1. |
- Ebersole, Charles R., et al.
(author)
-
Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability
- 2020
-
In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. - : Sage. - 2515-2467 .- 2515-2459. ; 3:3, s. 309-331
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3-9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276-3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Delta r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00-.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19-.50).
|
|
2. |
- Garinther, Alexander, et al.
(author)
-
Information Spotlighting in Americans Decisions Surrounding Refugee Resettlement Policy
- 2021
-
In: The Journal of Refugee Studies. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 0951-6328 .- 1471-6925. ; 34:3, s. 3131-3163
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Violent conflict in the Middle East has forced millions to flee their homes and seek refuge in host nations around the globe. Across three studies, we asked American participants (N similar to 1,500) to consider a refugee-resettlement policy that would bring displaced families from the Middle East into their communities, and tracked the items of information these Americans were interested in seeing during the consideration of their decision. Results suggest that participants who rejected the resettlement policy were especially concerned with security-related information and uninterested in humanitarian-related information, while participants who supported the policy expressed interest in a more balanced ratio of security and humanitarian-related information. We situate these findings within the broader literature on attitude-confirming behaviour (e.g. conformation bias, selective exposure) and discuss how information spotlighting might exacerbate polarization on politically charged issues like refugee policy.
|
|