the Wikipedia definition here, because when you type ‘biological psychology‘ into that little box that says ‘search’ on Wikipedia, it redirects you to the behavioral neuroscience entry. And that can’t be right, because, as we’ll see in a moment, behavioral neuroscience refers to something very different…
• Neurology: Hey, look! A wikipedia entry that doesn’t lie to our face! It says neurology is “a medical specialty dealing with disorders of the nervous system. Specifically, it deals with the diagnosis and treatment of all categories of disease involving the central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems, including their coverings, blood vessels, and all effector tissue, such as muscle.” That’s a definition I can get behind, and I think 9 out of 10 dinner guests would probably agree (the tenth is probably drunk). But then, I’m not (that kind of) doctor, so who knows.
• Cognitive neuroscience: In principle, cognitive neuroscience actually means more or less what it sounds like it means. It’s the study of the neural mechanisms underlying cognitive function. In practice, it all goes to hell in a handbasket when you consider that you can prefix ‘cognitive neuroscience’ with pretty much any adjective you like and end up with a valid subdiscipline. Developmental cognitive neuroscience? Check. Computational cognitive neuroscience? Check. Industrial/organizational cognitive neuroscience? Amazingly, no; until just now, that phrase did not exist on the internet. But by the time you read this, Google will probably have a record of this post, which is really all it takes to legitimate I/OCN as a valid field of inquiry. It’s just that easy to create a new scientific discipline, so be very afraid–things are only going to get messier.
• Cognitive science: A field that, by most accounts, lives up to its name. Well, kind of. Cognitive science sounds like a blanket term for pretty much everything that has to do with cognition, and it sort of is. You have psychology and linguistics and neuroscience and philosophy and artificial intelligence all represented. I’ve never been to the annual CogSci conference, but I hear it’s a veritable orgy of interdisciplinary activity. Still, I think there’s a definite bias towards some fields at the expense of others. Neuroscientists (of any stripe), for instance, rarely call themselves cognitive scientists. Conversely, philosophers of mind or language love to call themselves cognitive scientists, and the jerk cynic in me says it’s because it means they get to call themselves scientists. Also, in terms of content and coverage, there seems to be a definite emphasis among self-professed cognitive scientists on computational and mathematical modeling, and not so much emphasis on developing neuroscience-based models (though neural network models are popular). Still, if you’re scoring terms based on clarity of usage, cognitive science should score at least an 8.5 / 10.
• Systems neuroscience: The study of neural circuits and the dynamics of information flow in the central nervous system (note: I stole part of that definition from MIT’s BCS website, because MIT people are SMART). Systems neuroscience doesn’t overlap much with psychology; you can’t defensibly argue that the temporal dynamics of neuronal assemblies in sensory cortex have anything to do with human cognition, right? I just threw this in to make things even more confusing.
• Behavioral neuroscience: This one’s really great, because it has almost nothing to do with what you think it does. Well, okay, it does have something to do with behavior. But it’s almost exclusively animal behavior. People who refer to themselves as behavioral neuroscientists are generally in the business of poking rats in the brain with very small, sharp, glass objects; they typically don’t care much for human beings (professionally, that is). I guess that kind of makes sense when you consider that you can have rats swim and jump and eat and run while electrodes are implanted in their heads, whereas most of the time when we study human brains, they’re sitting motionless in (a) a giant magnet, (b) a chair, or (c) a jar full of formaldehyde. So maybe you could make an argument that since humans don’t get to BEHAVE very much in our studies, people who study humans can’t call themselves behavioral neuroscientists. But that would be a very bad argument to make, and many of the people who work in the so-called “behavioral sciences” and do nothing but study human behavior would probably be waiting to thump you in the hall the next time they saw you.
• Psychiatry: The branch of medicine that concerns itself with handing out multicolored pills that do funny things to your thoughts and feelings. Of course.

Anyway, the basic point of all this long-winded nonsense is just that, for all that stuff we tell undergraduates about how science is such a wonderful way to achieve clarity about the way the world works, scientists–or at least, neuroscientists and psychologists–tend to carve up their disciplines in pretty insensible ways. That doesn’t mean we’re dumb, of course; to the people who work in a field, the clarity (or lack thereof) of the terminology makes little difference, because you only need to acquire it once (usually in your first nine years of grad school), and after that you always know what people are talking about. Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure the whole point of learning big words is that once you’ve successfully learned them, you can stop thinking deeply about what they actually mean.

It is kind of annoying, though, to have to explain to undergraduates that, DUH, the class they really want to take given their interests is OBVIOUSLY cognitive neuroscience and NOT neuropsychology or biological psychology. I mean, can’t they read? Or to pedantically point out to someone you just met at a party that saying “the neurological mechanisms of such-and-such” makes them sound hopelessly unsophisticated, and what they should really be saying is “the neural mechanisms,” or “the neurobiological mechanisms”, or (for bonus points) “the neurophysiological substrates”. Or, you know, to try (unsuccessfully) to convince your mother on the phone that even though it’s true that you study the relationship between brains and behavior, the field you work in has very little to do with behavioral neuroscience, and so you really aren’t an expert on that new study reported in that article she just read in the paper the other day about that interesting thing that’s relevant to all that stuff we all do all the time.

The point is, the world would be a slightly better place if cognitive science, neuropsychology, and behavioral neuroscience all meant what they seem like they should mean. But only very slightly better.

Anyway, aside from my burning need to complain about trivial things, I bring these ugly terminological matters up partly out of idle curiosity. And what I’m idly curious about is this: does this kind of confusion feature prominently in other disciplines too, or is psychology-slash-neuroscience just, you know, “special”? My intuition is that it’s the latter; subdiscipline names in other areas just seem so sensible to me whenever I hear them. For instance, I’m fairly confident that organic chemists study the chemistry of Orgas, and I assume condensed matter physicists spend their days modeling the dynamics of teapots. Right? Yes? No? Perhaps my  millions thousands hundreds dozens three regular readers can enlighten me in the comments…

There’s a time-honored tradition in the social sciences–or at least psychology–that goes something like this. You decide on some provisional number of subjects you’d like to run in your study; usually it’s a nice round number like twenty or sixty, or some number that just happens to coincide with the sample size of the last successful study you ran. Or maybe it just happens to be your favorite number (which of course is forty-four). You get your graduate student to start running the study, and promptly forget about it for a couple of weeks while you go about writing up journal reviews that are three weeks overdue and chapters that are six months overdue.

A few weeks later, you decide you’d like to know how that Amazing New Experiment you’re running is going. You summon your RA and ask him, in magisterial tones, “how’s that Amazing New Experiment we’re running going?” To which he falteringly replies that he’s been very busy with all the other data entry and analysis chores you assigned him, so he’s only managed to collect data from eighteen subjects so far. But he promises to have the other eighty-two subjects done any day now.

“Not to worry,” you say. “We’ll just take a peek at the data now and see what it looks like; with any luck, you won’t even need to run any more subjects! By the way, here are my car keys; see if you can’t have it washed by 5 pm. Your job depends on it. Ha ha.”

Once your RA’s gone to soil himself somewhere, you gleefully plunge into the task of peeking at your data. You pivot your tables, plyr your data frame, and bravely sort your columns. Then you extract two of the more juicy variables for analysis, and after some careful surgery a t-test or six, you arrive at the conclusion that your hypothesis is… “marginally” supported. Which is to say, the magical p value is somewhere north of .05 and somewhere south of .10, and now it’s just parked by the curb waiting for you to give it better directions.

You briefly contemplate reporting your result as a one-tailed test–since it’s in the direction you predicted, right?–but ultimately decide against that. You recall the way your old Research Methods professor used to rail at length against the evils of one-sample tests, and even if you don’t remember exactly why they’re so evil, you’re not willing to take any chances. So you decide it can’t be helped; you need to collect some more data.

You summon your RA again. “Is my car washed yet?” you ask.

“No,” says your RA in a squeaky voice. “You just asked me to do that fifteen minutes ago.”

“Right, right,” you say. “I knew that.”

You then explain to your RA that he should suspend all other assigned duties for the next few days and prioritize running subjects in the Amazing New Experiment. “Abandon all other tasks!” you decree. “If it doesn’t involve collecting new data, it’s unimportant! Your job is to eat, sleep, and breathe new subjects! But not literally!”

Being quite clever, your RA sees an opening. “I guess you’ll want your car keys back, then,” he suggests.

“Nice try, Poindexter,” you say. “Abandon all other tasks… starting tomorrow.”

You also give your RA very careful instructions to email you the new data after every single subject, so that you can toss it into your spreadsheet and inspect the p value at every step. After all, there’s no sense in wasting perfectly good data; once your p value is below .05, you can just funnel the rest of the participants over to the Equally Amazing And Even Newer Experiment you’ve been planning to run as a follow-up. It’s a win-win proposition for everyone involved. Except maybe your RA, who’s still expected to return triumphant with a squeaky clean vehicle by 5 pm.

Twenty-six months and four rounds of review later, you publish the results of the Amazing New Experiment as Study 2 in a six-study paper in the Journal of Ambiguous Results. The reviewers raked you over the coals for everything from the suggested running head of the paper to the ratio between the abscissa and the ordinate in Figure 3. But what they couldn’t argue with was the p value in Study 2, which clocked in at just under p < .05, with only 21 subjects’ worth of data (compare that to the 80 you had to run in Study 4 to get a statistically significant result!). Suck on that, Reviewers!, you think to yourself pleasantly while driving yourself home from work in your shiny, shiny Honda Civic.

So ends our short parable, which has at least two subtle points to teach us. One is that it takes a really long time to publish anything; who has time to wait twenty-six months and go through four rounds of review?

The other, more important point, is that the desire to peek at one’s data, which often seems innocuous enough–and possibly even advisable (quality control is important, right?)–can actually be quite harmful. At least if you believe that the goal of doing research is to arrive at the truth, and not necessarily to publish statistically significant results.

The basic problem is that peeking at your data is rarely a passive process; most often, it’s done in the context of a decision-making process, where the goal is to determine whether or not you need to keep collecting data. There are two possible peeking outcomes that might lead you to decide to halt data collection: a very low p value (i.e., p < .05), in which case your hypothesis is supported and you may as well stop gathering evidence; or a very high p value, in which case you might decide that it’s unlikely you’re ever going to successfully reject the null, so you may as well throw in the towel. Either way, you’re making the decision to terminate the study based on the results you find in a provisional sample.

A complementary situation, which also happens not infrequently, occurs when you collect data from exactly as many participants as you decided ahead of time, only to find that your results aren’t quite what you’d like them to be (e.g., a marginally significant hypothesis test). In that case, it may be quite tempting to keep collecting data even though you’ve already hit your predetermined target. I can count on more than one hand the number of times I’ve overheard people say (often without any hint of guilt) something to the effect of “my p value’s at .06 right now, so I just need to collect data from a few more subjects.”

Here’s the problem with either (a) collecting more data in an effort to turn p < .06 into p < .05, or (b) ceasing data collection because you’ve already hit p < .05: any time you add another subject to your sample, there’s a fairly large probability the p value will go down purely by chance, even if there’s no effect. So there you are sitting at p < .06 with twenty-four subjects, and you decide to run a twenty-fifth subject. Well, let’s suppose that there actually isn’t a meaningful effect in the population, and that p < .06 value you’ve got is a (near) false positive. Adding that twenty-fifth subject can only do one of two things: it can raise your p value, or it can lower it. The exact probabilities of these two outcomes depends on the current effect size in your sample before adding the new subject; but generally speaking, they’ll rarely be very far from 50-50. So now you can see the problem: if you stop collecting data as soon as you get a significant result, you may well be capitalizing on chance. It could be that if you’d collected data from a twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh subject, the p value would reverse its trajectory and start rising. It could even be that if you’d collected data from two hundred subjects, the effect size would stabilize near zero. But you’d never know that if you stopped the study as soon as you got the results you were looking for.

Lest you think I’m exaggerating, and think that this problem falls into the famous class of things-statisticians-and-methodologists-get-all-anal-about-but-that-don’t-really-matter-in-the-real-world, here’s a sobering figure (taken from this chapter):

The figure shows the results of a simulation quantifying the increase in false positives associated with data peeking. The assumptions here are that (a) data peeking begins after about 10 subjects (starting earlier would further increase false positives, and starting later would decrease false positives somewhat), (b) the researcher stops as soon as a peek at the data reveals a result significant at p < .05, and (c) data peeking occurs at incremental steps of either 1 or 5 subjects. Given these assumptions, you can see that there’s a fairly monstrous rise in the actual Type I error rate (relative to the nominal rate of 5%). For instance, if the researcher initially plans to collect 60 subjects, but peeks at the data after every 5 subjects, there’s approximately a 17% chance that the threshold of p < .05 will be reached before the full sample of 60 subjects is collected. When data peeking occurs even more frequently (as might happen if a researcher is actively trying to turn p < .07 into p < .05, and is monitoring the results after each incremental participant), Type I error inflation is even worse. So unless you think there’s no practical difference between a 5% false positive rate and a 15 – 20% false positive rate, you should be concerned about data peeking; it’s not the kind of thing you just brush off as needless pedantry.

How do we stop ourselves from capitalizing on chance by looking at the data? Broadly speaking, there are two reasonable solutions. One is to just pick a number up front and stick with it. If you commit yourself to collecting data from exactly as many subjects as you said you would (you can proclaim the exact number loudly to anyone who’ll listen, if you find it helps), you’re then free to peek at the data all you want. After all, it’s not the act of observing the data that creates the problem; it’s the decision to terminate data collection based on your observation that matters.

The other alternative is to explicitly correct for data peeking. This is a common approach in large clinical trials, where data peeking is often ethically mandated, because you don’t want to either (a) harm people in the treatment group if the treatment turns out to have clear and dangerous side effects, or (b) prevent the control group from capitalizing on the treatment too if it seems very efficacious. In either event, you’d want to terminate the trial early. What researchers often do, then, is pick predetermined intervals at which to peek at the data, and then apply a correction to the p values that takes into account the number of, and interval between, peeking occasions. Provided you do things systematically in that way, peeking then becomes perfectly legitimate. Of course, the downside is that having to account for those extra inspections of the data makes your statistical tests more conservative. So if there aren’t any ethical issues that necessitate peeking, and you’re not worried about quality control issues that might be revealed by eyeballing the data, your best bet is usually to just pick a reasonable sample size (ideally, one based on power calculations) and stick with it.

Oh, and also, don’t make your RAs wash your car for you; that’s not their job.

This month’s issue of Nature Neuroscience contains an editorial lambasting the excessive reliance of psychologists on undergraduate college samples, which, it turns out, are pretty unrepresentative of humanity at large. The impetus for the editorial is a mammoth in-press review of cross-cultural studies by Joseph Henrich and colleagues, which, the authors suggest, collectively indicate that “samples drawn from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) societies … are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans.” I’ve only skimmed the article, but aside from the clever acronym, you could do a lot worse than these (rather graphic) opening paragraphs:

In the tropical forests of New Guinea the Etoro believe that for a boy to achieve manhood he must ingest the semen of his elders. This is accomplished through ritualized rites of passage that require young male initiates to fellate a senior member (Herdt, 1984; Kelley, 1980). In contrast, the nearby Kaluli maintain that  male initiation is only properly done by ritually delivering the semen through the initiate’s anus, not his mouth. The Etoro revile these Kaluli practices, finding them disgusting. To become a man in these societies, and eventually take a wife, every boy undergoes these initiations. Such boy-inseminating practices, which  are enmeshed in rich systems of meaning and imbued with local cultural values, were not uncommon among the traditional societies of Melanesia and Aboriginal Australia (Herdt, 1993), as well as in Ancient Greece and Tokugawa Japan.

Such in-depth studies of seemingly “exotic” societies, historically the province of anthropology, are crucial for understanding human behavioral and psychological variation. However, this paper is not about these peoples. It’s about a truly unusual group: people from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. In particular, it’s about the Western, and more specifically American, undergraduates who form the bulk of the database in the experimental branches of psychology, cognitive science, and economics, as well as allied fields (hereafter collectively labeled the “behavioral sciences”). Given that scientific knowledge about human psychology is largely based on findings from this subpopulation, we ask just how representative are these typical subjects in light of the available comparative database. How justified are researchers in assuming a species-level generality for their findings? Here, we review the evidence regarding how WEIRD people compare to other
populations.

Anyway, it looks like a good paper. Based on a cursory read, the conclusions the authors draw seem pretty reasonable, if a bit strong. I think most researchers do already recognize that our dependence on undergraduates is unhealthy in many respects; it’s just that it’s difficult to break the habit, because the alternative is to spend a lot more time and money chasing down participants (and there are limits to that too; it just isn’t feasible for most researchers to conduct research with Etoro populations in New Guinea). Then again, just because it’s hard to do science the right way doesn’t really make it OK to do it the wrong way. So, to the extent that we care about our results generalizing across the entire human species (which, in many cases, we don’t), we should probably be investing more energy in weaning ourselves off undergraduates and trying to recruit more diverse samples.

There’s a beautiful paper in Nature this week by Adrian Owen and colleagues that provides what’s probably as close to definitive evidence as you can get in any single study that “brain training” programs don’t work. Or at least, to the extent that they do work, the effects are so weak they’re probably not worth caring about.

Owen et al used a very clever approach to demonstrate their point. Rather than spending their time running small-sample studies that require people to come into the lab over multiple sessions (an expensive and very time-intensive effort that’s ultimately still usually underpowered), they teamed up with the BBC program ‘Bang Goes The Theory‘. Participants were recruited via the tv show, and were directed to an experimental website where they created accounts, engaged in “pre-training” cognitive testing, and then could repeatedly log on over the course of six weeks to perform a series of cognitive tasks supposedly capable of training executive abilities. After the training period, participants again performed the same battery of cognitive tests, enabling the researchers to compare performance pre- and post-training.

Of course, you expect robust practice effects with this kind of thing (i.e., participants would almost certainly do better on the post-training battery than on the pre-training battery solely because they’d been exposed to the tasks and had some practice). So Owen et al randomly assigned participants logging on to the website to two different training programs (involving different types of training tasks) or to a control condition in which participants answered obscure trivia questions rather than doing any sort of intensive cognitive training per se. The beauty of doing this all online was that the authors were able to obtain gargantuan sample sizes (several thousand in each condition), ensuring that statistical power wasn’t going to be an issue. Indeed, Owen et al focus almost explicitly on effect sizes rather than p values, because, as they point out, once you have several thousand participants in each group, almost everything is going to be statistically significant, so it’s really the effect sizes that matter.

The critical comparison was whether the experimental groups showed greater improvements in performance post-training than the control group did. And the answer, generally speaking, was no. Across four different tasks, the differences in training-related gains in the experimental group relative to the control group were always either very small (no larger than about a fifth of a standard deviation), or even nonexistent (to the extent that for some comparisons, the control group improved more than the experimental groups!). So the upshot is that if there is any benefit of cognitive training (and it’s not at all clear that there is, based on the data), it’s so small that it’s probably not worth caring about. Here’s the key figure:

You could argue that the fact the y-axis spans the full range of possible values (rather than fitting the range of observed variation) is a bit misleading, since it’s only going to make any effects seem even smaller. But even so, it’s pretty clear these are not exactly large effects (and note that the key comparison is not the difference between light and dark bars, but the relative change from light to dark across the different groups).

Now, people who are invested (either intellectually or financially) in the efficacy of cognitive training programs might disagree, arguing that an effect of one-fifth of a standard deviation isn’t actually a tiny effect, and that there are arguably many situations in which that would be a meaningful boost in performance. But that’s the best possible estimate, and probably overstates the actual benefit. And there’s also the opportunity cost to consider: the average participant completed 20 – 30 training sessions, which, even at just 20 minutes a session (an estimate based on the description of the length of each of the training tasks), would take about 8 – 10 hours to complete (and some participants no doubt spent many more hours in training).  That’s a lot of time that could have been invested in other much more pleasant things, some of which might also conceivably improve cognitive ability (e.g., doing Sudoku puzzles, which many people actually seem to enjoy). Owen et al put it nicely:

To illustrate the size of the transfer effects observed in this study, consider the following representative example from the data. The increase in the number of digits that could be remembered following training on tests designed, at least in part, to improve memory (for example, in experimental group 2) was three-hundredth of a digit. Assuming a linear relationship between time spent training and improvement, it would take almost four years of training to remember one extra digit. Moreover, the control group improved by two-tenths of a digit, with no formal memory training at all.

If someone asked you if you wanted to spend six weeks doing a “brain training” program that would provide those kinds of returns, you’d probably politely (or impolitely) refuse. Especially since it’s not like most of us spend much of our time doing digit span tasks anyway; odds are that the kinds of real-world problems we’d like to perform a little better at (say, something trivial like figuring out what to buy or not to buy at the grocery store) are even further removed from the tasks Owen et al (and other groups) have used to test for transfer, so any observable benefits in the real world would presumably be even smaller.

Of course, no study is perfect, and there are three potential concerns I can see. The first is that it’s possible that there are subgroups within the tested population who do benefit much more from the cognitive training. That is, the miniscule overall effect could be masking heterogeneity within the sample, such that some people (say, maybe men above 60 with poor diets who don’t like intellectual activities) benefit much more. The trouble with this line of reasoning, though, is that the overall effects in the entire sample are so small that you’re pretty much forced to conclude that either (a) any group that benefits substantially from the training is a very small proportion of the total sample, or (b) that there are actually some people who suffer as a result of cognitive training, effectively balancing out the gains seen by other people. Neither of these possibilities seem particularly attractive.

The second concern is that it’s conceivable that the control group isn’t perfectly matched to the experimental group, because, by the authors’ own admission, the retention rate was much lower in the control group. Participants were randomly assigned to the three groups, but only about two-thirds as many control participants completed the study. The higher drop-out rate was apparently due to the fact that the obscure trivia questions used as a control task were pretty boring. The reason that’s a potential problem is that attrition wasn’t random, so there may be a systematic difference between participants in the experimental conditions and those in the control conditions. In particular, it’s possible that the remaining control participants had a higher tolerance for boredom and/or were somewhat smarter or more intellectual on average (answering obscure trivia questions clearly isn’t everyone’s cup of tea). If that were true, the lack of any difference between experimental and control conditions might be due to participant differences rather than an absence of a true training effect. Unfortunately, it’s hard to determine whether this might be true, because (as far as I can tell) Owen et al don’t provide the raw mean performance scores on the pre- and post-training testing for each group, but only report the changes in performance. What you’d want to know is that the control participants didn’t do substantially better or worse on the pre-training testing than the experimental participants (due to selective attrition of low-performing subjects), which might make changes in performance difficult to interpret. But at face value, it doesn’t seem very plausible that this would be a serious issue.

Lastly, Owen et al do report a small positive correlation between number of training sessions performed (which was under participants’ control) and gains in performance on the post-training test. Now, this effect was, as the authors note, very small (a maximal Spearman’s rho of .06), so that it’s also not really likely to have practical implications. Still, it does suggest that performance increases as a function of practice. So if we’re being pedantic, we should say that intensive cognitive training may improve cognitive performance in a generalized way, but that the effect is really minuscule and probably not worth the time and effort required to do the training in the first place. Which isn’t exactly the type of careful and measured claim that the people who sell brain training programs are generally interested in making.

At any rate, setting aside the debate over whether cognitive training works or not, one thing that’s perplexed me for a long time about the training literature is why people focus to such an extent on cognitive training rather than other training regimens that produce demonstrably larger transfer effects. I’m thinking in particular of aerobic exercise, which produces much more robust and replicable effects on cognitive performance. There’s a nice meta-analysis by Colcombe and colleagues that found effect sizes on the order of half a standard deviation and up for physical exercise in older adults–and effects were particularly large for the most heavily g-loaded tasks. Now, even if you allow for publication bias and other manifestations of the fudge factor, it’s almost certain that the true effect of physical exercise on cognitive performance is substantially larger than the (very small) effects of cognitive training as reported by Owen et al and others.

The bottom line is that, based on everything we know at the moment, the evidence seems to pretty strongly suggest that if your goal is to improve cognitive function, you’re more likely to see meaningful results by jogging or swimming regularly than by doing crossword puzzles or N-back tasks–particularly if you’re older. And of course, a pleasant side effect is that exercise also improves your health and (for at least some people) mood, which I don’t think N-back tasks do. Actually, many of the participants I’ve tested will tell you that doing the N-back is a distinctly dysphoric experience.

On a completely unrelated note, it’s kind of neat to see a journal like Nature publish what is essentially a null result. It goes to show that people do care about replication failures in some cases–namely, in those cases when the replication failure contradicts a relatively large existing literature, and is sufficiently highly powered to actually say something interesting about the likely effect sizes in question.

Owen AM, Hampshire A, Grahn JA, Stenton R, Dajani S, Burns AS, Howard RJ, & Ballard CG (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature PMID: 20407435

The latest TED talk is an instant favorite of mine. Daniel Kahneman talks about the striking differences in the way we experience versus remember events:

It’s an entertaining and profoundly insightful 20-minute talk, and worth watching even if you think you’ve heard these ideas before.

The fundamental problem Kahneman discusses is that we all experience our lives on a moment-by-moment basis, and yet we make decisions based on our memories of the past. Unfortunately, it turns out that the experiencing self and the remembering self don’t necessarily agree about what things make us happy, and so we often end up in situations where we voluntarily make choices that actually substantially reduce our experienced utility. I won’t give away the examples Kahneman talks about, other than to say that they beautifully illustrate the relevance of psychology (or at least some branches of psychology) to the real-world decisions we all make–both the trival, day-to-day variety, and the rarer, life-or-death kind.

As an aside, Kahneman gave a talk at Brain Camp (or, officially, the annual Summer Institute in Cognitive Neuroscience, which may now be defunct–or perhaps only on hiatus?) the year I attended. There were a lot of great talks that year, but Kahneman’s really stood out for me, despite the fact that he hardly talked about research at all. It was more of a meditation on the scientific method–how to go about building and testing new theories. You don’t often hear a Nobel Prize winner tell an audience that the work that won the Nobel Prize was completely wrong, but that’s essentially what Kahneman claimed. Of course, his point wasn’t that Prospect Theory was useless, but rather, that many of the holes and limitations of the theory that people have gleefully pointed out over the last three decades were already well-recognized at the time the original findings were published. Kahneman and Tversky’s goal wasn’t to produce a perfect description or explanation of the mechanisms underlying human decision-making, but rather, an approximation that made certain important facts about human decision-making clear (e.g., the fact that people simply don’t follow the theory of Expected Utility), and opened the door to entirely new avenues of research. Kahneman seemed to think that ultimately what we really want isn’t a protracted series of incremental updates to Prospect Theory, but a more radical paradigm shift, and that in that sense, clinging to Prospect Theory might now actually be impeding progress.

You might think that’s a pretty pessimistic message–”hey, you can win a Nobel Prize for being completely wrong!”–but it really wasn’t; I actually found it quite uplifting (if Daniel Kahneman feels comfortable being mostly wrong about his ideas, why should the rest of us get attached to ours?). At least, that’s the way I remember it now. But that talk was nearly three years ago, you see, so my actual experience at the time may have been quite different. Turns out you can’t really trust my remembering self; it’ll tell you anything it thinks it wants me to hear.

I did my PhD in psychology, but in a department that had close ties and collaborations with neuroscience. One of the interesting things about psychology and neuroscience programs is that they seem to have quite different graduate training models, even in cases where the area of research substantively overlaps (e.g., in cognitive neuroscience). In psychology, there seem two be two general models (at least, at American and Canadian universities; I’m not really familiar with other systems). One is that graduate students are accepted into a specific lab and have ties to a specific advisor (or advisors); the other, more common at large state schools, is that graduate students are accepted into the program (or an area within the program) as a whole, and are then given the (relative) freedom to find an advisor they want to work with. There are pros and cons to either model: the former ensures that every student has a place in someone’s lab from the very beginning of training, so that no one falls through the cracks; but the downside is that beginning students often aren’t sure exactly what they want to work on, and there are occasional (and sometimes acrimonious) mentor-mentee divorces. The latter gives students more freedom to explore their research interests, but can make it more difficult for students to secure funding, and has more of a sink-or-swim flavor (i.e., there’s less institutional support for students).

Both of these models differ quite a bit from what I take to be the most common neuroscience model, which is that students spend all or part of their first year doing a series of rotations through various labs–usually for about 2 months at a time. The idea is to expose students to a variety of different lines of research so that they get a better sense of what people in different areas are doing, and can make a more informed judgment about what research they’d like to pursue. And there are obviously other benefits too: faculty get to evaluate students on a trial basis before making a long-term commitment, and conversely, students get to see the internal workings of the lab and have more contact with the lab head before signing on.

I’ve always thought the rotation model makes a lot of sense, and wonder why more psychology programs don’t try to implement one. I can’t complain about my own training, in that I had a really great experience on both personal and professional levels in the labs I worked in; but I recognize that this was almost entirely due to dumb luck. I didn’t really do my homework very well before entering graduate school, and I could easily have landed in a department or lab I didn’t mesh well with, and spent the next few years miserable and unproductive. I’ll freely admit that I was unusually clueless going into grad school (that’s a post for another time), but I think no matter how much research you do, there’s just no way to know for sure how well you’ll do in a particular lab until you’ve spent some time in it. And most first-year graduate students have kind of fickle interests anyway; it’s hard to know when you’re 22 or 23 exactly what problem you want to spend the rest of your life (or at least the next 4 – 7 years) working on. Having people do rotations in multiple labs seems like an ideal way to maximize the odds of students (and faculty) ending up in happy, productive working relationships.

A question, then, for people who’ve had experience on the administrative side of psychology (or neuroscience) departments: what keeps us from applying a rotation model in psychology too? Are there major disadvantages I’m missing? Is the problem one of financial support? Do we think that psychology students come into graduate programs with more focused interests? Or is it just a matter of convention? Inquiring minds (or at least one of them) want to know…

Is there a valid (i.e., non-historical) reason why personality psychology and social psychology are so often lumped together as one branch of psychology? There are PSP journals, PSP conferences, PSP brownbags… the list goes on. It all seems kind of odd considering that, in some ways, personality psychologists and social psychologists have completely opposite focuses (foci?). Personality psychologists are all about the consistencies in people’s behavior, and classify situational variables under “measurement error”; social psychologists care not one whit for traits, and are all about how behavior is influenced by the situation. Also, aside from the conceptual tension, I’ve often gotten the sense that personality psychologists and social psychologists often just don’t like each other very much. Which I guess would make sense if you think these are two relatively distinct branches of psychology that, for whatever reason, have been lumped together inextricably for several decades. It’s kind of like being randomly assigned a roommate in college, except that you have to live with that roommate for the rest of your life.

I’m not saying there aren’t ways in which the two disciplines overlap. There are plenty of similarities; for example, they both tend to heavily feature self-report, and both often involve the study of social behavior. But that’s not really a good enough reason to lump them together. You can take almost any two branches of psychology and find a healthy intersection. For example, the interface between social psychology and cognitive psychology is one of the hottest areas of research in psychology at the moment. There’s a journal called Social Cognition–which, not coincidentally, is published by the International Social Cognition Network. Lots of people are interested in applying cognitive psychology models to social psychological issues. But you’d probably be taking bullets from both sides of the hallway if you ever suggested that your department should combine their social psychology and cognitive psychology brown bag series. Sure, there’s an overlap, but there’s also far more content that’s unique to each discipline.

The same is true for personality psychology and social psychology, I’d argue. Many (most?) personality psychologists aren’t intrinsically interested in social aspects of personality (at least, no more so than in other, non-social aspects), and many social psychologists couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the individual differences that make each of us a unique and special flower. And yet there we sit, week after week, all together in the same seminar room, as one half of the audience experiences rapture at the speaker’s words, and the other half wishes they could be slicing blades of grass off their lawn with dental floss. What gives?