Since the replication crisis, which has showed that the results of many classic psychology experiments were dubious, I've been suspicious of all claims for new discoveries in the field. What's excellent about the way that Jong approaches it is that he doesn't cover things up (all too often, pop psychology books don't even mention the crisis), but rather openly discusses it. In fact, several of the studies discussed here have proved unreproducible - this is what makes the book particularly interesting. It doesn't just operate at the level of the findings - it tells us how the experiments were undertaken, what their limitations were and the provisos we need to attach to any findings and future research.
It helps, as he takes us through studies that try to discover whether thinking causes atheism, if children believe in souls and what people think God knows (to name but three), that Jong has a very warm, approachable writing style. I've read many popular psychology books, but I've rarely felt so much that I was getting an insight into how the researchers thought, as if I were able to chat to them in a relaxed environment. It's really well written.
My biggest reservation is that, despite acknowledging the crisis, Jong doesn't go far enough in questioning the approach taken, and seems to give too much weight to results that are at best statistically borderline. Two examples. In the first experiment to fail replication (the one about thinking and atheism), the experimenters tried to get people into an analytical frame of mind by showing them a picture of Rodin's statue The Thinker. The obvious question is why they didn't just get them to do an analytical task, rather than rely on the surely doubtful idea that just looking at a statue somehow will change your mental state in a clearly defined direction.
The second example is one where the researchers got no useful result and as a result start to indulge in what is effectively cherry picking. Jong is clear that this invalidates the experiment - but still goes on to describe their corrupted findings. Surely, if experimental psychology is to regain any trust, we need to say that as soon as an experiment is shown to be invalid, we can't deduce anything from the findings. They should be discarded and the researchers need to start again.
However, this concern does not make the book any less excellent, and Jong does make it clear when results are confusing or inappropriate. This is certainly the best psychology title I've read this year and well worth a look.
Hardback:   |
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Comments
Post a Comment