Over the past couple of decades, the apparent widespread occurrence of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) in scientific research has been widely discussed in the research ethics literature as a source of concern. Various ways of reducing their use have been proposed and implemented, ranging from improved training and incentives for adopting best practices to systematic reforms. This article reports on the results of two studies that investigated the efficacy of simple, psychological interventions aimed at changing researcher attitudes toward QRPs. While the interventions did not significantly modify researchers’ reactions to QRPs, they showed differential efficacy depending on scientists’ experience, suggesting complexities in researcher psychology and the ethics of QRPs that merit further study.
3rd World Conference on Research Integrity. (2013). Montreal statement on research integrity in cross-boundary research collaborations. https://wcrif.org/montreal-statement/file
2.
AgnoliF.WichertsJ. M.VeldkampC. L. S.AlbieroP.CubelliR. (2017). Questionable research practices among Italian research psychologists. PLOS ONE, 12, Article e0172792.
3.
ArielyD. (2013). The (honest) truth about dishonesty: How we lie to everyone—Especially ourselves. HarperCollins.
4.
ArielyD.WertenbrochK. (2002). Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological Science, 13, 219–224.
5.
BastardiA.UhlmannE. L.RossL. (2011). Wishful thinking: Belief desire, and the motivation evaluation of scientific evidence. Psychological Science, 22, 731–732.
6.
BegleyC. G.IoannidisJ. P. A. (2015). Reproducibility in science: Improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circulation Research, 116, 116–126.
7.
BemD. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In ZannaM.OlsonJ. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). Academic Press.
8.
BohnerG.RuderM.ErbH. P. (2002). When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 495–519.
9.
BouterL. M. (2015). Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples?Accountability in Research, 22(3), 148–161.
10.
BouterL. M.TijdinkJ.AxelsenN.MartinsonB. C.Ter RietG. (2016). Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: Results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1, Article 17.
11.
BrewerN. T.ChapmanG. B.RothmanA. J.LesakJ.KempeA. (2017). Increasing vaccination: Putting psychological science in action. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(3), 149–207.
12.
ButtonK. S.IoannidisJ. P. A.MokryszC.NosekB. A.FlintJ.RobinsonE. S. J.MunafòM. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365–376.
13.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 97–109.
14.
CasadevallA.FangF. C. (2018). Making the scientific literature fail-safe. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 128(10), 4243–4244.
15.
ChalmersI.GlasziouP. (2009). Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 114, 1341–1345.
16.
ChiuK.GrundyQ.BeroL. (2017). “Spin” in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review. PLOS Biology, 15(9), Article e2002173.
17.
CohenG. L.ShermanD. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333–371.
18.
ConwayP.PeetzJ. (2012). When does feeling moral actually make you a better person? Conceptual abstraction moderates whether past moral deeds motivate consistency or compensatory behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 907–919.
19.
CrutzenR.PetersG.-J. Y. (2017). Targeting next generations to change the common practice of underpowered research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1184.
20.
FanelliD. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLOS ONE, 4, Article e5738.
21.
FanelliD. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891–904.
22.
FanelliD. (2013). Only reporting guidelines can save (soft) science. European Journal of Personality, 27, 124–125.
23.
FanelliD.CostasR.LarivièreV. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLOS ONE, 10(6), Article e0127556
24.
FanelliD.CostasR.IoannidisJ. P. A. (2017). Meta-assessment of bias in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, 3714–3719.
FischhoffB. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299.
27.
FongE. A.WilhiteA. W. (2017). Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLOS ONE, 12(12), Article e0187394.
28.
GerritsR. G.JansenT.MulyantoJ.van den BergM. J.KlazingaN. S.KringosD. S. (2019). Occurrence and nature of questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research publication: A structured assessment of publications authored by researchers in the Netherlands. BMJ Open, 9, Article e027903.
29.
GiniF.ArielyD. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 445–459.
30.
GinoF.NortonM. I.WeberR. A. (2016). Motivated Bayesians: Feeling moral while acting egoistically. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30, 189–212.
31.
GoldsteinN. J.CialdiniR. B.GriskeviciusV. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–482.
32.
HayesA. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences: Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
33.
HerronD. M. (2012). Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surgical Endoscopy, 26, 2275–2280.
34.
IkedaA.XuH.FujiN.ZhuS.YamadaY. (2020). Questionable research practices following pre-registration. Japanese Psychological Review, 62. Preprint doi: 10.31234/osf.io/b8pw9
35.
IoannidisJ. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2, Article e124.
36.
JohnL.LoewensteinG.PrelecD. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532.
37.
JoynsonC.LeyserO. (2015). The culture of scientific research. F1000 Research, 4, Article 66.
38.
KidwellM. C.LazarevićL. B.BaranskiE.HardwickeT. E.PiechowskiS.FalkenbergL.-S.. . . ErringtonT. M. (2016). Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLOS Biology, 14, Article e1002456.
39.
LaceteroN.ZiruliaL. (2011). The economics of scientific misconduct. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 27, 568–603.
40.
MaggioL. A.DongT.DriessenE. W.ArtinoA.Jr. (2019). Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8, 74–82.
MazarN.AmirO.ArielyD. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 633–644.
43.
MazarN.ArielyD. (2015). Dishonesty in scientific research. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 125, 3993–3996.
44.
MotylM.DemosA. P.CarselT. S.HansonB. E.MeltonZ. J.MuellerA. B.PrimsJ. P.SunJ.WashburnA. N.WongK. M.YantisC. (2017). The state of social and personality science: Rotten to the core, not so bad, getting better, or getting worse?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 34–58.
45.
MunafòM. R.NosekB. A.BishopD. V. M.ButtonK. S.ChambersC. D.PercieduSertN.. . . IoannidisJ. P. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behavior, 1, 1–9.
46.
MynattC. R.DohertyM. E.TweneyR. D. (1977). Confirmation bias in a simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 85–95.
47.
NickersonR. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
48.
NolanJ. M.SchultzP. W.CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J.GriskeviciusV. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913–923.
49.
NosekB. A.EbersoleC. R.DeHavenA. C.MellorD. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, 2600–2602.
50.
NosekB. A.SpiesJ. R.MotylM. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631.
51.
NuzzoR. (2015). How scientists fool themselves—And how they can stop. Nature, 526, 182–185.
52.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, Article 943.
53.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915–1926.
54.
RedlawskD. P.CivettiniA. J.EmmersonK. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”?Political Psychology, 31, 563–593.
55.
RedmanB. K.CaplanA. L. (2016). Limited reproducibility of research findings: Implications for the welfare of research participants and considerations for institutional review boards. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 38, 8–10.
56.
ResnikD. B.NealT.RaymondA.KisslingG. E. (2015). Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions. Accountability in Research, 22, 14–21.
57.
RusbultC. E.BuunkB. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204.
58.
SaccoD. F.BrownM.BrutonS. V. (2018). Grounds for ambiguity: Justifiable bases for engaging in questionable research practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25, 1321–1337.
59.
SaccoD. F.BrownM. (2019). Assessing the efficacy of a training intervention to reduce acceptance of questionable research practices in psychology graduate students. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14, 209–218.
60.
SaccoD. F.BrutonS. V.BrownM. (2018). In defense of the questionable: Defining the basis of research scientists’ engagement in questionable research practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13, 101–110.
61.
ScopellitiI.MorewedgeC. K.McCormickE.MinH. L.LebrechtS.KassamK. S. (2015). Bias blind sport: Structure, measurement, and consequences. Management Science, 61, 2468–2486.
62.
SheeranP.HarrisP. R.EptonT. (2014). Does heightening risk appraisals change people’s intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 511–543.
63.
ShuL. L.MazarN.GinoF.ArielyD.BazermanM. H. (2012). Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 15197–15200.
64.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.
65.
SoperD. S. (2013). Interaction: Windows software for graphing and analyzing statistical interactions [computer software]. https://www.danielsoper.com/Interaction/
66.
TijdinkJ. K.VerbekeR.SmuldersY. M. (2014). Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9, 64–71.
67.
TsangJ. (2002). Moral rationalization and the integration of situational factors and psychological processes in immoral behavior. Review of General Psychology, 6, 25–50.
68.
VazireS. (2016). Editorial. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 3–7.
69.
WagenmakersE. J.WetzelsR.BorsboomD.van der MaasH. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 426–432.
70.
WareJ. J.MunafòM. R. (2015). Significance chasing in research practice: Causes, consequences, and possible solutions. Addiction, 110, 4–8.
71.
WashburnA. N.HansonB. E.MotylM.SkitkaL. J.YantisC.WongK. M.. . . CarselT. S. (2018). Why do some psychology researchers resist adopting proposed reforms to research practices? A description of researchers’ rationales. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 166–173.
72.
WislarJ. S.FlanaginA.FontanarosaP. B.DeAngelisC. D. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 343, Article d6128.
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.
