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

US Psychology Job Market Data (Assistant Profs)

Data from the CVs of over 150 assistant professors in psychology in top-ranked research universities and small liberal art colleges in the U

Supplement

Supplemen

Inter-brain synchrony in teams predicts collective performance

Lab study that examines inter-brain synchrony among cooperating and competing groups and inter-brain synchrony's association to collective performanc

How neurons, norms, and institutions shape group cooperation

Cooperation occurs at all stages of human life and is necessary for small groups and large-scale societies alike to emerge and thrive. This chapter bridges research in the fields of cognitive neuroscience, neuroeconomics, and social psychology to help understand group cooperation. We present a value-based framework for understanding cooperation, integrating neuroeconomic models of decision-making with psychological and situational variables involved in cooperative behavior, particularly in groups. According to our framework, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex serves as a neural integration hub for value computation during cooperative decisions, receiving inputs from various neuro-cognitive processes such as attention, affect, memory, and learning. We describe factors that directly or indirectly shape the value of cooperation decisions, including cultural contexts and social norms, personal and social identity, and intergroup relations. We also highlight the role of economic, social, and cultural institutions in shaping cooperative behavior. We discuss the implications for future research on cooperation

Identity leadership: Managing perceptions of conflict for collective action

We argue that how players perceive the attack-defense game might matter far more than its actual underlying structure in determining the outcomes of intergroup conflict. Leaders can employ various tactics to dynamically modify these perceptions, from collective victimization to the distortion of the perceived payoffs, with some followers being more receptive than other to such leadership tactics

Partisans are more likely to entrench their beliefs in misinformation when political outgroup members correct claims

Misinformation has become a global issue with potentially dire consequences (e.g., election results, COVID-19 vaccines, international conflicts). The most common strategy to reduce beliefs in misinformation is to issue corrections or fact-checks. However, fact-checks are often ineffective for polarized issues and there has been debate over whether misinformation corrections sometimes "backfire," causing people to become more entrenched in misinformation. Across three experiments (N = 1,217) we identify a key feature – the partisan identity of the source – that explains when corrections will be effective and when they will be most likely to backfire. We found that while corrections work on average, they were 52% more likely to backfire when they came from a political outgroup member – leaving people with more entrenched beliefs in misinformation. Indeed, the effect of partisan bias on belief in misinformation was 5x larger than the effect of corrections. Partisan bias was most prominent and corrections were least effective when famous politicians were involved. In sum, corrections have small effects compared to partisan identity congruence, and sometimes backfire–especially if they come from a political outgroup member

Speaking my truth: Why personal experiences can bridge divides but mislead

Facts are not what they used to be. Whether you are checking the news or opening the latest journal article, there is increasing evidence that people are more susceptible to misinformation and less receptive to factual arguments than we might hope. While fact checks can be effective in some domains (e.g., health), they prove to be a very weak antidote for misinformation when it comes to politics. This problem is exacerbated by increasing polarization in the U.S. and abroad, where partisans express a growing sense of distrust and moral animosity. But a new paper offers a strategy for bridging political divides. In an impressive series of 15 studies, they detail how expressions of personal experience can garner respect from people across the political aisle. Our paper describes why these might be an effective strategy for gaining respect, but also explain why this feature of human psychology can be exploited by propagandists and bad actors. Learning how to do this effectively, without weaponizing misinformation, will require great care and nuance