No harm in being self-corrective: Self-criticism and reform intentions increase researchers' epistemic trustworthiness and credibility in the eyes of the public

Science should be self-correcting. However, researchers often hesitate to admit errors and to adopt reforms in their own work. In two studies (overall N = 702), we test whether scientific self-criticism and reform intentions expressed by researchers damage or rather improve their reputation in the eyes of the public (i.e. perceivers). Across both studies, such self-correction (compared to no self-correction) increases perceivers' epistemic trustworthiness ascriptions, credibility perceptions, and willingness to further engage with science. Study 2 revealed that these effects were largely driven by the no self-criticism condition. In addition, researchers' commitment to implementing reforms had positive effects and rejecting reforms had negative effects on perceptions, irrespective of the extent of these reforms. These findings suggest that researchers' fear that self-criticism and expressing reform intentions may damage their reputation may be unfounded

Among us: Fear of exploitation, suspiciousness, and social identity predict knowledge hiding among researchers

Knowledge hiding in academia—the reluctance to share one’s ideas, materials or knowledge with other researchers—is detrimental to scientific collaboration and harms scientific progress. In three studies, we tested whether (a) knowledge hiding can be predicted by researchers’ latent fear of being exploited (i.e., victim sensitivity), whether (b) this effect is mediated by researchers’ suspiciousness about their peers, and whether (c) activating researchers’ social identity alleviates or rather amplifies this effect. Study 1 (N = 93) shows that victim-sensitive researchers whose social identity as a “researcher” has been made salient are particularly prone to knowledge hiding. Study 2 (N = 97) helps explaining this effect: activating a social identity increases obstructive self-stereotyping among researchers. Study 3 (N = 272) replicates the effect of victim sensitivity on knowledge hiding via suspiciousness. Here, however, the effects of the same social identity activation were less straightforward. Together, these findings suggest that knowledge hiding in science can be explained by victim sensitivity and suspiciousness, and that making researchers’ social identity salient might even increase it in certain contexts

Simplification is Not Indoctrination

Bartels (2023; this issue) argues that (a) classic studies and topics covered in psychological textbooks and introductory classes are often misrepresented, (b) that there is an ideological bias among scholars in psychology towards the left side of the political spectrum, and (c) this bias is responsible for the misrepresentation of studies and topics in textbooks. In our commentary, we argue that claims (a) and (b) may be correct, but they have nothing to do with each other. Thus, claim (c) – that a liberal bias among scholars and course instructors leads to “indoctrination” in introductory courses and textbooks – is unsubstantiated and actually detrimental

Evading open science: The black box of student data collection

While Open Science has arguably initiated positive changes at some stages of the research process (e.g., increasing transparency through preregistration), problematic behaviors during data collection are still almost impossible to detect and pose a great risk to the validity and integrity of psychological research—especially, when researchers use data collected by others (e.g., students). Exploring students’ and supervisors’ perspectives, the present registered report enlightens this “black box” of student data collection, focusing on questionable research practices and research misconduct (QRP/M). The majority of students did not report having engaged in any problematic behaviors during data collection, but some QRP/M—ranging from somewhat questionable to highly fraudulent—seem quite common (e.g., telling participants the hypothesis beforehand, participating in one’s own survey). We provide an overview of students’ reported and supervisors’ suspected data collection QRP/M, explore potential drivers for these behaviors based on the fraud triangle model (including pressures, opportunities, and rationalizations), and report how students and supervisors perceive the eligibility of student data for further uses (e.g., scientific publications). Moreover, we explore the role of the student-supervisor relationship (e.g., communication and expectations) and Open Science practices in student projects. In summary, our findings suggest the potential scientific value of data from student projects. Fostering transparent communication regarding expectations, experiences, and intentions between supervisors and students might further contribute to strengthening this prospect

When science communication gets personal

Laypeople’s trust in science might be obstructed by their stereotypical views of researchers as highly competent, yet only moderately warm. To counter this perception of lacking warmth, researchers could engage in self-disclosing science communication (e.g., revealing basic personal information, thoughts about one’s own work, or one’s personal involvement with the research topic), potentially promoting their affective trustworthiness, and, thus, laypeople’s trust in science. However, such self-disclosure could also have adverse effects by violating expectations of appropriateness, professionalism and objectivity. This dissertation draws on theory about stereotypes, trust in science, and self-disclosure, and applies it to science communication. It includes three manuscripts and eleven empirical studies demonstrating small and ambivalent effects of researchers’ self-disclosure on laypeople’s trust in science, it explores potential boundaries of these effects (e.g., self-disclosure content and recipients’ attitudes), and it provides important insights into the conceptualization of trust in science. I discuss limitations as well as theoretical and practical implications of this research program and, finally, I highlight further directions for future research

Power of Pictures? Questioning the Emotionalization and Behavioral Activation Potential of Aesthetics in War Photography

War photography is not only used illustratively in news media but also displayed as controversial art objects. The ethics and impact of aestheticization in war photography have long been debated. In three studies (overall N = 749), we contribute empirically to this debate by testing the impact of aesthetics in war photography (i.e., aesthetic style and context) on emotionalization and behavioral activation. While viewing war photography was, overall, emotionalizing (especially regarding negative affect and moral outrage), we did not find any behavioral activation (i.e., donation intention and behavior or general willingness to act against war). Neither aesthetic style nor aesthetic context made a difference for affective or behavioral responses. However, a salient aesthetic context (Study 3) led to higher aesthetic judgements of war photographs. Overall, these results question whether aesthetics in war photography have a particular power for evoking emotional and behavioral responses

When research is me-search

Research is often fueled by researchers’ scientific, but also their personal interests: Sometimes, researchers decide to pursue a specific research question because the answer to that question is idiosyncratically relevant for themselves: Such “me-search” may not only affect the quality of research, but also how it is perceived by the general public. In two studies (N = 621), we investigate the circumstances under which learning about a researcher’s “me-search” increases or decreases laypeople’s ascriptions of trustworthiness and credibility to the respective researcher. Results suggest that participants’ own preexisting attitudes towards the research topic moderate the effects of “me-search” substantially: When participants hold favorable attitudes towards the research topic (i.e., LGBTQ or veganism), “me-searchers” were perceived as more trustworthy and their research was perceived as more credible. This pattern was reversed when participants held unfavorable attitudes towards the research topic. Study 2 furthermore shows that trustworthiness and credibility perceptions generalize to evaluations of the entire field of research. Implications for future research and practice are discussed

Who is at risk of bias? Examining dispositional differences in motivated science reception

The motivated reception of science in line with one’s preexisting convictions is a well-documented, pervasive phenomenon. In two studies (N = 743), we investigated whether this bias might be stronger in some people than others due to dispositional differences. Building on the assumptions that motivated science reception is driven by perceived threat and suspicion and higher under perceived ambiguity and uncertainty, we focused on traits associated with such perceptions. In particular, we tested the impact of conspiracy mentality and victim sensitivity on motivated science reception (as indicated by ascriptions of researchers’ trustworthiness and evidence credibility). Additionally, we explored the role of broader personality traits (generalized mistrust and ambiguity intolerance) in this context. None of the investigated dispositions modulated the motivated science reception effect. This demonstrates once again, that motivated science reception is a ubiquitous challenge for the effective dissemination of science and everyone seems to be at risk of it

Who is at risk of bias? Examining dispositional differences in motivated science reception

The motivated reception of science in line with one’s preexisting convictions is a well-documented, pervasive phenomenon. In two studies (N = 743), we investigated whether this bias might be stronger in some people than others due to dispositional differences. Building on the assumptions that motivated science reception is driven by perceived threat and suspicion and higher under perceived ambiguity and uncertainty, we focused on traits associated with such perceptions. In particular, we tested the impact of conspiracy mentality and victim sensitivity on motivated science reception (as indicated by ascriptions of researchers’ trustworthiness and evidence credibility). Additionally, we explored the role of broader personality traits (generalized mistrust and ambiguity intolerance) in this context. None of the investigated dispositions modulated the motivated science reception effect. This demonstrates once again, that motivated science reception is a ubiquitous challenge for the effective dissemination of science and everyone seems to be at risk of it

Artistic activism: Can aesthetic reception reduce adverse effects of disruptive protest?

Activists face a dilemma: The more disruptive their protest, the more attention they will get – but they will also be perceived more negatively. Can aesthetic tactics alleviate such adverse effects? In two experiments (N1 = 828; N2 = 1203; German access panel), we investigate whether artistic activism (e.g., performance art during protests) is judged more positively than non-artistic activism at similar levels of disruption regarding participants’ perceptions of (extremity, immorality), attitudes towards (emotional connection, identification), and support for the protesters. We observe clear evidence that the more disruptive a protest, the more negative its perception. Effects of artistic activism, however, were mixed and small: Artistic actions might even increase extremity perceptions of non- disruptive, peaceful protests; but, at medium levels of disruption (i.e., disobedient, yet non- violent), they might slightly improve protest perceptions. Thus, we find rather weak support for the notion that artistic activism alleviates adverse effects of disruptive protests