University of Münster, Germany.
Public Underst Sci. 2020 Apr;29(3):270-288. doi: 10.1177/0963662520902383. Epub 2020 Feb 8.
In methodological and practical debates about replications in science, it is (often implicitly) assumed that replications will affect public trust in science. In this preregistered experiment ( = 484), we varied (a) whether a replication attempt was successful or not and (b) whether the replication was authored by the same, or another lab. Results showed that ratings of study credibility (e.g. evidence strength, η = .15) and researcher trustworthiness (e.g. expertise, η = .15) were rated higher upon learning of replication success, and lower in case of replication failure. The replication's author did not make a meaningful difference. Prior beliefs acted as covariate for ratings of credibility, but not trustworthiness, while epistemic beliefs regarding the certainty of knowledge were a covariate to both. Hence, laypeople seem to notice that successfully replicated results entail higher epistemic significance, while possibly not taking into account that replications should be conducted by other labs.
在关于科学复制的方法学和实践争论中，人们（通常是隐含地）假设复制会影响公众对科学的信任。在这项预先注册的实验（ = 484）中，我们改变了（a）复制尝试是否成功和（b）复制是由同一实验室还是其他实验室进行的。结果表明，对研究可信度的评分（例如证据强度，η = .15）和对研究人员可信赖性的评分（例如专业知识，η = .15）在得知复制成功后会更高，而在复制失败的情况下则会更低。复制的作者并没有产生有意义的差异。先前的信念是可信度评分的协变量，但不是可信赖性评分的协变量，而对知识确定性的认识信念则是两者的协变量。因此，外行似乎注意到成功复制的结果意味着更高的认识论意义，而可能没有考虑到复制应该由其他实验室进行。
