Thread by @ImHardcory

1. In my new chapter w/@natehoneycutt & @PsychRabble, we argue that scientists might actually be humans. And that as humans, scientists might be vulnerable to the same kinds of errors, biases, & motivations that they so often study in non-scientist humans:
researchgate.net/publication/34…

2. We suggest that scientists might occasionally engage in motivated research: Their own human desires might influence how they familiarize themselves with data, collect and analyze observations, draw and describe conclusions, and evaluate their peers' research.

3. Of the sciences, the social sciences might be *most* vulnerable to motivated research: Messy/ambiguous data environment + human and moral concerns.

4. What "motivates" research? Desires for status, which leads scholars to oversell the size, importance, and benefits of their findings. And ostracization avoidance, which may lead scholars to confirm or avoid disconfirming social scientists' preferred findings.

5. We suggest some ways social scientists can do better: File drawer statements, better replication tracking, higher standards for review papers, more checks on gatekeepers, use of strong theories, adversarial collaborations, & rewarding rigor, not desirability.