Cited by 89Academic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyPsychology Research and BibliometricsInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

How do scientific views change? Notes from an extended adversarial collaboration

Open access
Cowan, Nelson, Belletier, Clément, Doherty, Jason M., Jaroslawska, Agnieszka J., Rhodes, Stephen, Forsberg, Alicia, Naveh-Benjamin, Moshe, Barrouillet, Pierre +2 more·2020·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

There are few examples of an extended adversarial collaboration, in which investigators committed to different theoretical views collaborate to test opposing predictions. Whereas previous adversarial collaborations have produced single research articles, here, we share our experience in programmatic, extended adversarial collaboration involving three laboratories in different countries with different theoretical views regarding working memory, the limited information retained in mind, serving ongoing thought and action. We have focused on short-term memory retention of items (letters) during a distracting task (arithmetic), and effects of aging on these tasks. Over several years, we have conducted and published joint research with preregistered predictions, methods, and analysis plans, with replication of each study across two laboratories concurrently. We argue that, although an adversarial collaboration will not usually induce senior researchers to abandon favored theoretical views and adopt opposing views, it will necessitate varieties of their views that are more similar to one another, in that they must account for a growing, common corpus of evidence. This approach promotes understanding of others' views and presents to the field research findings accepted as valid by researchers with opposing interpretations. We illustrate this process with our own research experiences and make recommendations applicable to diverse scientific areas.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691620906415

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The first stage of the adversarial collaborative process calls for participants to work together to form a clear understanding of one another's theoretical commitments and disagreements.

    “The first stage of the adversarial collaborative process calls for participants to work together to form a clear understanding of one another's theoretical commitments and disagreements (Bateman et al., 2005; Cowan et al., 2020; Peters et al., 2025).”
  • Even in cases where data appear to decisively favour one set of predictions, proponents of the 'disconfirmed' hypothesis may ascribe unfavourable results to various auxiliary factors rather than concede the deficiency of their core theoretical claims.

    “Even in cases where the data appear to decisively favour one set of predictions, proponents of the 'disconfirmed' hypothesis may ascribe unfavourable results to various auxiliary factors rather than concede the deficiency of their core theoretical claims”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Baddeley AD (1986). Working memory Oxford Psychology Series #11. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  2. Logie RH, Camos V, & Cowan N (Eds.). Working memory: State of the science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cowan, N., Belletier, C., Doherty, J. M., Jaroslawska, A. J., Rhodes, S., Forsberg, A., Naveh-Benjamin, M., Barrouillet, P., Camos, V., & Logie, R. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast
  • Rotman Research Institute (CA)
  • Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri
  • University of Geneva (CH)
  • University of Fribourg (CH)
Corresponding author
Cowan, Nelson
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2020-06-08
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
1011-1025
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2998405591
Cited by
89
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6
FWCI
41.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/N010728/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Keywords
adversarial collaboration, scientific controversy, working memory, short-term memory retention, aging, preregistration
MeSH terms
Aging, Attention, Competitive Behavior, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Memory, Short-Term, Psychological Theory, Retention, Psychology, Science, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Biomedical Research, Mathematical Concepts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review