Why applied psychologists should consider their work's value-laden context

Abstract

This essay argues that applied psychologists should openly consider the broader context of their work and, in particular, the consequences of their being mistaken. That is, they should openly and transparently consider the consequences of mistakenly declaring that their work supports or rejects a hypothesis (i.e., inductive risk). This involves thinking beyond psychological conventions (e.g., alpha = .05), to the risks specific to their work.

After a brief review of inductive risk, I apply this background to a case study of a large government-funded psychology study. I find that, in this study, external inductive risks were particularly salient and tractable, yet the gravity and facileness of internal psychological customs were apparently too strong. The researchers failed to think about the broader consequences of their research. This does not bode well for research with less obvious societal implications. In the conclusion, I zoom out to consider other ways in researchers might consider the broader context of their work.

Keywords: Applied psychology, metaresearch, law and psychology, inductive risk, type II error, jury decision making

JEL Classification: K10