What is replication? Nosek, Brian A; Errington, Timothy M
PLoS biology,
03/2020, Letnik:
18, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Credibility of scientific claims is established with evidence for their replicability using new data. According to common understanding, replication is repeating a study's procedure and observing ...whether the prior finding recurs. This definition is intuitive, easy to apply, and incorrect. We propose that replication is a study for which any outcome would be considered diagnostic evidence about a claim from prior research. This definition reduces emphasis on operational characteristics of the study and increases emphasis on the interpretation of possible outcomes. The purpose of replication is to advance theory by confronting existing understanding with new evidence. Ironically, the value of replication may be strongest when existing understanding is weakest. Successful replication provides evidence of generalizability across the conditions that inevitably differ from the original study; Unsuccessful replication indicates that the reliability of the finding may be more constrained than recognized previously. Defining replication as a confrontation of current theoretical expectations clarifies its important, exciting, and generative role in scientific progress.
The preregistration revolution Nosek, Brian A.; Ebersole, Charles R.; DeHaven, Alexander C. ...
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
03/2018, Letnik:
115, Številka:
11
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Progress in science relies in part on generating hypotheses with existing observations and testing hypotheses with new observations. This distinction between postdiction and prediction is appreciated ...conceptually but is not respected in practice. Mistaking generation of postdictions with testing of predictions reduces the credibility of research findings. However, ordinary biases in human reasoning, such as hindsight bias, make it hard to avoid this mistake. An effective solution is to define the research questions and analysis plan before observing the research outcomes—a process called preregistration. Preregistration distinguishes analyses and outcomes that result from predictions from those that result from postdictions. A variety of practical strategies are available to make the best possible use of preregistration in circumstances that fall short of the ideal application, such as when the data are preexisting. Services are now available for preregistration across all disciplines, facilitating a rapid increase in the practice. Widespread adoption of preregistration will increase distinctiveness between hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing and will improve the credibility of research findings.
We investigated the moral stereotypes political liberals and conservatives have of themselves and each other. In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and ...fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do. 2,212 U.S. participants filled out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire with their own answers, or as a typical liberal or conservative would answer. Across the political spectrum, moral stereotypes about "typical" liberals and conservatives correctly reflected the direction of actual differences in foundation endorsement but exaggerated the magnitude of these differences. Contrary to common theories of stereotyping, the moral stereotypes were not simple underestimations of the political outgroup's morality. Both liberals and conservatives exaggerated the ideological extremity of moral concerns for the ingroup as well as the outgroup. Liberals were least accurate about both groups.
How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (
J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007
;
J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004
), the authors developed several ways to ...measure people's use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), "sacredness" reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American "culture war."
Overweight patients report weight discrimination in health care settings and subsequent avoidance of routine preventive health care. The purpose of this study was to examine implicit and explicit ...attitudes about weight among a large group of medical doctors (MDs) to determine the pervasiveness of negative attitudes about weight among MDs. Test-takers voluntarily accessed a public Web site, known as Project Implicit®, and opted to complete the Weight Implicit Association Test (IAT) (N = 359,261). A sub-sample identified their highest level of education as MD (N = 2,284). Among the MDs, 55% were female, 78% reported their race as white, and 62% had a normal range BMI. This large sample of test-takers showed strong implicit anti-fat bias (Cohen's d = 1.0). MDs, on average, also showed strong implicit anti-fat bias (Cohen's d = 0.93). All test-takers and the MD sub-sample reported a strong preference for thin people rather than fat people or a strong explicit anti-fat bias. We conclude that strong implicit and explicit anti-fat bias is as pervasive among MDs as it is among the general public. An important area for future research is to investigate the association between providers' implicit and explicit attitudes about weight, patient reports of weight discrimination in health care, and quality of care delivered to overweight patients.
Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, and Banaji (2009; GPUB hereafter) reported an average predictive validity correlation of = .236 for Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures involving Black-White racial ...attitudes and stereotypes. Oswald, Mitchell, Blanton, Jaccard, and Tetlock (2013; OMBJT) reported a lower aggregate figure for correlations involving IAT measures ( = .148). The difference between the estimates of the 2 reviews was due mostly to their use of different policies for including effect sizes. GPUB limited their study to findings that assessed theoretically expected attitude-behavior and stereotype-judgment correlations along with others that the authors expected to show positive correlations. OMBJT included a substantial minority of correlations for which there was no theoretical expectation of a predictive relationship. Regardless of inclusion policy, both meta-analyses estimated aggregate correlational effect sizes that were large enough to explain discriminatory impacts that are societally significant either because they can affect many people simultaneously or because they can repeatedly affect single persons.
We compared the psychometric qualities of seven indirect attitude measures across three attitude domains (race, politics, and self-esteem) with a large sample (
N
= 23,413). We compared the measures ...on internal consistency, sensitivity to known effects, relationships with indirect and direct measures of the same topic, the reliability and validity of single-category attitude measurement, their ability to detect meaningful variance among people with nonextreme attitudes, and their robustness to the exclusion of misbehaving or well-behaving participants. All seven indirect measures correlated with each other and with direct measures of the same topic. These relations were always weak for self-esteem, moderate for race, and strong for politics. This pattern suggests that some of the sources of variation in the reliability and predictive validity of the indirect measures is a function of the concepts rather than the methods. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) and Brief IAT (BIAT) showed the best overall psychometric quality, followed by the Go–No-Go association task, Single-Target IAT (ST-IAT), Affective Misattribution Procedure (AMP), Sorting Paired Features task, and Evaluative Priming. The AMP showed a steep decline in its psychometric qualities when people with extreme attitude scores were removed. Single-category attitude scores computed for the IAT and BIAT showed good relationships with other attitude measures but no evidence of discriminant validity between paired categories. The other measures, especially the AMP and ST-IAT, showed better evidence for discriminant validity. These results inform us on the validity of the measures as attitude assessments, but do not speak to the implicitness of the measured constructs.
Beginning January 2014, Psychological Science gave authors the opportunity to signal open data and materials if they qualified for badges that accompanied published articles. Before badges, less than ...3% of Psychological Science articles reported open data. After badges, 23% reported open data, with an accelerating trend; 39% reported open data in the first half of 2015, an increase of more than an order of magnitude from baseline. There was no change over time in the low rates of data sharing among comparison journals. Moreover, reporting openness does not guarantee openness. When badges were earned, reportedly available data were more likely to be actually available, correct, usable, and complete than when badges were not earned. Open materials also increased to a weaker degree, and there was more variability among comparison journals. Badges are simple, effective signals to promote open practices and improve preservation of data and materials by using independent repositories.
Implicit-Explicit Relations Nosek, Brian A.
Current directions in psychological science : a journal of the American Psychological Society,
04/2007, Letnik:
16, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Mental process and mental experience are not the same thing. The former is the operation of the mind; the latter is the subjective life that emerges from that operation. In social evaluation, ...implicit and explicit attitudes express this distinction. Although it is clear that they are not the same, how they differ is not. Across content domains, implicit and explicit attitude measures show substantial variability in the strength of correspondence, ranging from near zero to strongly positive. Variation in controllabiity, intentionality, awareness, or efficiency is thought to differentiate implicit and explicit attitudes. Dual-process theories and empirical evidence for moderating influences of implicit-explicit attitude relations provide a framework for comprehending relations between the operation and the experience of the mind.
A study with low statistical power has a reduced chance of detecting a true effect, but it is less well appreciated that low power also reduces the likelihood that a statistically significant result ...reflects a true effect. Here, we show that the average statistical power of studies in the neurosciences is very low. The consequences of this include overestimates of effect size and low reproducibility of results. There are also ethical dimensions to this problem, as unreliable research is inefficient and wasteful. Improving reproducibility in neuroscience is a key priority and requires attention to well-established but often ignored methodological principles.