Editing Psychology (section)

== {{anchor|Criticism}}Contemporary issues ==
=== Metascience ===
Metascience involves the application of scientific methodology to study science itself. The field of [[metascience]] has revealed problems in psychological research. Some psychological research has suffered from [[bias]],<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Franco |first1=Annie |last2=Malhotra |first2=Neil |author-link2=Neil Malhotra |last3=Simonovits |first3=Gabor |title=Underreporting in Psychology Experiments: Evidence From a Study Registry |journal=Social Psychological and Personality Science |date=1 January 2016 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=8–12 |doi=10.1177/1948550615598377 |s2cid=143182733 |language=en |issn=1948-5506}}</ref> problematic [[reproducibility]],<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Munafò |first1=Marcus |title=Metascience: Reproducibility blues |journal=Nature |date=29 March 2017 |volume=543 |issue=7647 |pages=619–620 |doi=10.1038/543619a |language=en |issn=1476-4687|bibcode=2017Natur.543..619M |doi-access=free }}</ref> and [[misuse of statistics]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Stokstad |first1=Erik |title=This research group seeks to expose weaknesses in science—and they'll step on some toes if they have to |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/research-group-seeks-expose-weaknesses-science-and-they-ll-step-some-toes-if-they-have |website=Science {{!}} AAAS |access-date=24 May 2019 |language=en |date=19 September 2018 |archive-date=18 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220318020926/https://www.science.org/content/article/research-group-seeks-expose-weaknesses-science-and-they-ll-step-some-toes-if-they-have |url-status=live }}</ref> These findings have led to calls for reform from within and from outside the scientific community.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stevens |first1=Jeffrey R. |title=Replicability and Reproducibility in Comparative Psychology |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |year=2017 |volume=8 |pages=862 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00862 |pmid=28603511 |language=en |issn=1664-1078|pmc=5445189 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

==== Confirmation bias ====
In 1959, statistician Theodore Sterling examined the results of psychological studies and discovered that 97% of them supported their initial hypotheses, implying possible [[publication bias]].<ref name="Theodore">{{cite book |author1=Arjo Klamer |author2=Robert M. Solow |author3=Donald N. McCloskey |title=The Consequences of economic rhetoric |year=1989 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-34286-5 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/consequencesofec0000unse/page/173 173–174] |url=https://archive.org/details/consequencesofec0000unse/page/173  }}</ref><ref name=Lehrer>{{cite news |last=Lehrer |first=Jonah |title=The Truth Wears Off |url=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all |access-date=10 April 2011 |newspaper=The New Yorker |date=13 December 2010 |archive-date=12 July 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140712030948/http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Sterling |first=Theodore D. |title=Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—or vice versa |journal=Journal of the American Statistical Association |date=March 1959 |volume=54 |pages=30–34 |doi=10.2307/2282137 |issue=285|jstor=2282137 }}</ref> Similarly, Fanelli (2010)<ref name=Fanelli>{{cite journal |last=Fanelli |first=Daniele |title={{'}}Positive' Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences |journal=PLOS ONE |year=2010 |volume=5 |issue=4 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0010068 |editor=Enrico Scalas |pages=e10068 |pmid=20383332 |pmc=2850928 |bibcode=2010PLoSO...510068F |doi-access=free }}</ref> found that 91.5% of psychiatry/psychology studies confirmed the effects they were looking for, and concluded that the odds of this happening (a positive result) was around five times higher than in fields such as [[space science]] or [[geoscience]]s. Fanelli argued that this is because researchers in "softer" sciences have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases.

==== Replication ====
{{Further|Replication crisis#In psychology}}
A [[replication crisis]] in psychology has emerged. Many notable findings in the field have not been replicated. Some researchers were even accused of publishing fraudulent results.<ref>{{cite news|last=Marcus|first=Gary|title=The Crisis in Social Psychology That Isn't|magazine=[[The New Yorker]]|url=https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-crisis-in-social-psychology-that-isnt|date=1 May 2013|access-date=19 December 2018|archive-date=7 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180707005800/https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-crisis-in-social-psychology-that-isnt|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Meyer|first1=Michelle N.|last2=Chabris|first2=Christopher|title=Why Psychologists' Food Fight Matters|website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|url=https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/replication-controversy-in-psychology-bullying-file-drawer-effect-blog-posts-repligate.html|date=31 July 2014|access-date=19 December 2018|archive-date=10 January 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190110124115/http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/07/replication_controversy_in_psychology_bullying_file_drawer_effect_blog_posts.single.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Aschwanden|first=Christie|author-link=Christie Aschwanden |title=Psychology Is Starting To Deal With Its Replication Problem |website=[[FiveThirtyEight]] |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychology-is-starting-to-deal-with-its-replication-problem/ |date=27 August 2015 |access-date=19 December 2018 |archive-date=19 August 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170819103903/https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/psychology-is-starting-to-deal-with-its-replication-problem/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Systematic efforts, including efforts by the [[Reproducibility Project]] of the [[Center for Open Science]], to assess the extent of the problem found that as many as two-thirds of highly publicized findings in psychology failed to be replicated.<ref name="auto">{{cite journal |doi=10.1126/science.aac4716 |pmid=26315443 |title=Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science |journal=Science |volume=349 |issue=6251 |pages=aac4716 |year=2015 |url=http://eprints.keele.ac.uk/877/1/Open%20Science%20%28Science%20Pre-Print%29.pdf |author1=Open Science Collaboration |hdl=10722/230596 |s2cid=218065162 |hdl-access=free |access-date=9 February 2019 |archive-date=29 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191029123916/http://eprints.keele.ac.uk/877/1/Open%20Science%20(Science%20Pre-Print).pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Reproducibility has generally been stronger in cognitive psychology (in studies and journals) than social psychology<ref name="auto"/> and subfields of [[differential psychology]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hunt|first1=Earl B.|author-link1=Earl B. Hunt|title=Human Intelligence|year=2011|place=New York|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|page=94|isbn=978-0521707817}}</ref><ref>{{citation|last=Baumeister|first=Roy|author-link=Roy Baumeister|title=Charting the future of social psychology on stormy seas: Winners, losers, and recommendations|journal=[[Journal of Experimental Social Psychology]]|volume=66|pages=153–158|date=September 2016 |doi=10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003|quote=...shifting the dominant conceptual paradigm from Freudian psychoanalytic theory to Big Five research has reduced the chances of being wrong but palpably increased the fact of being boring. In making that transition, personality psychology became more accurate but less broadly interesting.}}</ref> Other subfields of psychology have also been implicated in the replication crisis, including clinical psychology,<ref name="DuncanKeller2011">{{cite journal|last1=Duncan|first1=Laramie E.|last2=Keller|first2=Matthew C.|title=A critical review of the first 10 years of candidate gene-by-environment interaction research in psychiatry|journal=[[The American Journal of Psychiatry]]|volume=168|issue=10|pages=1041–1049|date=October 2011|pmid=21890791|pmc=3222234|doi=10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11020191}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1017/S003329171600324X |pmid=27955715 |title=Biases in research: Risk factors for non-replicability in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research |journal=Psychological Medicine |volume=47 |issue=6 |pages=1000–1011 |year=2017 |last1=Leichsenring |first1=F. |last2=Abbass |first2=A. |last3=Hilsenroth |first3=M. J. |last4=Leweke |first4=F. |last5=Luyten |first5=P. |last6=Keefe |first6=J. R. |last7=Midgley |first7=N. |last8=Rabung |first8=S. |last9=Salzer |first9=S. |last10=Steinert |first10=C. |s2cid=1872762 |url=http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1532689/ |access-date=28 December 2018 |archive-date=6 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190706130520/http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1532689/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00256 |pmid=29541051 |pmc=5835722 |title=Raising Awareness for the Replication Crisis in Clinical Psychology by Focusing on Inconsistencies in Psychotherapy Research: How Much Can We Rely on Published Findings from Efficacy Trials? |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |volume=9 |pages=256 |year=2018 |last1=Hengartner |first1=Michael P. |doi-access=free }}</ref> developmental psychology,<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/infa.12182 |pmid=31772509 |pmc=6879177 |title=A Collaborative Approach to Infant Research: Promoting Reproducibility, Best Practices, and Theory-Building |journal=Infancy |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=421–435 |year=2017 |last1=Frank |first1=Michael C. |last2=Bergelson |first2=Elika |last3=Bergmann |first3=Christina |last4=Cristia |first4=Alejandrina |last5=Floccia |first5=Caroline |last6=Gervain |first6=Judit |author-link6=Judit Gervain|last7=Hamlin |first7=J. Kiley |last8=Hannon |first8=Erin E. |last9=Kline |first9=Melissa |last10=Levelt |first10=Claartje |last11=Lew-Williams |first11=Casey |last12=Nazzi |first12=Thierry |last13=Panneton |first13=Robin |last14=Rabagliati |first14=Hugh |last15=Soderstrom |first15=Melanie |last16=Sullivan |first16=Jessica |last17=Waxman |first17=Sandra |last18=Yurovsky |first18=Daniel |url=http://psyarxiv.com/27b43/ |access-date=21 July 2019 |archive-date=27 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200227194737/https://psyarxiv.com/27b43/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Harris|first=Judith Rich|author-link=Judith Rich Harris|title=The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do|title-link=The Nurture Assumption|year=2009|orig-year=1998|place=New York|publisher=[[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]]|edition=2nd|isbn=978-1439101650}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Harris|first=Judith Rich|author-link=Judith Rich Harris|title=No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality|title-link=No Two Alike|year=2006|place=New York|publisher=[[W. W. Norton & Company]]|isbn=978-0393329711}}</ref> and a field closely related to psychology, [[educational research]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Tyson|first=Charlie|title=Failure to Replicate|journal=[[Inside Higher Ed]]|date=14 August 2014|url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/14/almost-no-education-research-replicated-new-article-shows|access-date=19 December 2018|archive-date=23 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191223122645/https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/14/almost-no-education-research-replicated-new-article-shows|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.3102/0013189X14545513 |title=Facts Are More Important Than Novelty |journal=Educational Researcher |volume=43 |issue=6 |pages=304–316 |year=2014 |last1=Makel |first1=Matthew C. |last2=Plucker |first2=Jonathan A. |s2cid=145571836 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kirschner|first1=Paul A.|last2=Sweller|first2=John|author-link2=John Sweller|last3=Clark|first3=Richard E.|title=Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching|journal=[[Educational Psychologist (journal)|Educational Psychologist]]|publisher=[[Routledge]]|year=2006|volume=41|issue=2|pages=75–86|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27699659|doi=10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1|s2cid=17067829}}</ref><ref>{{cite report|title=Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel|year=2008|publisher=[[United States Department of Education]]|pages=45–46|url=https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf|access-date=3 November 2020|archive-date=18 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180118012046/https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Pashler|first1=Harold|author-link1=Hal Pashler|last2=McDaniel|first2=Mark|author-link2=Mark A. McDaniel|last3=Rohrer|first3=Doug|last4=Bjork|first4=Robert|author-link4=Robert A. Bjork|year=2008|title=Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence|journal=[[Psychological Science in the Public Interest]]|volume=9|issue=3|pages=105–119|publisher=[[SAGE Publishing|SAGE Publications]]|doi=10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x|pmid=26162104 |s2cid=2112166 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Focus on the replication crisis has led to other renewed efforts in the discipline to re-test important findings.<ref name="Simmons et al. (2011)">{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/0956797611417632 |pmid=22006061 |title=False-Positive Psychology |journal=Psychological Science |volume=22 |issue=11 |pages=1359–1366 |year=2011 |last1=Simmons |first1=Joseph P. |last2=Nelson |first2=Leif D. |last3=Simonsohn |first3=Uri |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/1745691613514450 |pmid=26173241 |title=The Alleged Crisis and the Illusion of Exact Replication |journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=59–71 |year=2014 |last1=Stroebe |first1=Wolfgang |last2=Strack |first2=Fritz |s2cid=31938129 |url=https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/12588700/postprint_Stroebe_Strack_2014.pdf |access-date=21 July 2019 |archive-date=15 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615102850/https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/12588700/postprint_Stroebe_Strack_2014.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> In response to concerns about publication bias and [[data dredging]] (conducting a large number of statistical tests on a great many variables but restricting reporting to the results that were statistically significant), 295 psychology and medical journals have adopted [[Scholarly peer review#Result-blind peer review|result-blind peer review]] where studies are accepted not on the basis of their findings and after the studies are completed, but before the studies are conducted and upon the basis of the methodological rigor of their experimental designs and the theoretical justifications for their proposed statistical analysis before data collection or analysis is conducted.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Aschwanden|first=Christie|title=Psychology's Replication Crisis Has Made The Field Better|website=[[FiveThirtyEight]]|date=6 December 2018|access-date=19 December 2018|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologys-replication-crisis-has-made-the-field-better/|archive-date=20 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181220164524/https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologys-replication-crisis-has-made-the-field-better/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Registered Reports|publisher=[[Center for Open Science]]|url=https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports|access-date=20 May 2021|archive-date=21 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210521015044/https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports|url-status=live}}</ref> In addition, large-scale collaborations among researchers working in multiple labs in different countries have taken place. The collaborators regularly make their data openly available for different researchers to assess.<ref>{{Citation|last1=Chartier|first1=Chris|last2=Kline|first2=Melissa|last3=McCarthy|first3=Randy|last4=Nuijten|first4=Michele|last5=Dunleavy|first5=Daniel J.|last6=Ledgerwood|first6=Alison|title=The Cooperative Revolution Is Making Psychological Science Better|journal=[[Association for Psychological Science#Publications|Observer]]|url=https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-cooperative-revolution-is-making-psychological-science-better|volume=31|issue=10|date=December 2018|access-date=19 December 2018|archive-date=20 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181220232024/https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-cooperative-revolution-is-making-psychological-science-better|url-status=live}}</ref> Allen and Mehler<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Allen | first1=Christopher | last2=Mehler | first2=David M. A. | title=Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond | journal=PLOS Biology | publisher=Public Library of Science (PLoS) | volume=17 | issue=5 | date=2019-05-01 | issn=1545-7885 | doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246 | doi-access=free | s2cid=240061030 | page=e3000246| pmid=31042704 | pmc=6513108 }}{{Erratum|1=https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000587|checked=yes|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000587}}</ref> estimated that 61 per cent of result-blind studies have yielded [[null result]]s, in contrast to an estimated 5 to 20 per cent in traditional research.

==== Misuse of statistics ====
{{Further|Misuse of statistics|Misuse of p-values}}
Some critics view [[statistical hypothesis testing#Criticism|statistical hypothesis testing]] as misplaced. Psychologist and statistician [[Jacob Cohen (statistician)|Jacob Cohen]] wrote in 1994 that psychologists routinely confuse statistical significance with practical importance, enthusiastically reporting great certainty in unimportant facts.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997 |title=The earth is round (p < .05) |journal=American Psychologist |volume=49 |issue=12 |pages=997–1003 |year=1994 |last1=Cohen |first1=Jacob |s2cid=380942 }}</ref> Some psychologists have responded with an increased use of [[effect size]] statistics, rather than sole reliance on ''p''-values.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.simplypsychology.org/effect-size.html| title = McLeod, S. (2019). What does effect size tell you?| year = 2019| last1 = McLeod| first1 = S. A.| access-date = 10 June 2021| archive-date = 10 June 2021| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210610201001/https://www.simplypsychology.org/effect-size.html| url-status = live}}</ref>

=== {{anchor|WEIRD}}WEIRD bias ===
{{Redirect|WEIRD||Weird (disambiguation)}}
{{see also|Cultural psychology |Indigenous psychology |Transnational psychology |Cross-cultural psychology}}
In 2008, Arnett pointed out that most articles in American Psychological Association journals were about U.S. populations when U.S. citizens are only 5% of the world's population. He complained that psychologists had no basis for assuming psychological processes to be universal and generalizing research findings to the rest of the global population.<ref name="Arnett2008">{{cite journal |last=Arnett |first=J. J. |title = The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American |journal = American Psychologist |volume= 63 |issue= 7|pages= 602–614 |year=2008 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602 |pmid=18855491 |s2cid=21072349 }}</ref> In 2010, Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan reported a bias in conducting psychology studies with participants from "''WEIRD''" ("Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic") societies.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1017/S0140525X0999152X |pmid=20550733 |title=The weirdest people in the world? |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |volume=33 |issue=2–3 |pages=61–83 |year=2010 |last1=Henrich |first1=Joseph |last2=Heine |first2=Steven J. |last3=Norenzayan |first3=Ara |s2cid=220918842 |hdl=11858/00-001M-0000-0013-26A1-6 |url=https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf |hdl-access=free |access-date=6 January 2022 |archive-date=4 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220404201308/https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Transnational Psychology">{{cite book | last1 = Collins | first1 = L. H. | last2 = Machizawa | first2 = S. | last3 = Rice | first3 = J. K. | title = Transnational Psychology of Women: Expanding International and Intersectional Approaches | publisher = American Psychological Association | location = Washington, D. C. | year = 2019 | isbn = 978-1-4338-3069-3 }}</ref> Henrich et al. found that "96% of psychological samples come from countries with only 12% of the world's population" (p.&nbsp;63). The article gave examples of results that differ significantly between people from WEIRD and tribal cultures, including the [[Müller-Lyer illusion]]. Arnett (2008), [[Elizabeth Altmaier|Altmaier]] and Hall (2008) and Morgan-Consoli et al. (2018) view the Western bias in research and theory as a serious problem considering psychologists are increasingly applying psychological principles developed in WEIRD regions in their research, clinical work, and consultation with populations around the world.<ref name="Arnett2008" /><ref name="AltmaierHall2008">{{cite book | last1 = Altmaier | first1 = E. M. | author-link1 = Elizabeth Altmaier | last2= Hall |first2 = J. E. |title = Global promise: Quality assurance and accountability in professional psychology | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = New York | year = 2008| isbn = 978-0-19-530608-8 }}</ref><ref name="MorganC2018">{{cite journal |last1=Morgan-Consoli |first1=M. L. |last2= Inman |first2= A. G. |last3=Bullock |first3= M. |last4= Nolan |first4= S. A. |title = Framework for competencies for U.S. psychologists engaging internationally |journal = International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation |volume= 7 |issue= 3|pages= 174–188 |year=2018 |doi=10.1037/ipp0000090|s2cid=159028411 }}</ref> In 2018, Rad, Martingano, and Ginges showed that nearly a decade after Henrich et al.'s paper, over 80% of the samples used in studies published in the journal ''[[Psychological Science]]'' employed WEIRD samples. Moreover, their analysis showed that several studies did not fully disclose the origin of their samples; the authors offered a set of recommendations to editors and reviewers to reduce WEIRD bias.<ref name="RadMartingano2018">{{cite journal|last1=Rad|first1=Mostafa Salari|last2=Martingano|first2=Alison Jane|last3=Ginges|first3=Jeremy|year=2018|title=Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=115|issue=45|pages=11401–11405|doi=10.1073/pnas.1721165115|pmid=30397114|pmc=6233089|bibcode=2018PNAS..11511401R |issn=0027-8424|doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== {{Anchor|STRANGE}}STRANGE bias ===
Similar to the [[#WEIRD|WEIRD]] bias, starting in 2020, researchers of non-human behavior have started to emphasize the need to document the possibility of the STRANGE (Social background, Trappability and self-selection, Rearing history, Acclimation and habituation, Natural changes in responsiveness, Genetic makeup, and Experience) bias in study conclusions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Preston |first=Elizabeth |date=2023-03-19 |title=A Cognitive Revolution in Animal Research |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/03/animal-behavioral-science-personalities/673432/ |access-date=2023-03-22 |website=The Atlantic |language=en}}</ref>

=== Unscientific mental health training ===
Some observers perceive a gap between scientific theory and its application—in particular, the application of unsupported or unsound clinical practices.<ref name=Cards>{{cite book |last=Dawes |first=Robyn |title=House of Cards – Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth |year=1994 |publisher=Free Press |isbn=978-0-02-907205-9 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/houseofcardspsyc00dawerich }}</ref> Critics say there has been an increase in the number of mental health training programs that do not instill scientific competence.<ref name="Beyerstein2001">{{cite journal |citeseerx=10.1.1.462.3147 |title=Fringe Psychotherapies: The Public at Risk |first1=Barry L. |last1=Beyerstein |journal=The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine |volume=5 |issue=2 |date=Spring 2001 |pages=70–9 }}</ref> Practices such as "[[facilitated communication]] for infantile autism"; memory-recovery techniques including [[Bodywork (alternative medicine)|body work]]; and other therapies, such as [[Rebirthing (breathwork)|rebirthing]] and [[reparenting]], may be dubious or even dangerous, despite their popularity.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.srmhp.org/0101/raison-detre.html |title=SRMHP: Our Raison d'Être |access-date=1 July 2008 |archive-date=11 July 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070711012403/http://www.srmhp.org/0101/raison-detre.html |url-status=live }}</ref> These practices, however, are outside the mainstream practices taught in clinical psychology doctoral programs.