Radical epistemological critiques of developmental and social psychology are nothing new, and major methodological debates are now common even within the mainstream literature. Yet a considerable amount of research continues to be conducted in apparent ignorance of, or with more deliberate disregard for, these challenges. Two pervasive research practices of particular concern are: (a) the espousal of conceptual frugality (authorizing avoidance of in-depth appraisal of existing theory and research), and (b) retrospective confession of methodological shortcomings (often then presumed to no longer matter). Although successful in the sense that researchers are getting their work published, such strategies typically function to sustain disturbingly unsophisticated, and frequently prejudicial, developmental discourses. This paper examines some of the effects of their use within the non-clinical research literature on adolescence.