Several meta-analytical attempts to reproduce results of empirical research have failed in recent years, prompting scholars and news media to diagnose a “replication crisis” and voice concerns about science losing public credibility. Others, in contrast, hoped replication efforts could improve public confidence in science. Yet nationally representative evidence backing these concerns or hopes is scarce. We provide such evidence, conducting a secondary analysis of the German “Science Barometer” (“Wissenschaftsbarometer”) survey. We find that most Germans are not aware of the “replication crisis.” In addition, most interpret replication efforts as indicative of scientific quality control and science’s self-correcting nature. However, supporters of the populist right-wing party AfD tend to believe that the “crisis” shows one cannot trust science, perhaps using it as an argument to discredit science. But for the majority of Germans, hopes about reputational benefits of the “replication crisis” for science seem more justified than concerns about detrimental effects.
AnvariFLakensD (2018) The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology3(3): 266–286.
3.
BakerM (2016) 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility: Survey sheds light on the “crisis” rocking research. Nature533(7604): 452–454.
4.
BakerMDolginE (2017) Cancer reproducibility project releases first results. Nature541(7637): 269–270.
5.
BiałekM (2018) Replications can cause distorted belief in scientific progress. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences41: e122.
6.
BroomellSBKanePB (2017) Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology146(2): 286–304.
7.
CamererCFDreberAForsellEHoT-HHuberJJohannessonMKirchlerMAlembergMAltmejdAChanTHeikenstenEHolzmeisterFImaiTIsakksonSNaveGPfeifferTRazenMWuH (2016) Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science351(6280): 1433–1436.
8.
CamererCFDreberAHolzmeisterFHoHTHuberJJohannessonMKirchlerMNave NosekBPfeifferTAltmejdAButtrickAChanTChenYForsellEGampaAHeikenstenEHummerLImaiTIsakssonSManfrediDRoseJEWagenmakersE-JWuH (2018) Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour2(9): 637–644.
9.
ChopikWJBremnerRHDefeverAMKellerVN (2018) How (and whether) to teach undergraduates about the replication crisis in psychological science. Teaching of Psychology45(2): 158–163.
DienlinTJohannesNBowmanNDMasurPKEngesserSKümpelASLukitoJBierLMZhangRJohnsonBKHuskeyRSchneiderFMBreuerJParryDAVermeulenIFisherJTBanksJWeberREllisDASmitsTIvoryJDTrepteSMcEwanBRinkeEMNeubaumGWinterSCarpenterCJKrämerNUtzSUnkelJWangXDavidsonBIKimNWonASDomahidiELewisNAde VreeseC (2020) An agenda for Open Science in communication. Journal of Communication. Epub ahead of print 13 March. DOI: 10.1093/joc/jqz052.
12.
EbersoleCRAxtJRNosekBA (2016) Scientists’ reputations are based on getting it right, not being right. PLoS Biology14(5): e1002460.
13.
FanelliD (2018) Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America115(11): 2628–2631.
14.
FettermanAKSassenbergK (2015) The reputational consequences of failed replications and wrongness admission among scientists. PLoS ONE10(12): e0143723.
GrunebergMMMonksJSykesRN (1977) Some methodological problems with feeling of knowing studies. Acta Psychologica41(5): 365–371.
23.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2016) Trust in science and the science of trust. In: BlöbaumB (ed.) Trust and Communication in a Digitized World. Cham: Springer, pp. 143–159.
24.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2020) Replication crisis = trust crisis? The effect of successful vs failed replications on laypeople’s trust in researchers and research. Public Understanding of Science29: 270–288.
25.
HilgardJJamiesonKH (2017) Science as “broken” versus science as “self-correcting”: How retractions and peer-review problems are exploited to attack science. In: JamiesonKHKahanDMScheufeleDA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 85–92.
26.
HuberRA (2020) The role of populist attitudes in explaining climate change skepticism and support for environmental protection. Environmental Politics29: 959–982.
27.
IoannidisJPNtzaniEETrikalinosTAContopoulos-IoannidisDG (2001) Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nature Genetics29(3): 306–309.
28.
JamiesonKH (2018) Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America115(11): 2620–2627.
29.
KahanDMJenkins-SmithHBramanD (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research14(2): 147–174.
30.
KepplingerHMHabermeierJ (1995) The impact of key events on the presentation of reality. European Journal of Communication10(3): 371–390.
31.
KraftPWLodgeMTaberCS (2015) Why people “don’t trust the evidence”: Motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658(1): 121–133.
32.
KrämerBKlinglerM (2020) A bad political climate for climate research and trouble for gender studies: Right-wing populism as a challenge to science communication. In: KrämerBHoltz-BachaC (eds) Perspectives on Populism and the Media: Avenues for Research. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 253–271.
33.
LeBelEPMcCarthyRJEarpBDElsonMVanpaemelW (2018) A unified framework to quantify the credibility of scientific findings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science1(3): 389–402.
34.
LiskauskasSRibeiroMDVasconcelosS (2019) Changing times for science and the public: Science journalists’ roles for the responsible communication of science. EMBO Reports20(4): e47906.
35.
LoewNFaasT (2019) Between thin- and host-ideologies: How populist attitudes interact with policy preferences in shaping voting behaviour. Representation55(4): 493–511.
36.
McCombsM (2001) Agenda-setting. In: SmelserNJBaltesPB (eds) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 285–288.
37.
McFaddenD (1979) Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behaviour of individuals: Some recent developments. In: HensherDAStopherPR (eds) Behavioural Travel Modelling. London: Croom Helm, pp. 279–318.
38.
MaxwellSELauMYHowardGS (2015) Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean?The American Psychologist70(6): 487–498.
39.
MedeNGSchäferMS (2020) Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science29(5): 473–491.
40.
MerkleyE (2020) Anti-intellectualism, populism, and motivated resistance to expert consensus. Public Opinion Quarterly84: 24–28.
41.
MuddeC (2004) The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition39(4): 541–563.
42.
Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science349(6251): aac4716.
43.
PickettJTRocheSP (2018) Questionable, objectionable or criminal? Public opinion on data fraud and selective reporting in science. Science and Engineering Ethics24(1): 151–171.
44.
Rat für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsdaten (2020) Datenerhebung mit neuer Informationstechnologie: Empfehlungen zu Datenqualität und -management, Forschungsethik und Datenschutz [Data collection with new information technology: recommendations on data quality and management, research ethics, and data privacy]. Ratswd Output6(6). Available at: https://www.ratswd.de/dl/RatSWD_Output6.6_Datenerhebung-neueIT.pdf
45.
RoedigerHLMcDermottKB (1995) Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology21(4): 803–814.
46.
RutjensBTHeineSJSuttonRMvan HarreveldF (2018) Attitudes towards science. In: OlsonJM (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 125–165.
SchäferMS (2009) From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication30(4): 475–505.
49.
ScharkowMVogelgesangJ (2011) Measuring the public agenda using search engine queries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research23(1): 104–113.
50.
VazireS (2020) Do we want to be credible or incredible?Association for Psychological Science: Observer33(1): 35–37.
51.
WingenTBerkesselJBEnglichB (2019) No replication, no trust? How low replicability influences trust in psychology. Social Psychological and Personality Science11: 454–463.
Wissenschaft im Dialog (2019) ZA6965: Science Barometer 2018: Data file version 1.0.0 (GESIS data archive, Cologne). Available at: https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13241
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.
