渴望心理學的科學革命：從「恐懼管理理論」的研究歷程反思心理學研究之現狀

An Appeal for Scientific Revolution:Criticism of the Empirical Literature in Social Psychology

本文回顧作者自2006年迄2010年，在台灣進行「恐懼管理理論」（terror management theory, TMT）研究之歷程。此期間歷經三個研究階段：(1)以TMT為理論基礎所從事的研究未獲預期結果。(2)對TMT一系列的重複驗證（replication）無法重製出TMT之效果。(3)對TMT所進行的後設分析（meta-analysis），發現TMT 文獻可能有明顯的發表偏誤。綜而言之，作者對TMT五年的研究並未發現支持此一理論的證據，此與文獻中所呈現強大支持TMT的證據形成強烈對比。於是本文從重複驗證、統計考驗力（statistical power）等觀點，重新檢視現有實徵心理學文獻之樣貌；結果發現：(1)文獻中宣稱堅實強韌的理論（如TMT、建構層次理論等），在現實中常常難以成功複製。(2)以統計考驗力估算，現存文獻真實存在的機率相當低。因此本文推論目前心理學的實徵文獻其可信度並不高，這使得心理學研究建立在脆弱的基礎上；主流（西方）心理學理論之問題，可能並非它無法解釋華人，而是它無法解釋所有人。據此作者呼籲以重複驗證解決此一難題，並企望心理學的科學革命能被啟動。

This article reviews a series of terror management theory (TMT) studies conducted in Taiwan between 2006 and 2010, including (1) null research results that failed to support TMT propositions, (2) failed TMT replications, and (3) meta-analyses that found a publication bias in the TMT literature. In sum, these studies failed to find evidence supporting TMT. These results are especially surprising considering the strong evidence from past TMT studies. The author next systematically examined empirical studies in psychology, and found that: (1) many main stream theories (e.g., TMT, construal level theory) are difficult to be replicated, and that (2) the empirical studies presented in the psychology literature are very unreasonable when considering statistical power. The author concluded that the current psychology literature is unreliable. A call to emphasize replication, and an appeal for a scientific revolution in psychology is proposed.