A Credibility Revolution for Relationship Science: Where Can We Step Up Our Game?

ABSTRACT The discipline of psychology is undergoing a credibility revolution whereby researchers are critically evaluating and improving their research practices. In this review, we consider how the field of relationship science could capitalize on this movement in the context of four types of validity. Regarding statistical‐conclusions validity, we find that relationship scientists are engaging in open science practices (e.g., preregistration, open data sharing) at similar rates to other fields in the context of personality and social psychology journals. However, journals that are specific to the field (i.e., close relationships journals) could do more to encourage these practices. Meanwhile, new meta‐scientific research suggests that the field would benefit greatly from rigorous, widescale measurement validation work (construct validity), novel strategies to account for causal confounds (internal validity), and more diverse representation in our samples and measures (external validity). Overall, the credibility revolution offers several specific, actionable recommendations to improve the validity of research findings, many of which are highly relevant to relationship science.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Published
2025-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70042
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Behavioral Health and Interventions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.09

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Credibility Revolution for Relationship Science: Where Can We Step Up Our Game?

Devinder Khera, Samantha Joel, Paul W. Eastwick
2 citations
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Behavioral Health and Interventions
3.09
article

A Credibility Revolution for Relationship Science: Where Can We Step Up Our Game?

Devinder Khera, Samantha Joel, Paul W. Eastwick
article en
2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT The discipline of psychology is undergoing a credibility revolution whereby researchers are critically evaluating and improving their research practices. In this review, we consider how the field of relationship science could capitalize on this movement in the context of four types of validity. Regarding statistical‐conclusions validity, we find that relationship scientists are engaging in open science practices (e.g., preregistration, open data sharing) at similar rates to other fields in the context of personality and social psychology journals. However, journals that are specific to the field (i.e., close relationships journals) could do more to encourage these practices. Meanwhile, new meta‐scientific research suggests that the field would benefit greatly from rigorous, widescale measurement validation work (construct validity), novel strategies to account for causal confounds (internal validity), and more diverse representation in our samples and measures (external validity). Overall, the credibility revolution offers several specific, actionable recommendations to improve the validity of research findings, many of which are highly relevant to relationship science.

Social and Personality Psychology CompassVol. 19(2)
Western University (CA), University of California, Davis (US)
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Behavioral Health and Interventions
3.09
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.