Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests : Making transparent how design choices shape research results. / Crowdsourced Hypothesis Tests Collaboration.
I: Psychological Bulletin, Bind 146, Nr. 5, 2020, s. 451-479.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests
T2 - Making transparent how design choices shape research results
AU - Landy, Justin F.
AU - Liam, Miaolei
AU - Ding, Isabel L.
AU - Viganola, Domenico
AU - Tierney, Warren
AU - Dreber, Anna
AU - Johannesson, Magnus
AU - Pfeiffer, Thomas
AU - Ebersole, Charles R.
AU - Gronau, Quentin F.
AU - Ly, Alexander
AU - Bergh, Don Van Den
AU - Marsman, Maarten
AU - Derks, Koen
AU - Wagenmaker, Eric Jan
AU - Proctor, Andrew
AU - Bartels, Daniel M.
AU - Bauman, Christopher W.
AU - Brady, William J.
AU - Cheung, Felix
AU - Cimpian, Andrei
AU - Dohle, Simone
AU - Donnellan, M. Brent
AU - Hahn, Adam
AU - Hall, Michael P.
AU - Jiménez-Leal, William
AU - Johnson, David J.
AU - Lucas, Richard E.
AU - Monin, BenoÎt
AU - Montealegre, Andres
AU - Mullen, Elizabeth
AU - Pang, Jun
AU - Ray, Jennifer
AU - Reinero, Diego A.
AU - Reynolds, Jesse
AU - Sowden, Walter
AU - Storage, Daniel
AU - Su, Runkun
AU - Tworek, Christina M.
AU - Van Bavel, Jay J.
AU - Walco, Daniel
AU - Wills, Julian
AU - Xu, Xiaobing
AU - Yam, Kai Chi
AU - Yang, Xiaoyu
AU - Cunningham, William A.
AU - Schweinsberg, Martin
AU - Urwitz, Molly
AU - Columbus, Simon
AU - Conway, Paul
AU - Crowdsourced Hypothesis Tests Collaboration
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2020, American Psychological Association.
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - 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 five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from 2 separate large samples (total N = 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete 1 version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: Materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for 4 of 5 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 2 hypotheses and a lack of support for 3 hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, whereas 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.
AB - 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 five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from 2 separate large samples (total N = 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete 1 version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: Materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for 4 of 5 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 2 hypotheses and a lack of support for 3 hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, whereas 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.
KW - conceptual replications
KW - crowdsourcing
KW - forecasting
KW - research robustness
KW - scientific transparency
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85081412411&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/bul0000220
DO - 10.1037/bul0000220
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 31944796
AN - SCOPUS:85081412411
VL - 146
SP - 451
EP - 479
JO - Psychological Bulletin
JF - Psychological Bulletin
SN - 0033-2909
IS - 5
ER -
ID: 294828511