Article Accepted Manuscript

Strategic ambiguity in the social sciences

Author(s) / Creator(s)

Frankenhuis, Willem E.
Panchanathan, Karthik
Smaldino, Paul E.

Abstract / Description

In the wake of the replication crisis, there have been calls to increase the clarity and precision of theory in the social sciences. Here, we argue that the effects of these calls may be limited due to systematic and structural factors, focusing our attention on incentives favoring ambiguous theory. Intentionally or not, scientists can exploit theoretical ambiguities to make support for a claim appear stronger than is warranted. Practices include theory stretching, interpreting an ambiguous claim more expansively to absorb data outside of the scope of the original claim, and post-hoc precision, interpreting an ambiguous claim more narrowly so it appears more precisely aligned with the data. These practices lead to the overestimation of evidence for the original claim and create the appearance of consistent support and progressive research programs, which may in turn be rewarded by journals, funding agencies, and hiring committees. Selection for ambiguous research can occur outside of scientists’ awareness and even when scientists act in good faith. Although ambiguity might be inevitable or even useful in the early stages of theory construction, scientists should aim for increased clarity as knowledge advances. Science benefits from transparently communicating about known ambiguities. To attain transparency about ambiguity, we provide a set of recommendations for authors, reviewers, and journals. We conclude with suggestions for research on how scientists use strategic ambiguity to advance their careers and on the ways in which norms, incentives, and practices favor strategic ambiguity. Our paper ends with a simple mathematical model exploring the conditions in which high-ambiguity theories are favored over low-ambiguity theories. This model illustrates that incentives for credit can favor low-quality, high-ambiguity science, and provides a basis for future formal analyses.

Keyword(s)

strategic ambiguity theory development formal modeling incentive structures theory stretching post-hoc precision RAPPing

Persistent Identifier

Date of first publication

2022-11-03

Journal title

Social Psychological Bulletin

Publisher

PsychArchives

Publication status

acceptedVersion

Review status

reviewed

Is version of

Citation

Frankenhuis, W. E., Panchanathan, K., & Smaldino, P. E. (in press). Strategic ambiguity in the social sciences [Accepted manuscript]. Social Psychological Bulletin. http://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.8381
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Frankenhuis, Willem E.
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Panchanathan, Karthik
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Smaldino, Paul E.
  • PsychArchives acquisition timestamp
    2022-11-03T14:12:04Z
  • Made available on
    2022-11-03T14:12:04Z
  • Date of first publication
    2022-11-03
  • Abstract / Description
    In the wake of the replication crisis, there have been calls to increase the clarity and precision of theory in the social sciences. Here, we argue that the effects of these calls may be limited due to systematic and structural factors, focusing our attention on incentives favoring ambiguous theory. Intentionally or not, scientists can exploit theoretical ambiguities to make support for a claim appear stronger than is warranted. Practices include theory stretching, interpreting an ambiguous claim more expansively to absorb data outside of the scope of the original claim, and post-hoc precision, interpreting an ambiguous claim more narrowly so it appears more precisely aligned with the data. These practices lead to the overestimation of evidence for the original claim and create the appearance of consistent support and progressive research programs, which may in turn be rewarded by journals, funding agencies, and hiring committees. Selection for ambiguous research can occur outside of scientists’ awareness and even when scientists act in good faith. Although ambiguity might be inevitable or even useful in the early stages of theory construction, scientists should aim for increased clarity as knowledge advances. Science benefits from transparently communicating about known ambiguities. To attain transparency about ambiguity, we provide a set of recommendations for authors, reviewers, and journals. We conclude with suggestions for research on how scientists use strategic ambiguity to advance their careers and on the ways in which norms, incentives, and practices favor strategic ambiguity. Our paper ends with a simple mathematical model exploring the conditions in which high-ambiguity theories are favored over low-ambiguity theories. This model illustrates that incentives for credit can favor low-quality, high-ambiguity science, and provides a basis for future formal analyses.
    en_US
  • Publication status
    acceptedVersion
    en_US
  • Review status
    reviewed
    en_US
  • Sponsorship
    WEF’s contributions have been supported by the Dutch Research Council (V1.Vidi.195.130) and the James S. McDonnell Foundation (https://doi.org/10.37717/220020502).
    en_US
  • Citation
    Frankenhuis, W. E., Panchanathan, K., & Smaldino, P. E. (in press). Strategic ambiguity in the social sciences [Accepted manuscript]. Social Psychological Bulletin. http://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.8381
    en_US
  • ISSN
    2569-653X
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/7664
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.8381
  • Language of content
    eng
    en_US
  • Publisher
    PsychArchives
    en_US
  • Is version of
    https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.9923
  • Keyword(s)
    strategic ambiguity
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    theory development
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    formal modeling
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    incentive structures
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    theory stretching
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    post-hoc precision
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    RAPPing
    en_US
  • Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)
    150
  • Title
    Strategic ambiguity in the social sciences
    en_US
  • DRO type
    article
    en_US
  • Journal title
    Social Psychological Bulletin
    en_US
  • Visible tag(s)
    PsychOpen GOLD
    en_US
  • Visible tag(s)
    Accepted Manuscript
    en_US