Online Research in Psychology and Its Future in China

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230529

Abstract

Abstract: The rapid and global expansion of the Internet has significantly changed the way psychologists conduct research and revolutionized the field of psychology. Traditionally, researchers invite subjects to the lab and run experiments on specialized equipment. Now, researchers can test subjects online and accumulate data through the internet at any time. The outbreak of COVID-19 further manifests the advantages of web-based research over traditional lab-based approaches and demonstrates great promise. In this article, we discussed the past, present, and future of online research in psychology. We provided a comprehensive overview of the literature and explored how to systematically promote and develop this field in China. We first introduced the definition and scope of online research, considering four broad domains of research (e.g., web-based surveys/experiments, big data methods, real-time interactive games, and mobile experience sampling). The strengths and weaknesses of each research domain were outlined and summarized. Next, we reviewed the history of internet research by highlighting key milestones from computer sciences and psychological sciences in the past 50 years and envision the future from both sides. We summarized the methodological issues when conducting research online and suggested the best practical recommendations collected from the literature. Although online psychological research comes with technical challenges, the opportunities far outweigh the costs. Online research is becoming a fundamental part of psychological research. Every subfield in psychology has now begun to leverage online approach and many traditional lab-based paradigms have been adapted to the online version. We provided abundant empirical evidence supporting its reliability and suggested that the online data quality can be as precise and robust as traditional lab experiments. In addition to its methodological advantages, we particularly elaborated on the conceptual advantages of internet research. It has profound benefits on open science, citizen science, and big team science and can be used to address replication crises, generalization crises, ecological validity problems, and WEIRD problems. In the second part of this paper, we focused on the online research community in China and discussed its future development. We pointed out its undeveloped status in China by surveying the scarcity of online studies published, and online research tools and platforms developed by Chinese researchers. By analyzing different factors that could impede the spread and development of online research in China, we offered a couple of suggestions and solutions. We advocate that Chinese psychologists should warmly embrace online research by actively learning the latest literature and technology and seize the opportunities for better science, education, and clinical use. The benefits of doing so became increasingly apparent, including the improved efficiency and accuracy of data collection, the ability to target massive and diverse Chinese participants (both healthy and clinical populations), the implementation of both data-driven and hypothesis-driven research, the opportunity to address imbalanced teaching and research resource across universities and provinces, and ultimately increase the impact of psychological research on society and common people. To achieve this goal, we proposed a public digital infrastructure framework for online research in China. It will serve as a multifunctional ecosystem for participant recruitment (via shared pool crowdsourcing), online tool development (mobile app, smart wearable device), open science practices (data sharing, code and stimuli database), scientists forum (collaboration and Q&A), digital mental health services and popular science on psychology (videos, articles, wiki). The entire idea has now been implemented in NaoDao website (www.naodao.com), an online empirical research platform with a strong emphasis on sharing, transparency, and usability. Finally, we highlight novel methods, emerging trends, and new research directions for future studies.

Key words: online psychology, internet psychology, online experiment, online public research platform, open science

摘要： 在线心理学泛指一切基于互联网的心理学研究。随着近年来互联网的高速发展和疫情的爆发,在线心理学在全球蓬勃发展。线上心理研究具有样本丰富、高效节约、便于共享、不受时空限制等优势,有助于缓解线下小样本研究的可重复性危机和低生态效度等问题,促进开放科学、公民科学和大团队科学等新型科学理念的实践。我国在线心理学领域起步较晚,相关社群、工具和教学资源较少。建立和发展我国独立自主的在线心理学生态系统对学科的发展创新、人才培养和资源整合有重要意义。

关键词: 在线心理学, 互联网心理学, 本土化, 公共平台, 开放科学

Chen Guoqiu, Gao Xiaoxue, Yan Xinyuan, Du Meng, Zang Yinyin, Wang Yin. Online Research in Psychology and Its Future in China[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2023, 46(5): 1262-1271.

陈国球, 高晓雪, 鄢忻媛, 杜梦, 臧寅垠, 汪寅. 在线心理学何以本土化?基于历史、理念与综合性的分析 ^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(5): 1262-1271.

References

[1] 陈秀娟, 张志强. (2018). 开放科学的驱动因素、发展优势与障碍. 图书情报工作, 62(6), 77-84.
[2] 陈祉妍, 刘正奎, 祝卓宏, 史占彪. (2016). 我国心理咨询与心理治疗发展现状、问题与对策. 中国科学院院刊, 31(11), 1198-1207.
[3] 郭红彦, 伍海燕, 刘勋. (2019). 心理学在线研究可用平台简介和应用进展. 心理学进展, 9(6), 1131-1140.
[4] 胡传鹏, 王非, 过继成思, 宋梦迪, 隋洁, 彭凯平. (2016). 心理学研究中的可重复性问题: 从危机到契机. 心理科学进展, 24(9), 1504-1518.
[5] 黄梓航, 王可, 蔡华俭. (2018). 利用开放数据进行心理学研究. 心理技术与应用, 6(9), 549-569.
[6] 王娱琦, 余震坤, 罗宇, 陈杰明, 蔡华俭. (2015). 利用网络进行心理学研究: 西方与中国概况. 心理科学进展, 23(3), 510-519.
[7] 中国互联网络信息中心. (2022). 第50次《中国互联网络发展状况统计报告》. https://www.cnnic.cn/n4/2022/0914/c88-10226.html
[8] 周晓林. (2020). 从抗击新冠肺炎疫情看中国心理学的发展. 科技导报, 38(10), 54-55.
[9] Anderson C. A., Allen J. J., Plante C., Quigley-McBride A., Lovett A., & Rokkum J. N. (2019). The MTurkification of social and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(6), 842-850.
[10] Andreassen C. S., Pallesen S., & Griffiths M. D. (2017). The relationship between addictive use of social media, narcissism, and self-esteem: Findings from a large national survey. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 287-293.
[11] Anwyl-Irvine A., Dalmaijer E. S., Hodges N., & Evershed J. K. (2021). Realistic precision and accuracy of online experiment platforms, web browsers, and devices. Behavior Research Methods, 53(4), 1407-1425.
[12] Arechar A. A., Gächter S., & Molleman L. (2018). Conducting interactive experiments online. Experimental Economics, 21(1), 99-131.
[13] Barrett, H. C. (2020). Towards a cognitive science of the human: Cross-cultural approaches and their urgency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(8), 620-638.
[14] Behrend T. S., Sharek D. J., Meade A. W., & Wiebe E. N. (2011). The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 800-813.
[15] Botvinik-Nezer R., Holzmeister F., Camerer C. F., Dreber A., Huber J., Johannesson M., & Schonberg Tom. (2020). Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams. Nature, 582(7810), 84-88.
[16] Brand, A., & Bradley, M. T. (2012). Assessing the effects of technical variance on the statistical outcomes of web experiments measuring response times. Social Science Computer Review, 30(3), 350-357.
[17] Bridges D., Pitiot A., MacAskill M. R., & Peirce J. W. (2020). The timing mega-study: Comparing a range of experiment generators, both lab-based and online. PeerJ, 8, e9414.
[18] Coutrot A., Manley E., Goodroe S., Gahnstrom C., Filomena G., Yesiltepe D., & Spiers H. J. (2022). Entropy of city street networks linked to future spatial navigation ability. Nature, 604(7904), 104-110.
[19] Coles N. A., Hamlin J. K., Sullivan L. L., Parker T. H., & Altschul D. (2022). Build up big-team science. Nature, 601(7894), 505-507.
[20] Davenport T. A., Cheng V. W. S., Iorfino F., Hamilton B., Castaldi E., Burton A., & Hickie I. B. (2020). Flip the clinic: A digital health approach to youth mental health service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. JMIR Mental Health, 7(12), e24578.
[21] Germine L., Nakayama K., Duchaine B. C., Chabris C. F., Chatterjee G., & Wilmer J. B. (2012). Is the Web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from Web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19(5), 847-857.
[22] Ghosh S., Mandi S., Mitra B., & De P. (2021). Exploring smartphone keyboard interactions for experience sampling method driven probe generation. In 26th International conference on intelligent user interfaces, Association for Computing Machinery.
[23] Guo, L., & Vargo, C. (2020). “Fake news” and emerging online media ecosystem: An integrated intermedia agenda-setting analysis of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Communication Research, 47(2), 178-200.
[24] Harari G. M., Lane N. D., Wang R., Crosier B. S., Campbell A. T., & Gosling S. D. (2016). Using smartphones to collect behavioral data in psychological science: Opportunities, practical considerations, and challenges. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 838-854.
[25] Henrich J., Heine S. J., & Norenzayan A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.
[26] Klein R. A., Vianello M., Hasselman F., Adams B. G., Adams Jr. R. B., Alper S., & Nosek B. A. (2018). Many labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443-490.
[27] Lattie E. G., Stiles-Shields C., & Graham A. K. (2022). An overview of and recommendations for more accessible digital mental health services. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(2), 87-100.
[28] Loken, E., & Gelman, A. (2017). Measurement error and the replication crisis. Science, 355(6325), 584-585.
[29] Long B., Simson J., Buxó-Lugo A., Watson D. G., & Mehr S. A. (2023). How games can make behavioural science better. Nature, 613(7944), 433-436.
[30] Luna F. G., Roca J., Martín-Arévalo E., & Lupiáñez J. (2021). Measuring attention and vigilance in the laboratory vs. online: The split-half reliability of the ANTI-Vea. Behavior Research Methods, 53(3), 1124-1147.
[31] Nosek B. A., Alter G., Banks G. C., Borsboom D., Bowman S. D., Breckler S. J., & Yarkoni T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422-1425.
[32] Reips U. D.(2000). The Web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 89-117). Academic Press.
[33] Reips, U. D. (2002). Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49(4), 243-256.
[34] Reips, U. D. (2021). Web-based research in psychology. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 229(4), 198-213.
[35] Silver, A. (2020). Scientists in China say US government crackdown is harming collaborations. Nature, 583(7816), 341-342.
[36] Suzuki, M., & Yamamoto, Y. (2021). Characterizing the influence of confirmation bias on Web search behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 771948.
[37] Loreta Tauginienė, Eglė Butkevičienė, Katrin Vohland, Barbara Heinisch, Maria Daskolia, Monika Suškevičs, Tauginienė, L., Butkevičienė E., Vohland K., Heinisch B., Daskolia. M., Suškevičs M., & Prūse B. (2020). Citizen science in the social sciences and humanities: The power of interdisciplinarity. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 89.
[38] Taylor C. B., Fitzsimmons-Craft E. E., & Graham A. K. (2020). Digital technology can revolutionize mental health services delivery: The COVID-19 crisis as a catalyst for change. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 53(7), 1155-1157.
[39] van Bavel J. J., Harris E. A., Pärnamets P., Rathje S., Doell K. C., & Tucker J. A. (2021). Political psychology in the digital (mis) information age: A model of news belief and sharing. Social Issues and Policy Review, 15(1), 84-113.
[40] Vicens J., Bueno-Guerra N., Gutiérrez-Roig M., Gracia-Lázaro C., Gómez-Gardeñes J., Perelló J., & Duch J. (2018). Resource heterogeneity leads to unjust effort distribution in climate change mitigation. PLoS ONE, 13(10), e0204369.
[41] Wang K., Goldenberg A., Dorison C. A., Miller J. K., Uusberg A., Lerner J. S., & Moshontz H. (2021). A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 1089-1110.
[42] Woods A. T., Velasco C., Levitan C. A., Wan X. A., & Spence C. (2015). Conducting perception research over the internet: A tutorial review. PeerJ, 3, e1058.
[43] Yarkoni, T. (2022). The generalizability crisis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, e1.
[44] Zaadnoordijk L., Buckler H., Cusack R., Tsuji S., & Bergmann C. (2021). A global perspective on testing infants online: introducing ManyBabies-AtHome. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 703234.