Science of psychological phenomena and their testing.

There is no crisis of replication and generalizability in psychological science, only misunderstanding or forgetting the fundamental nature of psychological phenomena and resultant implications for empirical testing. Stability-variability is the central feature of every psychological phenomenon, meaning that brain-mind interactions can only create stable patterns from which there will always be deviations. Psychological phenomena are not comparable to COVID-19 vaccines that were very effective (95%) initially for almost everyone for a long time. Replications cannot be the gatekeepers of scientific psychological knowledge, only constructive additions and explorations contributing to theory development and measurement improvement. Once a logically justified and theoretically well-developed hypothesis is presented, the phenomenon exists as long as one of the following conditions is true: (1) it has not been shown logically that the phenomenon cannot exist or (2) it has not been shown empirically that the phenomenon does not exist. Like in physics and other sciences, generalization to theory is critical in psychological science, but less important relative to hypothetical (phantom) populations. Initial COVID-19 vaccines were effective because they worked for the right theoretical reason, the mRNA mechanism. This central principle holds true for psychological phenomena as well, with findings generalizing to the theoretical explanation regarding the presence and manifestations of behaviors brought about by the brain-mind interactions, or stated differently, generalization of psychological phenomena to specific behaviors and under specific conditions as proposed by the theory. Instead of the narrow focus on generalization to hypothetical populations, psychological phenomena and associated generalization could more productively be examined from the nine proposed perspectives. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

A theory of the skill-performance relationship.

The skill-performance relationship is a cornerstone of a meritocratic society. People are selected for schools, colleges and jobs based on the premise that more skillful individuals perform better. Scientific understanding of the skill-performance relationship demands that the effect of skill on performance is objectively assessed without subjective, social, and political considerations. One of the best areas for this analysis is sports. In many sports settings, the skill-performance relationship can objectively be examined at the technical, behavioral, psychological, and neurological levels. This examination reveals that skill and performance are inextricably intertwined. While skill affects performance, performance in turn defines and affects skill. To disentangle the previously confusing and interchangeable use of these key constructs, the paper presents a theoretical model specifying that ability and effort have their own direct effects on performance, as well as indirect effects on performance through skill possession and skill execution in cognitive and physical domains of human performance. Thus, ability and skill are not the same. Although skill is a key determinant of performance, recent theory and research suggests that successful performers are successful not just because of their skills per se, but because they take advantage of their skills by creating more occurrences of momentum, making them last longer, and using them to bounce back faster from streaks of unsuccessful performance. Thus, momentum is an important mediator of the effects of skill on performance.

Non-consciously processed physical activity for survival versus consciously deliberated exercise for health.

Humans evolved to become dependent on physical activity for their survival, but they have not evolved to exercise today. Because survival in modern society is heavily reliant on conscious thinking, most people (54%) have evolved away from physical activity and become occasional exercisers. This transition from non-conscious to conscious processing prevents people from capitalizing on evolution's wisdom for survival and wellbeing as they consciously deliberate on the utility of health practices to achieve certain outcomes (e.g., weight loss). Unlike in early times, people today have a choice of not engaging in physical activity and yet surviving. As a result, they struggle with the question whether the gains from exercising are greater than losses from not doing it, weighing positive gains and losses against negative gains and losses. Such conscious deliberations, however, can easily be overridden by solving cognitive dissonance (e.g., "exercise is good for my health" vs. "I don't exercise") through conscious rationalizations and non-conscious dismissal. Today's exercise problem can only be solved by individually acquiring the mindset of early times of evolution when the initiation of physical activity was largely a matter of non-conscious thoughts and feelings.

Leisure and meaning in life.

How people engage in leisure is an important but frequently underappreciated aspect of meaning in life. Leisure activities range from highly engaging and meaningful to subjectively trivial. Leisure itself is largely defined by meaning: The essence of leisure lies less in the specific activity than in the subjective perception of freedom, choice, and intrinsic motivation. People desire their lives to be meaningful, and leisure activities offer varying degrees of satisfying the basic needs for meaning (here covered as purpose, value, efficacy, and self-worth). Leisure activities vary along multiple conceptual dimensions, such as active vs. passive, seeking vs. escaping, solitary vs. interpersonal, and we consider the implications of these for meaningfulness. The most common leisure activity in modern society, watching television, encapsulates some of the paradoxes of leisure and meaningfulness. The study of how leisure enhances meaning in life is rich and ripe for future research.

Replication and the Establishment of Scientific Truth.

The idea of replication is based on the premise that there are empirical regularities or universal laws to be replicated and verified, and the scientific method is adequate for doing it. Scientific truth, however, is not absolute but relative to time, context, and the method used. Time and context are inextricably intertwined in that time (e.g., Christmas Day vs. New Year's Day) creates different contexts for behaviors and contexts create different experiences of time, rendering psychological phenomena inherently variable. This means that internal and external conditions fluctuate and are different in a replication study vs. the original. Thus, a replication experiment is just another empirical investigation in an ongoing effort to establish scientific truth. Neither the original nor a replication is the final arbiter of whether or not something exists. Discovered patterns need not be permanent laws of human behavior proven by the pinpoint statistical verification through replication. To move forward, phenomenon replications are needed to investigate phenomena in different ways, forms, contexts, and times. Such investigations look at phenomena not just in terms the magnitude of their effects but also by their frequency, duration, and intensity in labs and real life. They will also shed light on the extent to which lab manipulations may make many phenomena subjectively conscious events and effects (e.g., causal attributions) when they are nonconsciously experienced in real life, or vice versa. As scientific knowledge in physics is temporary and incomplete, should it be any surprise that science can only provide "temporary winners" for psychological knowledge of human behavior?

Self-Controlled Practice to Achieve Neuro-Cognitive Engagement: Underlying Brain Processes to Enhance Cognitive-Motor Learning and Performance.

While self-controlled practice has been shown to be an effective practice methodology, the neuro-cognitive correlates of its effectiveness are unclear. We investigated whether learners participating in self-controlled practice exhibit increased neuro-cognitive engagement compared to externally controlled practice. Two groups (self-controlled and yoked) of 16 participants practiced and performed a golf putting task over 3 days. Working memory engagement, central executive activity, and cortical activation were assessed via electroencephalography as indicators of neuro-cognitive engagement. The self-controlled group exhibited more consistent working memory engagement, and greater central executive activity, compared to the yoked group during practice. Relationships were also observed between neuro-cognitive engagement during self-controlled practice and performance improvement, indicating that self-controlled practice uniquely benefitted from increased neuro-cognitive engagement.

Reproducibility in Psychological Science: When Do Psychological Phenomena Exist?

Scientific evidence has recently been used to assert that certain psychological phenomena do not exist. Such claims, however, cannot be made because (1) scientific method itself is seriously limited (i.e., it can never prove a negative); (2) non-existence of phenomena would require a complete absence of both logical (theoretical) and empirical support; even if empirical support is weak, logical and theoretical support can be strong; (3) statistical data are only one piece of evidence and cannot be used to reduce psychological phenomena to statistical phenomena; and (4) psychological phenomena vary across time, situations and persons. The human mind is unreproducible from one situation to another. Psychological phenomena are not particles that can decisively be tested and discovered. Therefore, a declaration that a phenomenon is not real is not only theoretically and empirically unjustified but runs counter to the propositional and provisional nature of scientific knowledge. There are only "temporary winners" and no "final truths" in scientific knowledge. Psychology is a science of subtleties in human affect, cognition and behavior. Its phenomena fluctuate with conditions and may sometimes be difficult to detect and reproduce empirically. When strictly applied, reproducibility is an overstated and even questionable concept in psychological science. Furthermore, statistical measures (e.g., effect size) are poor indicators of the theoretical importance and relevance of phenomena (cf. "deliberate practice" vs. "talent" in expert performance), not to mention whether phenomena are real or unreal. To better understand psychological phenomena, their theoretical and empirical properties should be examined via multiple parameters and criteria. Ten such parameters are suggested.

Psychological Momentum-A Key to Continued Success.

One of the most fundamental characteristics about humans is their desire for success, especially in highly competitive societies. What does it take to be successful? Is success simply a matter of better performance, and if so, what specifically is it about performance that determines success? A long research tradition suggests that psychological momentum (PM) plays a critical role in goal pursuit and achievement. Accordingly, sequential runs of success are an essential feature of high levels of performance, meaning that better performers perceive and experience momentum of success more frequently, ride it as long as they can, and as a result, become more successful in the end. Theoretically, momentum is a principle vehicle of performance that will significantly augment future success and facilitate goal achievement. Consequently, an overall performance consists of occurrences of momentum that vary in frequency and duration. The higher the frequency and the higher the duration, the more likely is success. Research suggests that the main psychological processes that underpin momentum effects are confidence, perceived competence, and internal (ability-skill) attributions. Based upon related research, it is hypothesized that PM starts as a conscious process but subsequently becomes a major facilitator of nonconscious automatic execution of human behavior and performance.

Improving performance by anchoring movement and "nerves".

Golf's governing bodies' recent decision to ban all putting styles "anchoring one end of the club against the body" bridges an important practical problem with psychological theory. We report the first experiment testing whether anchoring provides technical and/or psychological advantage in competitive performance. Many "greats" of professional golf from Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus to Tiger Woods have argued against anchoring, believing that it takes "nerves" out of competitive performance and therefore artificially levels the playing field. To shed more light on the issue, we tested participants' performance with anchored and unanchored putters under low and high pressure when controlling for the putter length. We found no statistically significant evidence for a technical advantage due to anchoring but a clear psychological advantage: participants who anchored their putters significantly outperformed unanchored counterparts under high, but not low, pressure. Results provide tentative evidence for the ban's justification from a competitive standpoint. However, before any definite conclusions can be made, more research is needed when using high-level golfers.