This page contains a listing of published articles by Division 10 members from 2006 – present. This listing contains articles published in the Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, and other peer-reviewed journals. Within each year, the articles are listed in chronological order by month.
Note: If you have any questions about these articles, please contact the author directly.
Growth, renewal, and replication redux.
Tinio, Pablo P. L.; Reiter-Palmon, Roni
Provides an introduction to the new expanded issue of Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts (PACA). To keep up with the increase in submissions and our ever-rising visibility, we have increased the journal’s pages by 25%, from 400 to 500 pages per volume. In this first issue of 2014, PACA makes the most of the additional pages by including a Special Section on Replications in Psychology. The special section centers around the target article, The Empirical March: Making Science Better at Self-Correction, by Matthew Makel, in which he characterizes the problem of lack of replications. Commentaries to Makel as well as a response from Jonathan Plucker and Makel are also provided. In addition there are 11 articles focusing on aesthetics, creativity and arts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
The empirical march: Making science better at self-correction.
Makel, Matthew C.
Psychology has been criticized recently for a range of research quality issues. The current article organizes these problems around the actions of the individual researcher and the existing norms of the field. Proposed solutions align the incentives of all those involved in the research process. I recommend moving away from a focus on statistical significance to one of statistical power, renewing an emphasis on prediction and the pre-registration of hypotheses, changing the timing and method of peer-review, and increasing the rate at which replications are conducted and published. These strategies seek to unify incentives toward increased methodological and statistical rigor to more effectively and efficiently reduce bias and error. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
Change starts with journal editors: In response to Makel (2014).
McBee, Matthew T.; Matthews, Michael S.
The editors of the Journal of Advanced Academics comment on Makel (2014). The replicability crisis in psychology is summarized in terms of three focal issues: the “file drawer” problem, lack of replication studies, and the null hypothesis significance testing paradigm. The authors argue that journal editors are uniquely positioned to address all three of these problems via the adoption of new policies for review and publication. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
Significant samples—Not significance tests! The often overlooked solution to the replication problem.
Simonton, Dean Keith
Comments on the original article by Matthew Makel (see record 2014-06823-002) which provides an excellent overview of some critical problems and offers many useful solutions to replication. As the author pointed out, many of these problems have been around for decades, with attempted but failed reforms scattered along the way. Fortunately, the current authors research program was influenced early on by various critiques, most notably those of Paul Meehl (1967, 1978), who is mentioned in the article. The author admits that not every scientific hypothesis is amenable to the study of significant samples. Very often, our theories of creativity and aesthetics can be quite reasonably scrutinized using college students or survey respondents (albeit such usage immediately raises the difficulties treated in Makel, 2014). Even so, at other times these convenient samples, at best, provide extremely remote proxies for what really attracts our curiosity, such as the relation between creative genius and psychopathology (Simonton, 2014, pp. 53–61). Can that age-old question receive a scientifically valid answer using samples that include not a single universally recognized creative genius? In general, whenever we seek a science that directly contributes to our understanding of the creative genius we should include those very cases in significant samples to generate literally replicable results. In doing so, we not only get rid of the replication problem but also should render utterly irrelevant all those nasty probability levels, confidence intervals, asterisks, and tests for statistical power. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
Pipeline revisions: A call to change.
Reiter-Palmon, Roni; Tinio, Pablo P. L.
Comments on the original article by Matthew Makel (see record 2014-06823-002) which raises an important concern regarding selfcorrection in science. While the notion that science should be self-correcting, and is failing, is not new, recent events in both social and biological sciences have led to a renewed call to develop approaches that would allow for self-correction ( Economist, 2013). Makel addresses a number of issues that hinder self-correction through replications and suggests a number of solutions. In this commentary, we as the editors of Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts (PACA), would like to offer our perspective. As editors, we are in a unique position to influence the field and the ability to self-correct through published replications. Replications, however, are not a one-size fits all. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
Toward a cumulative psychological science of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts.
Comments on the original article by Matthew Makel (see record 2014-06823-002) which discussed a number of strategies for making the psychological study of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts more self-correcting. Here, the current author would like to delve deeper into two issues that he believes will further serve to increase the quality of research in our field, namely, the critical role of general theory building, and how to identify phenomena and processes that are sufficiently important to warrant study. At the outset, the author must admit that their ideas on these issues have been heavily influenced by Walter Mischel’s (2005, 2008) discussion of their relevance in improving the fields of social and personality psychology, but he believes that embracing his recommendations is equally germane to the aim of improving scientific research and practice within the psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
Toward avoiding an empirical march to nowhere.
Beghetto, Ronald A.
Comments on the original article by Matthew Makel (see record 2014-06823-002) which represents a potentially important catalyst for the field of psychology in aesthetics, creativity, and the art. Beyond sparking initial conversations and responses in this issue. Makel’s article may pay out in helping initiate changes that can improve and strengthen the knowledge we generate through our scholarly efforts. In order for this to happen, however, the current author believe we need to zoom out a bit and reflect on the broader terrain of our scholarly endeavors. Indeed, in our efforts to strengthen our ability to self-correct, let us not lose sight of the equally important exploratory and more speculative work of theory construction. If we are going to take stock, let us take stock more broadly. The authors goal in this commentary is to initiate a conversation aimed at doing so. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
Replicability? Not that again!
Smith, Jeffrey K.; Smith, Lisa F.
Comments on the original article by Matthew Makel (see record 2014-06823-002) which takes on the laudable task of assessing the state of scientific progress in psychology and having found it wanting, of suggesting what we might do to enhance the enterprise. Makel focuses on the problems of replication, researchers changing their hypotheses to fit their results (and related questionable research practices), lack of statistical power in studies, failure to make public predictions prior to publication concerning research findings, and the lack of a more centralized system for reviewing research. The current authors thank Matt for his yeoman work here, and as researchers, reviewers, and former journal editors, we are sympathetic to much of it. Well, they are sympathetic to some of it. OK, they are openly hostile to important parts of it, but they thank Matt nonetheless for raising important questions and offering bold solutions. The authors beg to differ, but they admire the effort. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
Demonstrating effects with children: When do we know we know?
Russ, Sandra W.
Comments on the original article by Matthew Makel (see record 2014-06823-002) which discusses the topic of replication. Results need to be replicated. Results of replication studies, both positive and negative results, need to be published. The field of creativity and research needs to replicate studies and wrestle with the questions of when positive results are really positive and negative results are really negative. Many negative results are really negative, but we do not know about them because journals will not publish them. Negative results are results that fail to support the hypothesis of a study and do not find significant effects or relationships. The current author agrees with Makel that there needs to be sections of journals with reports of replications with both positive and negative results. Replications are crucial, but should be carefully thought through and designed. Identifying groups of researchers and scholars to review specific areas and provide guidelines for future studies and replications would be a good first step. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
Creativity is more than novelty: Reconsidering replication as a creativity act.
Makel, Matthew C.; Plucker, Jonathan A.
Modern conceptions of creativity differentiate it from novelty, yet many researchers focus solely on novelty when considering contributions of research, belittling the role of replication. In this rejoinder, we respond to commentators while augmenting arguments for replication, clarifying how it differs from meta-analysis, and providing examples of what journals are doing to better incorporate replication into the scientific publishing process. We make the case that replications are a necessary (but not sufficient) component of an innovative, scientific field. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).