Ashburn-Nardo Leslie, Moss-Racusin Corinne A, Smith Jessi L, Sanzari Christina M, Vescio Theresa K, Glick Peter
Department of Psychology, Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
Department of Psychology, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, United States.
Front Psychol. 2022 Jun 13;13:823147. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.823147. eCollection 2022.
The reproducibility movement in psychology has resulted in numerous highly publicized instances of replication failures. The goal of the present work was to investigate people's reactions to a psychology replication failure vs. success, and to test whether a failure elicits harsher reactions when the researcher is a woman vs. a man. We examined these questions in a pre-registered experiment with a working adult sample, a conceptual replication of that experiment with a student sample, and an analysis of data compiled and posted by a psychology researcher on their public weblog with the stated goal to improve research replicability by rank-ordering psychology researchers by their "estimated false discovery risk." Participants in the experiments were randomly assigned to read a news article describing a successful vs. failed replication attempt of original work from a male vs. female psychological scientist, and then completed measures of researcher competence, likability, integrity, perceptions of the research, and behavioral intentions for future interactions with the researcher. In both working adult and student samples, analyses consistently yielded large main effects of replication outcome, but no interaction with researcher gender. Likewise, the coding of weblog data posted in July 2021 indicated that 66.3% of the researchers scrutinized were men and 33.8% were women, and their rank-ordering was not correlated with researcher gender. The lack of support for our pre-registered gender-replication hypothesis is, at first glance, encouraging for women researchers' careers; however, the substantial effect sizes we observed for replication outcome underscore the tremendous negative impact the reproducibility movement can have on psychologists' careers. We discuss the implications of such negative perceptions and the possible downstream consequences for women in the field that are essential for future study.
心理学领域的可重复性运动导致了众多备受瞩目的复制失败案例。本研究的目的是调查人们对心理学复制失败与成功的反应,并测试当研究者为女性或男性时,失败是否会引发更严厉的反应。我们在一项针对在职成年人样本的预先注册实验、该实验在学生样本上的概念性复制以及对一位心理学研究者在其公共博客上汇编并发布的数据的分析中探讨了这些问题,该研究者发布数据的既定目标是通过按“估计的错误发现风险”对心理学研究者进行排名来提高研究的可重复性。实验参与者被随机分配阅读一篇新闻文章,该文章描述了男性或女性心理科学家对原创研究的成功或失败的复制尝试,然后完成对研究者能力、亲和力、诚信度、对研究的看法以及未来与研究者互动的行为意图的测量。在在职成年人和学生样本中,分析结果一致显示复制结果有很大的主效应,但与研究者性别没有交互作用。同样,对2021年7月发布的博客数据的编码表明,接受审查的研究者中66.3%为男性,33.8%为女性,他们的排名与研究者性别无关。乍一看,我们预先注册的性别 - 复制假设未得到支持对女性研究者的职业发展是令人鼓舞的;然而,我们观察到的复制结果的巨大效应量凸显了可重复性运动对心理学家职业可能产生的巨大负面影响。我们讨论了这种负面看法的影响以及该领域女性可能面临的潜在下游后果,这些对于未来的研究至关重要。