Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results

To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer fiveoriginal research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from two separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete one version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: materials from different teams renderedstatistically significant effects in opposite directions for four out of five hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to +0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for two hypotheses, and a lack of support for three hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, while considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim.</div

Trust in scientifc information mediates associations between conservatism and coronavirus responses in the U.S., but few other nations

U.S.-based research suggests conservatism is linked with less concern about contracting coronavirus and less preventative behaviors to avoid infection. Here, we investigate whether these tendencies are partly attributable to distrust in scientific information, and evaluate whether they generalize outside the U.S., using public data and recruited representative samples across three studies (Ntotal = 34,710). In Studies 1 and 2, we examine these relationships in the U.S., yielding converging evidence for a sequential indirect effect of conservatism on compliance through scientific (dis)trust and infection concern. In Study 3, we compare these relationships across 19 distinct countries. Although the relationships between trust in scientific information about the coronavirus, concern about coronavirus infection, and compliance are consistent cross-nationally, the relationships between conservatism and trust in scientific information are not. These relationships are strongest in North America. Consequently, the indirect effects observed in Studies 1–2 only replicate in North America (the U.S. and Canada) and in Indonesia. Study 3 also found parallel direct and indirect effects on support for lockdown restrictions. These associations suggest not only that relationships between conservatism and compliance are not universal, but localized to particular countries where conservatism is more strongly related to trust in scientific information about the coronavirus pandemic

sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506221129687 – Supplemental material for Gendered Self-Views Across 62 Countries: A Test of Competing Models

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506221129687 for Gendered Self-Views Across 62 Countries: A Test of Competing Models by Natasza Kosakowska-Berezecka, Jennifer K. Bosson, Paweł Jurek, Tomasz Besta, Michał Olech, Joseph A. Vandello, Michael Bender, Justine Dandy, Vera Hoorens, Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti, Eric Mankowski, Satu Venäläinen, Sami Abuhamdeh, Collins Badu Agyemang, Gülçin Akbaş, Nihan Albayrak-Aydemir, Soline Ammirati, Joel Anderson, Gulnaz Anjum, Amarina Ariyanto, John Jamir Benzon R. Aruta, Mujeeba Ashraf, Aistė Bakaitytė, Maja Becker, Chiara Bertolli, Dashamir Bërxulli, Deborah L. Best, Chongzeng Bi, Katharina Block, Mandy Boehnke, Renata Bongiorno, Janine Bosak, Annalisa Casini, Qingwei Chen, Peilian Chi, Vera Cubela Adoric, Serena Daalmans, Soledad de Lemus, Sandesh Dhakal, Nikolay Dvorianchikov, Sonoko Egami, Edgardo Etchezahar, Carla Sofia Esteves, Laura Froehlich, Efrain Garcia-Sanchez, Alin Gavreliuc, Dana Gavreliuc, Ángel Gomez, Francesca Guizzo, Sylvie Graf, Hedy Greijdanus, Ani Grigoryan, Joanna Grzymała-Moszczyńska, Keltouma Guerch, Marie Gustafsson Sendén, Miriam-Linnea Hale, Hannah Hämer, Mika Hirai, Lam Hoang Duc, Martina Hřebíčková, Paul B. Hutchings, Dorthe Høj Jensen, Serdar Karabati, Kaltrina Kelmendi, Gabriella Kengyel, Narine Khachatryan, Rawan Ghazzawi, Mary Kinahan, Teri A. Kirby, Monika Kovacs, Desiree Kozlowski, Vladislav Krivoshchekov, Kuba Kryś, Clara Kulich, Tai Kurosawa, Nhan Thi Lac An, Javier Labarthe-Carrara, Mary Anne Lauri, Ioana Latu, Abiodun Musbau Lawal, Junyi Li, Jana Lindner, Anna Lindqvist, Angela T. Maitner, Elena Makarova, Ana Makashvili, Shera Malayeri, Sadia Malik, Tiziana Mancini, Claudia Manzi, Silvia Mari, Sarah E. Martiny, Claude-Hélène Mayer, Vladimir Mihić, Jasna MiloševićĐorđević, Eva Moreno-Bella, Silvia Moscatelli, Andrew Bryan Moynihan, Dominique Muller, Erita Narhetali, Félix Neto, Kimberly A. Noels, Boglárka Nyúl, Emma C. O’Connor, Danielle P. Ochoa, Sachiko Ohno, Sulaiman Olanrewaju Adebayo, Randall Osborne, Maria Giuseppina Pacilli, Jorge Palacio, Snigdha Patnaik, Vassilis Pavlopoulos, Pablo Pérez de León, Ivana Piterová, Juliana Barreiros Porto, Angelica Puzio, Joanna Pyrkosz-Pacyna, Erico Rentería Pérez, Emma Renström, Tiphaine Rousseaux, Michelle K. Ryan, Saba Safdar, Mario Sainz, Marco Salvati, Adil Samekin, Simon Schindler, A. Timur Sevincer, Masoumeh Seydi, Debra Shepherd, Sara Sherbaji, Toni Schmader, Cláudia Simão, Rosita Sobhie, Jurand Sobiecki, Lucille De Souza, Emma Sarter, Dijana Sulejmanović, Katie E. Sullivan, Mariko Tatsumi, Lucy Tavitian-Elmadjian, Suparna Jain Thakur, Quang Thi Mong Chi, Beatriz Torre, Ana Torres, Claudio V. Torres, Beril Türkoğlu, Joaquín Ungaretti, Timothy Valshtein, Colette Van Laar, Jolanda van der Noll, Vadym Vasiutynskyi, Christin-Melanie Vauclair, Neharika Vohra, Marta Walentynowicz, Colleen Ward, Anna Włodarczyk, Yaping Yang, Vincent Yzerbyt, Valeska Zanello, Antonella Ludmila Zapata-Calvente, Magdalena Zawisza, Rita Žukauskienė and Magdalena Żadkowska in Social Psychological and Personality Science</p

Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: making transparent how design choices shape research results

To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from two separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete one version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for four out of five hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to +0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for two hypotheses, and a lack of support for three hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, while considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim