Abstract
ABSTRACTReplication failures of past findings in several scientific disciplines, including psychology, medicine, and experimental economics, have created a “crisis of confidence” among scientists. Psychological science has been at the forefront of tackling these issues, with discussions about replication failures and scientific self-criticisms of questionable research practices (QRPs) increasingly taking place in public forums. How this replicability crisis impacts the public’s trust is a question yet to be answered by research. Whereas some researchers believe that the public’s trust will be positively impacted or maintained, others believe trust will be diminished. Because it is our field of expertise, we focus on trust in psychological science. We performed a study testing how public trust in past and future psychological research would be impacted by being informed about (i) replication failures (replications group), (ii) replication failures and criticisms of QRPs (QRPs group), and (iii) replication failures, criticisms of QRPs, and proposed reforms (reforms group). Results from a mostly European sample (N = 1129) showed that, compared to a control group, people in the replications, QRPs, and reforms groups self-reported less trust in past research. Regarding trust in future research, the replications and QRPs groups did not significantly differ from the control group. Surprisingly, the reforms group had less trust in future research than the control group. Nevertheless, people in the replications, QRPs, and reforms groups did not significantly differ from the control group in how much they believed future research in psychological science should be supported by public funding. Potential explanations are discussed.
Highlights
Psychological science has been at the forefront of tackling these issues, with discussions about replication failures and scientific self-criticisms of questionable research practices (QRPs) increasingly taking place in public forums
Whereas some researchers believe that the public’s trust will be positively impacted or maintained, others believe trust will be diminished. Because it is our field of expertise, we focus on trust in psychological science
People in the replications, QRPs, and reforms groups did not significantly differ from the control group in how much they believed future research in psychological science should be supported by public funding
Summary
Because of the importance of trust in science among the general public and the disagreement about whether the public discussions around reproducibility will reduce or increase public trust in psychological science, we aim to experimentally examine the impact of being informed about psychology’s replicability crisis, and attempts to selfcorrect the way psychological science is practiced. The purpose of the present study is to provide empirical data to inform discussions that have far been largely anecdotal or hypothetical. In a pilot study, performed in response to the first round of reviews, we aimed to examine three main questions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
