Skip navigation
User training | Reference and search service

Library catalog

Content aggregators
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: making transparent how design choices shape research results
Authors: Landy, J. F.
Jia; M.
Ding, I. L.
Viganola, D.
Tierney, W
Dreber, A.
Johannesson, M.
Pfeiffer, T.
Ebersole, C.
Gronau, Q. F.
Ly, A.
van den Bergh, D.
Marsman, M.
Derks, K.
Wagenmakers, E.-J.
Proctor, A.
Bartels, D. M.
Bauman, C. W.
Brady, W. J.
Cheung, F.
Cimpian, A.
Dohle, S.
Donnellan, M. B.
Hahn, A.
Hall, M. P.
Jiménez-Leal, W.
Johnson, D. J.
Lucas, R. E.
Monin, B.
Montealegre, A.
Mullen, E.
Pang, J.
Ray, J.
Reinero, D. A.
Reynolds, J.
Sowden, W.
Storage, D.
Su, R.
Tworek, C. M.
Walco, D.
Wills, J.
Van Bavel, J. J.
Xu, X.
Yam, K. C.
Yang, X.
Cunningham, W. A.
Schweinsberg, M.
Urwitz, M.
Uhlmann, Eric L.
Horchak, O.V.
Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests Col
Keywords: Conceptual replications
Research robustness
Scientific transparency
Issue Date: 2020
Publisher: American Psychological Association
Abstract: 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.
Peer reviewed: yes
DOI: 10.1037/bul0000220
ISSN: 0033-2909
Accession number: WOS:000526064600003
Appears in Collections:CIS-RI - Artigos em revistas científicas internacionais com arbitragem científica

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Landy-et-al.-2020-PsychologicalBulletin.pdfVersão Submetida2.31 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

FacebookTwitterDeliciousLinkedInDiggGoogle BookmarksMySpace
Formato BibTex MendeleyEndnote Currículo DeGóis 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.