全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
Psychology  2025 

Generative AI Should Not Be Allowed in Psychological Research

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2025.164030, PP. 521-531

Keywords: Generative AI, Research Assistance, Writing Assistance, Moral Ethics, Utilitarian Ethics

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

The author explains in this article why generative artificial intelligence (genAI) should be banned from use in psychological research. It is a form of cheating and therefore unethical because it represents artificial aiding of human effort and draws on the uncredited work of others. Even if this prohibition is ignored, as it has been by most psychology journals to date, I argue that genAI should be banned because it degrades the quality of scientific research and is likely to undermine the learning of good research skills. I will exemplify genAI’s inadequacy for research with a critique of two recently published studies investigating its capacity to generate new hypotheses in psychology.

References

[1]  American Psychological Association (2025). APA Guide for Assessing AI Tools. Monitor on Psychology.
https://apa.org/topics/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning/ai-research-writing
[2]  Australian Research Council (2023). Policy on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in The ARC’s Grants Programs.
[3]  Banker, S., Chatterjee, P., Mishra, H., & Mishra, A. (2024). Machine-Assisted Social Psychology Hypothesis Generation. American Psychologist, 79, 789-797.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001222
[4]  Barnes, L., & Filopovic, M. (2023). Robot Overlords Are Here but Haven’t Conquered Human Expertise Yet. The Australian.
[5]  Blackburn, S. (1996). Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
[6]  Clark, J. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Research. Universities Australia.
https://universitiesaustralia.edu.au/policy-submissions/research-innovations/artificial-intelligence-in-research/
[7]  Godwin, R. C., DeBerry, J. J., Wagener, B. M., Berkowitz, D. E., & Melvin, R. L. (2024). Grant Drafting Support with Guided Generative AI Software. SoftwareX, 27, Article 101784.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2024.101784
[8]  Harvard University (n.d.). Initial Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI Tools at Harvard.
https://www.huit.harvard.edu/ai/guidelines
[9]  Lee, V. R., Pope, D., Miles, S., & Zárate, R. C. (2024). Cheating in the Age of Generative AI: A High School Survey Study of Cheating Behaviors before and after the Release of ChatGPT. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, Article 100253.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100253
[10]  National Health and Medical Research Council (2023). Policy on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Grant Applications and Peer Review.
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/resources/policy-use-generative-artificial-intelligence
[11]  National Institutes of Health (2024). NIH Issues New Centralized Resource of Policies and Practices for Promoting Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence.
https://dcg.usc.edu/2024/08/07/nih-issues-new-centralized-resource-of-policies-and-practices-for-promoting-responsible-use-of-artificial-intelligence/
[12]  National Science Foundation (n.d.). Artificial Intelligence.
https://www.nsf.gov/focus-areas/artificial-intelligence
[13]  Nolan, L. (2025). Study: AI Search Engines Cite Incorrect Sources at a 60% Rate. Breitbart.
https://www.breitbart.com/techt/2025/03/15/study-ai-search-engines-cite-incorrect-sources-at-a-60-rate/
[14]  Panagopoulos, J. (2024). Foreign Students Top Cheat Inquiries. The Australian.
[15]  Panagopoulos, J. (2025). Foreign Student Academic Misconduct Cases on Rise. The Australian.
[16]  Popper, K. (1983). Realism and the Aim of Science. Routledge.
[17]  Ross, D. (1955). The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press.
[18]  Rossiter, J. R. (2022). Learning Theory Principles for Psychotherapy. Psychology, 13, 743-766.
https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2022.135049
[19]  Rossiter, J. R., Percy, L., & Bergkvist, L. (2018). Marketing Communications: Objectives, Strategy, Tactics. Sage.
[20]  Spencer, B. (2022). Robots Make It So Essay to Cheat. The Australian.
[21]  Stanford University (2023). Generative AI Policy Guidance.
https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/generative-ai-policy-guidance
[22]  Subbaraman, N. (2025). Scientists Take on Scholarly Journals with Walkouts, Scathing Letters and Delistings. The Wall Street Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/scientific-journals-quality-publishers-6399fc95?mod=hp_lead_pos11
[23]  Tong, S., Mao, K., Huang, Z., Zhao, Y., & Peng, K. (2024). Automating Psychological Hypothesis Generation with AI: When Large Language Models Meet Causal Graph. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article No. 896.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03407-5
[24]  UK Research and Innovation (2024). ₤12 Million for UK Projects to Address Rapid AI Advances.
https://www.ukri.org/news/12-million-for-uk-projects-to-address-rapid-ai-advances
[25]  Universities Australia (2025). Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools in Research.
[26]  University of Oxford (2025). AI in Teaching and Assessment.
https://academic.admin.ox.ac.uk/AI-in-teaching-and-assessment
[27]  University of Sydney (2024). Academic Integrity.
https://www.sydney.edu.au/students/academic-integrity/artificial-intelligence.html
[28]  Westen, D., & Kowalski, R. (2005). Psychology (4th Ed.). Wiley.
[29]  Wu, Y. Y., Yang, Y., & Uzzi, B. (2023). A Discipline-Wide Investigation of the Replicability of Psychology Papers over the Past Two Decades. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120, e2208863120.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2208863120
[30]  Young, E. (2024). Should Psychologists Embrace AI-Powered Hypothesis Generation? British Psychological Society.
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/should-psychologists-embrace-AI-powered-hypothesis-generation

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133