Creative destruction in science

Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents\u2019 reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void\u2014 reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article

Human third-party observers accurately track fighting skill and vigour along their unique paths to victory

Sexual selection via male-male contest competition has shaped the evolution of agonistic displays, weaponry, and fighting styles, and is further argued to have shaped human psychological mechanisms to detect, process, and respond appropriately to cues of fighting ability. Drawing on the largest fight-specific dataset to date across the sports and biological sciences (N = 2,765), we examined how different indicators of fighting ability in humans reflect unique paths to victory and indicate different forms of perceived and actual resource-holding power (RHP). Overall, we discovered that: (1) both striking skill and vigour, and grappling skill and vigour, individually and collectively predict RHP; (2) different RHP indicators are distinguished by a unique path to victory (e.g., striking skill is a knockout-typical strategy, whereas grappling vigour is a submission-typical strategy); and (3) third-party observers accurately track fighting skill and vigour along their unique paths to victory. Our argument that different measures of RHP are associated with unique paths to victory, and third-party observers accurately track fighting vigour and skill along their unique paths to victory, advance our understanding not only of human contest competition, but animal contest theory more broadly

Human male body size predicts increased knockout power, which is accurately tracked by conspecific judgments of male dominance

Humans have undergone a long evolutionary history of violent agonistic exchanges, which would have placed selective pressures on greater body size and the psychophysical systems that detect them. The present work showed that greater body size in humans predicted increased knockout power during contests (Study 1a-1b: total N = 5,866; Study 2: N = 44 openweight fights). In agonistic exchanges reflective of ancestral size asymmetries, heavier combatants were 300% more likely to win against their lighter counterparts solely because they were 300% more likely to knock them out (Study 2). Greater body size afforded no other fighting performance advantages other than increased knockout power (Studies 1-2). Human dominance judgments (total N = 500 MTurkers) accurately tracked the frequency with which men (N = 516) had knocked out similar sized adversaries (Study 3). Humans were able to directly perceive a man’s knockout power solely because they were attending to cues of a man’s body size. Human dominance judgments—which are important across numerous psychological domains, including attractiveness, leadership, and legal decision-making—accurately predict the likelihood with which a potential mate, ally, or rival can incapacitate their adversaries

Facial masculinity predicts men’s actual and perceived aggressiveness

Status obtained via dominance is a phylogenetically ancient feature of human social systems. Yet empirical evidence that men’s secondary sexual traits reliably predict success in intra-sexual contests has been hard to demonstrate. The present work provides the first test of whether masculine craniofacial structures in men predicts aggressiveness in contest competition and whether people accurately assess such aggressiveness from masculine facial cues. After placing 32,447 facial landmarks on the facial stimuli of 457 male fighters, multivariate geometric morphometric analyses extracted 142 distinct facial metrics and revealed that men with better developed masculine facial traits (e.g., large jaw, large browridge, deep-set eyes) attempted more strikes and successfully struck their opponents, including targeting the face. When rating the facial stimuli of these male fighters, participants (N = 500) used men’s masculine facial traits to accurately predict these same components of aggressiveness, including targeting the face. These findings remained robust after accounting for the fighter’s age, total fights, weight division, height, fight duration, and their opponent’s striking frequency. Our findings provide the first evidence that humans accurately forecast men’s agonistic behavior from variation in facial morphology, suggesting perceptual systems have evolved to perceive physical formidability among contemporaries and competitors