Psychology in my view needs a theoritical approach. Did Freud, William James etc need to do experiments with 30 graduate students to study about the working of the mind, and behaviour of people?.
There is value in approaching problems analytically rather than resorting to empirical methods.
> theories can be valuable in themselves
Maybe they can be (in pure mathematics, or philosophy, as the sibling comment points out), but not if your end-goal is to apply your theory or its predictions in the real world. Then suddenly the soundest and most coherent of theories can fall apart.
> There is value in approaching problems analytically rather than resorting to empirical methods.
Sure, but whether your arrive at your predictions analytically or empirically it does not preclude you from testing them experimentally.
Specifically what it means is that the current binary system for describing significance is built precisely in such a way that even in the case of true effects, the probability that two studies would disagree could be as high as 50%. Therefore we need better metrics to describe the evidence. What it does NOT mean, is that all the research conducted is sham and worthless.
Specifically, if one study finds p=0.045 and another finds p=0.055, then the two studies will be in conflict (i.e. failure to replicate). But to use those pvalues to then claim "there is no evidence of an effect" shows a misunderstanding of the whole process, since a pvalue of 0.055 is actually pretty good evidence (just not as good as our arbitrary threshold).
Popularisation of the term "replication crisis" as a term is part of the problem if you ask me. It points the finger completely in the wrong direction.
Social scientists have focused on gratitude since the 1930s (Baumgarten-Tramer, 1938; Bergler, 1945, 1950; Gouldner, 1960; Heider, 1958; Schwartz, 1967; Simmel, 1950). Though it has been considered fundamental to the maintenance of reciprocity obligations between people (Gouldner, 1960; Simmel, 1950) and evolutionarily adaptive for its promotion of altruistic behavior (Trivers, 1971), the bulk of empirical research occurred over the past dozen years because psychological research was long dominated by a focus on pathology rather than flourishing (Seligman & Csik- szentmihalyi, 2000). Two classic studies—showing that expressing and experiencing gratitude bring peace of mind, satisfying personal relationships, and well-being (Emmons & McCullough, 2003; McCullough et al., 2002)—catalyzed the field, and since then a girth of research on gratitude and its applications have emerged.
I do this every morning when I wake up and have for a good year or so.
I honestly don't notice much of a difference.
Furthermore, just because something doesn't work for you, doesn't mean it doesn't work for others. Additionally, unless you've been keeping a log before and after you started the interventions, you should be at least skeptical about the difference you expect. It's entirely possible you got better, adjusted to the norm, and just think you feel as good as you normally do - while your "normal" is better than before.
Finally, the effect is more likely to be pronounced in people feeling worse than average. If your life is fantastic, you might not get much of a benefit from an intervention that has otherwise strong effects on people.
Maybe it's because my outlook is generally one of being grateful, so I may have already received the benefits without this exercise.
In any case, I'd be wary of any claims like this unless someone tries it for at least 6 months. I expect initially one will get benefits but after N months it fizzles away.