Questionable research practices (QRPs) are a strongly debated topic in the scientific community. Hypotheses about the relationship between individual differences and QRPs are plentiful but have rarely been empirically tested. Here, we investigate whether researchers’ personal motivation (expressed by achievement goals) is associated with self-reported engagement in QRPs within a sample of 217 psychology researchers. Appearance approach goals (striving for skill demonstration) positively predicted engagement in QRPs, while learning approach goals (striving for skill development) were a negative predictor. These effects remained stable when also considering Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy in a latent multiple regression model. Additional moderation analyses revealed that the more researchers favored publishing over scientific rigor, the stronger the association between appearance approach goals and engagement in QRPs. The findings deliver first insights into the nature of the relationship between personal motivation and scientific malpractice.
AndermanE. M.MidgleyC. (2004). Changes in self-reported academic cheating across the transition from middle school to high school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 499–517. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.02.002
2.
BakkerM.van DijkA.WichertsJ. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554. doi:10.1177/1745691612459060
3.
DaumillerM.DickhäuserO.DreselM. (2018). University instructors’ achievement goals for teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1037/edu0000271
4.
ElliotA. J.ChurchM. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218
5.
ElliotA. J.McGregorH. A.ThrashT. M. (2002). The need for competence. In DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 361–387). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
6.
FiedlerK.SchwarzN. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 45–52. doi:10.1177/1948550615612150
7.
FloraD. B.CurranP. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466–491. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466
8.
HayesA. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved August 1, 2017, fromhttp://afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
9.
HütherO.KrückenG. (2018). Higher education in Germany. Recent developments in an international perspective. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
10.
JankeS.DickhäuserO. (2018). A situated process model of vocational achievement goal striving within members of the academic staff at university. Motivation and Emotion, 42, 466–481. doi:10.1007/s11031-017-9657-z
11.
JankeS.NitscheS.DickhäuserO. (2015). The role of perceived need satisfaction at work for teachers’ work-related learning goal orientation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 184–194. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.009
12.
JankeS.NitscheS.PraetoriusA. K.BenningK.FaschingM.DreselM.DickhäuserO. (2016). Deconstructing performance goal orientations: The merit of a dimensional approach. Learning & Individual Differences, 50, 133–146. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.013
13.
JepsenD. M.SunJ. J.-M.BudhwarP. S.KleheU.-C.KrausertA.RaghuramS.ValcourM. (2014). International academic careers: Personal reflections. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 1309–1326. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.870307
14.
JohnL. K.LoewensteinG.PrelecD. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953
15.
JonasonP. K.O’ConnorP. J. (2017). Cutting corners at work: An individual differences perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 146–153. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.045
16.
KornR. M.ElliotA. J. (2016). The 2× 2 standpoints model of achievement goals. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00742
17.
KüfnerA. C.DufnerM.BackM. D. (2014). Das Dreckige Dutzend und die Niederträchtigen Neun - Zwei Kurzskalen zur Erfassung von Narzissmus, Machiavellismus und Psychopathie [In German] [The Dirty Dozen and the Naughty Nine: Two short scales for the assessment of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy]. Diagnostica, 61, 79–91. doi:10.1026/0012-1924/a000124
18.
LemaitreB. (2017). Science, narcissism and the quest for visibility. The FEBS Journal, 284, 875–882. doi:10.1111/febs.14032
19.
MurdockT. B.AndermanE. M. (2006). Motivational perspectives on student cheating: Toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educational Psychologist, 41, 129–145. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4103_1
20.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
21.
NosekB. A.AlterG.BanksG. C.BorsboomD.BowmanS.BrecklerS.…ChristensenG. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348, 1422–1425. doi:10.1126/science.aab2374
22.
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. doi:10.1177/1745691612459058
23.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 943–951. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
24.
PashlerH.WagenmakersE. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–530. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253
25.
PaulhusD. L.WilliamsK. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
26.
RhemtullaM.Brosseau-LiardP. É.SavaleiV. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354–373. doi:10.1037/a0029315
27.
Schermelleh-EngelK.MoosbruggerH.MüllerH. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.
28.
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. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
29.
SoperD. S. (2017). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software]. Retrieved April 10, 2017 fromhttp://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
30.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2015). Bildung und Kultur: Personal an Hochschulen [Education and cultural affairs: Staff at higher education institutions]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Author.
31.
Van YperenN. W.HamstraM. R.van der KlauwM. (2011). To win, or not to lose, at any cost: The impact of achievement goals on cheating. British Journal of Management, 22, 5–15. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00702.x
32.
WestlandJ. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9, 476–487. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003
33.
WhiteR. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. doi:10.1037/h0040934
Supplementary Material
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.
