In methodological and practical debates about replications in science, it is (often implicitly) assumed that replications will affect public trust in science. In this preregistered experiment (N = 484), we varied (a) whether a replication attempt was successful or not and (b) whether the replication was authored by the same, or another lab. Results showed that ratings of study credibility (e.g. evidence strength, ηP2 = .15) and researcher trustworthiness (e.g. expertise, ηP2 = .15) were rated higher upon learning of replication success, and lower in case of replication failure. The replication’s author did not make a meaningful difference. Prior beliefs acted as covariate for ratings of credibility, but not trustworthiness, while epistemic beliefs regarding the certainty of knowledge were a covariate to both. Hence, laypeople seem to notice that successfully replicated results entail higher epistemic significance, while possibly not taking into account that replications should be conducted by other labs.
AsendorpfJBConnerMDe FruytFDe HouwerJDenissenJJAFiedlerK, et al. (2012) Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality27: 108–119.
2.
BegleyCGEllisLM (2012) Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature483(7391): 531–533.
3.
BrommeRGoldmanSR (2014) The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist49(2): 59–69.
4.
BrommeRRambowRNucklesM (2001) Expertise and estimating what other people know: The influence of professional experience and type of knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied7(4): 317–330.
5.
BuehlMMAlexanderPAMurphyPK (2002) Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general?Contemporary Educational Psychology27(3): 415–449.
6.
CamererCFDreberAForsellEHoTHHuberJJohannessonM, et al. (2016) Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science351(6280): 1433–1436.
7.
ChangACLiP (2015) Is economics research replicable? Sixty published papers from thirteen journals say “usually not.” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2015-083. Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
8.
EaglyAHWoodWChaikenS (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology36(4): 424–435.
9.
EbersoleCRAxtJRNosekBA (2016) Scientists’ reputations are based on getting it right, not being right. PLoS Biology14(5): e1002460.
10.
ErringtonTMIornsEGunnWTanFELomaxJNosekBA (2014) An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research. Elife3: e04333.
11.
FeestU (2019) Why replication is overrated. Philosophy of Science86: 895–905.
12.
FergusonCJHeeneM (2012) A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science7(6): 555–561.
13.
FettermanAKSassenbergK (2015) The reputational consequences of failed replications and wrongness admission among scientists. PLoS ONE10(12): e0143723.
14.
FischerPJonasEFreyDSchulz-HardtS (2005) Selective exposure to information: The impact of information limits. European Journal of Social Psychology35(4): 469–492.
15.
HanelPHPMehlerDMA (2019) Beyond reporting statistical significance: Identifying informative effect sizes to improve scientific communication. Public Understanding of Science28(4): 468–485.
16.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2015) Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS ONE10(10): e0139309.
17.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2016) Evoking vigilance: Would you (dis)trust a scientist who discusses ethical implications of research in a science blog?Public Understanding of Science25(8): 992–1008.
18.
HüffmeierJMazeiJSchultzeT (2016) Reconceptualizing replication as a sequence of different studies: A replication typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology66: 81–92.
19.
IoannidisJPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine2(8): 0696–0701.
20.
JensenJD (2008) Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility. Human Communication Research34(3): 347–369.
21.
KalichmanSC (2014) The psychology of AIDS denialism: Pseudoscience, conspiracy thinking, and medical mistrust. European Psychologist19(1): 13–22.
22.
KienhuesDBrommeR (2012) Exploring laypeople’s epistemic beliefs about medicine—a factor-analytic survey study. BMC Public Health12(1): 759.
23.
KindPOsborneJ (2017) Styles of scientific reasoning: A cultural rationale for science education?Science Education101: 8–31.
24.
KruglanskiAWRavivAABar-TalDRavivASharvitKEllisS, et al. (2005) Says who? Epistemic authority effects in social judgment. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology37: 345–392.
25.
LakatosIMusgraveA (eds) (1970) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, 1st edn. London; New York: Syndics of the Cambridge University Press.
26.
LakensD (2013) Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology4: 863.
27.
LandrumARLullRBAkinHHasellAJamiesonKH (2017) Processing the papal encyclical through perceptual filters: Pope Francis, identity-protective cognition, and climate change concern. Cognition166: 1–12.
28.
LevyN (2019) Due deference to denialism: Explaining ordinary people’s rejection of established scientific findings. Synthese196: 313–327.
29.
LewandowskySEckerUKSeifertCMSchwarzNCookJ (2012) Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest13(3): 106–131.
30.
MasonLBrommeR (2010) Situating and relating epistemological beliefs into metacognition: Studies on beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Metacognition and Learning5(1): 1–6.
31.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics59: 210–220.
32.
MetzgerMJHartsellEHFlanaginAJ (2015) Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research47: 3–28.
33.
NosekBASpiesJRMotylM (2012) Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science7(6): 615–631.
OlejnikSAlginaJ (2003) Generalized Eta and Omega Squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods8(4): 434–447.
36.
Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science349(6251): aac4716.
37.
PopperK (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge.
38.
PrinzFSchlangeTAsadullahK (2011) Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?Nature Reviews Drug Discovery10(9): 712.
39.
RosenthalRRubinDB (1978) Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences1(3): 377–386.
40.
SchmidtS (2009) Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology13(2): 90–100.
41.
SchrawG (2001) Current themes and future directions in epistemological research: A commentary. Educational Psychology Review13(4): 451–464.
42.
SimonsDJ (2014) The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science9(1): 76–80.
43.
StahlEBrommeR (2007) The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction17(6): 773–785.
44.
StricklandBMercierH (2014) Bias neglect: A blind spot in the evaluation of scientific results. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology67(3): 570–580.
45.
StrømsøHIBråtenIBrittMA (2011) Do students’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing predict their judgement of texts’ trustworthiness?Educational Psychology31(2): 177–206.
46.
WesterwickAJohnsonBKKnobloch-WesterwickS (2017) Confirmation biases in selective exposure to political online information: Source bias vs. content bias. Communication Monographs84: 343–364.
47.
WingenTBerkesselJEnglichB (2019) No replication, no trust? How low replicability influences trust in psychology. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Epub ahead of print 24 October. DOI: 10.1177/1948550619877412.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
