In the current psychological debate, low replicability of psychological findings is a central topic. While the discussion about the replication crisis has a huge impact on psychological research, we know less about how it impacts public trust in psychology. In this article, we examine whether low replicability damages public trust and how this damage can be repaired. Studies 1–3 provide correlational and experimental evidence that low replicability reduces public trust in psychology. Additionally, Studies 3–5 evaluate the effectiveness of commonly used trust-repair strategies such as information about increased transparency (Study 3), explanations for low replicability (Study 4), or recovered replicability (Study 5). We found no evidence that these strategies significantly repair trust. However, it remains possible that they have small but potentially meaningful effects, which could be detected with larger samples. Overall, our studies highlight the importance of replicability for public trust in psychology.
AklinM.UrpelainenJ. (2014). Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 38, 173–177. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.006
2.
AndersonS. F.MaxwellS. E. (2017). Addressing the “replication crisis”: Using original studies to design replication studies with appropriate statistical power. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52, 305–324. doi:10.1080/00273171.2017.1289361
3.
AnvariF.LakensD. (2019, September9). The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vtmpc.
4.
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
5.
BachmannR.GillespieN.PriemR. (2015). Repairing trust in organizations and institutions: Toward a conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 36, 1123–1142.
6.
BaumeisterR. F. (2016). Charting the future of social psychology on stormy seas: Winners, losers, and recommendations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 153–158. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003
7.
BiałekM. (2018). Replications can cause distorted belief in scientific progress: BBS commentary by Białek on Zwaan et al. PsyArXiv. doi:10.31234/osf.io/8a4h6
8.
BrommeR.ThommE. (2016). Knowing who knows: Laypersons’ capabilities to judge experts’ pertinence for science topics. Cognitive Science, 40, 241–252.
9.
BroomellS. B.KaneP. B. (2017). Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 286–304. doi:10.1037/xge0000260
10.
CaslerK.BickelL.HackettE. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160.
11.
ChopikW. J.BremnerR. H.DefeverA. M.KellerV. N. (2018). How (and whether) to teach undergraduates about the replication crisis in psychological science. Teaching of Psychology, 45, 158–163.
12.
CookB. G.LloydJ. W.MellorD.NosekB. A.TherrienW. J. (2018). Promoting open science to increase the trustworthiness of evidence in special education. Exceptional Children, 85, 104–118.
13.
DirksK. T.LewickyR. J.ZaheerA. (2009). Repairing relationships within and between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation. The Academy of Management Review, 34, 68–84.
14.
FanelliD. (2018). Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 2628–2631.
15.
FrankenhuisW. E.NettleD. (2018). Open science is liberating and can foster creativity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 439–447.
16.
GilbertD. T.KingG.PettigrewS.WilsonT. D. (2016). Comment on “estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.”Science, 351, 1037–1037.
17.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., enlarged). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
LeBelE. P.CampbellL.LovingT. J. (2017). Benefits of open and high-powered research outweigh costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 230–243. doi:10.1037/pspi0000049
19.
LeiserowitzA. A.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC.SmithN.DawsonE. (2013). Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 818–837.
MakelM. C.PluckerJ. A.HegartyB. (2012). Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 537–542. doi:10.1177/1745691612460688
22.
MiguelE.CamererC.CaseyK.CohenJ.EsterlingK. M.GerberA.…ImbensG. (2014). Promoting transparency in social science research. Science, 343, 30–31.
23.
NisbetE. C.CooperK. E.GarrettR. K. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 36–66. doi:10.1177/0002716214555474
24.
NosekB. A.AlterG.BanksG. C.BorsboomD.BowmanS. D.BrecklerS. J.…ChristensenG. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348, 1422–1425.
25.
NosekB. A.EbersoleC. R.DeHavenA. C.MellorD. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 2600–2606. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114
26.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
RichardF. D.BondC. F.JrStokes-ZootaJ. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363.
29.
RuggeriK.Ojinaga-AlfagemeO.BenzergaA.BerkesselJ.HlavováR.KunzM.SampatB. (2019). Evidence-based policy. In RuggeriK. (Ed.), Behavioral insights for public policy: Concepts and case (pp. 17–40). London, England: Routledge.
30.
SchönbrodtF.GollwitzerM.Abele-BrehmA. (2017). Data management in psychological science: Specification of the DFG guidelines. doi:10.31234/osf.io/vhx89
31.
SijtsmaK. (2016). Playing with data—Or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. Psychometrika, 81, 1–15. doi:10.1007/s11336-015-9446-0
32.
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
33.
SimonsD. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 76–80.
34.
StroebeW.StrackF. (2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 59–71.
35.
Van BavelJ. J.Mende-SiedleckiP.BradyW. J.ReineroD. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 6454–6459. doi:10.1073/pnas.1521897113
36.
van der BlesA. M.van der LindenS.FreemanA. L.MitchellJ.GalvaoA. B.ZavalL.SpiegelhalterD. J. (2019). Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. Royal Society Open Science, 6, 181870.
37.
VazireS. (2018). Implications of the credibility revolution for productivity, creativity, and progress. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 411–417.
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.
