Search

Additional co-authors: Ivan Ropovik, Balazs Aczel, Lena F. Aeschbach, Luca Andrighetto, Jack D. Arnal, Holly Arrow, Peter Babincak, Bence E. Bakos, Gabriel Banik, Ernest Baskin, Radomir Belopavlovic, Michael H. Bernstein, Michal Bialek, Nicholas G. Bloxsom, Bojana Bodroža, Diane B. V. Bonfiglio, Leanne Boucher, Florian Bruhlmann, Claudia C. Brumbaugh, Erica Casini, Yiling Chen, Carlo Chiorri, William J. Chopik, Oliver Christ, Antonia M. Ciunci, Heather M. Claypool, Sean Coary, Marija V. Cˇolic, W. Matthew Collins, Paul G. Curran, Chris R. Day, Anna Dreber, John E. Edlund, Filipe Falcao, Anna Fedor, Lily Feinberg, Ian R. Ferguson, Maire Ford, Michael C. Frank, Emily Fryberger, Alexander Garinther, Katarzyna Gawryluk, Kayla Ashbaugh, Mauro Giacomantonio, Steffen R. Giessner, Jon E. Grahe, Rosanna E. Guadagno, Ewa Halasa, Rias A. Hilliard, Joachim Huffmeier, Sean Hughes, Katarzyna Idzikowska, Michael Inzlicht, Alan Jern, William Jimenez-Leal, Magnus Johannesson, Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba, Mathias Kauff, Danielle J. Kellier, Grecia Kessinger, Mallory C. Kidwell, Amanda M. Kimbrough, Josiah P. J. King, Vanessa S. Kolb, Sabina Kolodziej, Marton Kovacs, Karolina Krasuska, Sue Kraus, Lacy E. Krueger, Katarzyna Kuchno, Caio Ambrosio Lage, Eleanor V. Langford, Carmel A. Levitan, Tiago Jesse Souza de Lima, Hause Lin, Samuel Lins, Jia E. Loy, Dylan Manfredi, Łukasz Markiewicz, Madhavi Menon, Brett Mercier, Mitchell Metzger, Venus Meyet, Jeremy K. Miller, Andres Montealegre, Don A. Moore, Rafal Muda, Gideon Nave, Austin Lee Nichols, Sarah A. Novak, Christian Nunnally, Ana Orlic, Anna Palinkas, Angelo Panno, Kimberly P. Parks, Ivana Pedovic, Emilian Pekala, Matthew R. Penner, Sebastiaan Pessers, Boban Petrovic, Thomas Pfeiffer, Damian Pienkosz, Emanuele Preti, Danka Puric, Tiago Ramos, Jonathan Ravid, Timothy S. Razza, Katrin Rentzsch, Juliette Richetin, Sean C. Rife, Anna Dalla Rosa, Kaylis Hase Rudy, Janos Salamon, Blair Saunders, Przemyslaw Sawicki, Kathleen Schmidt, Kurt Schuepfer, Thomas Schultze, Stefan Schulz-Hardt, Astrid Schutz, Ani N. Shabazian, Rachel L. Shubella, Adam Siegel, Ruben Silva, Barbara Sioma, Lauren Skorb, Luana Elayne Cunha de Souza, Sara Steegen, L. A. R. Stein, R. Weylin Sternglanz, Darko Stojilovic, Daniel Storage, Gavin Brent Sullivan, Barnabas Szaszi, Peter Szecsi, Orsolya Szoke, Attila Szuts, Manuela Thomae, Natasha D. Tidwell, Carly Tocco, Ann-Kathrin Torka, Francis Tuerlinckx, Wolf Vanpaemel, Leigh Ann Vaughn, Michelangelo Vianello, Domenico Viganola, Maria Vlachou, Ryan J. Walker, Sophia C. Weissgerber, Aaron L. Wichman, Bradford J. Wiggins, Daniel Wolf, Michael J. Wood, David Zealley, Iris Žeželj, Mark Zrubka, and Brian A. Nosek

Does convincing people that free will is an illusion reduce their sense of personal responsibility? Vohs and Schooler (2008) found that participants reading from a passage “debunking” free will cheated more on experimental tasks than did those reading from a control passage, an effect mediated by decreased belief in free will. However, this finding was not replicated by Embley, Johnson, and Giner-Sorolla (2015), who found that reading arguments against free will had no effect on cheating in their sample. The present study investigated whether hard-to-understand arguments against free will and a low-reliability measure of free-will beliefs account for Embley et al.’s failure to replicate Vohs and Schooler’s results. Participants ( N = 621) were randomly assigned to participate in either a close replication of Vohs and Schooler’s Experiment 1 based on the materials of Embley et al. or a revised protocol, which used an easier-to-understand free-will-belief manipulation and an improved instrument to measure free will. We found that the revisions did not matter. Although the revised measure of belief in free will had better reliability than the original measure, an analysis of the data from the two protocols combined indicated that free-will beliefs were unchanged by the manipulations, d = 0.064, 95% confidence interval = [−0.087, 0.22], and in the focal test, there were no differences in cheating behavior between conditions, d = 0.076, 95% CI = [−0.082, 0.22]. We found that expressed free-will beliefs did not mediate the link between the free-will-belief manipulation and cheating, and in exploratory follow-up analyses, we found that participants expressing lower beliefs in free will were not more likely to cheat in our task.

Replications in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If replications use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replications from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) in which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection and only one of which was “statistically significant” (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate (Gilbert et al., 2016). We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replications. We administered the RP:P and Revised protocols in multiple laboratories (Median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5; Range 3 to 9; Median total sample = 1279.5; Range 276 to 3512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, Revised protocols produced similar effect sizes as RP:P protocols following the preregistered analysis plan (Δr = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for Revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than the original studies (r = .37). The cumulative evidence of original study and three replication attempts suggests that effect sizes for all 10 (median r = .07; range .00 to .15) are 78% smaller on average than original findings (median r = .37; range .19 to .50), with very precisely estimated effects.

Research on attitudes towards racial equality has identified an apparent paradox, sometimes described as the “Principle-Implementation Gap.” White Americans accept equality as an ideal yet reject interventions designed to achieve that ideal. In this article, we provide a critical review of empirical and theoretical work in the field and outline some directions for future research. Drawing on a program of research conducted in post-apartheid South Africa, we argue for the value of: (1) widening the field beyond its traditional focus on White policy attitudes in the United States; (2) developing relational models that encompass more fully the perspectives of historically disadvantaged as well as historically advantaged communities; (3) making greater use of methods that elucidate how ordinary people themselves construct the meaning of the Principle-Implementation Gap and how this informs, and indeed justifies and normalizes, associated patterns of behavior; and (4) prioritizing the difficult question of how to promote social change in societies where most citizens embrace equality as a noble end but often reject the means through which it might be accomplished. With regards to the latter—and given the ascendancy of prejudice-based explanations of the Principle-Implementation Gap—the article evaluates in particular some strengths and limitations of a prejudice-reduction model of social change.

Two studies examine preferences for a long-term partner who conforms to traditional or non- traditional gender roles. The studies both demonstrate a link between benevolent sexism and preference for a traditional partner. However, Study 1 also demonstrates a strong preference among women for a non-traditional partner. We measured ambivalent sexist ideologies before introducing participants to either a stereotypically traditional or stereotypically non-traditional character of the opposite sex. In Study 1, women high in benevolence toward men reported a preference for a traditional man when compared to women low in benevolence toward men. We found no such link for hostility toward men. Study 2 showed that men high in benevolent sexism preferred a traditional woman more than men low in benevolent sexism. Again, this was not the case for hostile sexism. The studies provide evidence using both the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and demonstrate a relationship between benevolent ideology and partner choice that adds to a literature on partner preference which has to date been focused on preference dimensions of attractiveness and resources.

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely highpowered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied. UCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Sociales::Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas (IIP)

Racial segregation encourages members of historically advantaged groups to form negative intergroup attitudes, which then motivate practices of discrimination that sustain inequality and disadvantage. By implication, interventions designed to increase intergroup contact have been proposed as a means of reducing dominant group prejudices and promoting social change. In this article, we highlight another mechanism through which segregation shapes intergroup relations, namely, by inhibiting political solidarity between historically disadvantaged groups. Building on a field survey conducted in postapartheid South Africa, we demonstrate how challenging this form of segregation may reveal alternative mechanisms through which intergroup contact facilitates social change. Notably, we report evidence that positive contact with Black residents of an informal settlement in Pietermaritzburg was associated with Indian residents’ support for political policies and forms of collective action that might improve conditions in that settlement. In addition, we show that such support was partly mediated by perceptions of collective discrimination.

Previous research converges on demonstrating that benevolent sexism (BS) is socially approved, whereas hostile sexism (HS) is socially disapproved. We postulated that a sample of married women would be likely to report that their husbands express hostile sexist attitudes and engage in related actions towards them more in private than public contexts, where they lie concealed from public censure. By contrast, the women would report that their husbands would be likely to express benevolent sexist attitudes and engage in related actions more in public than private contexts, where they are reinforced not only by their target (i.e. wife), but also by significant others and the society at large. We tested these hypotheses with a sample of Black, heterosexually married Zimbabwean women (n = 109, mean age = 31.83). Results supported our hypotheses: the women reported hostile sexist attitudes and actions to be more likely to occur in private than public contexts; on the other hand, they reported benevolent sexist attitudes and actions to be more likely in public than private contexts. We conclude that differences in social approval of BS and HS account for these results.

A recent debate across the social sciences questions the generalizability of research findings obtained from Western Educated Industrialised Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) samples to the rest of humanity at large. In this paper, we aim to adapt and test the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI, Glick & Fiske, 1996), on a small, non-WEIRD sample of men in Burkina Faso. Using a within-participants experimental design we further attempt to cross-validate this adapted ASI with a behavioural measure, namely the dictator game. Generally, the adapted version of the ASI does not perform well in terms of validity and reliability. In the dictator game, women generally receive a larger proportion of the stake than men. While the allocations to male recipients are not related to participants’ levels of hostile or benevolent sexism, there is a significant negative correlation between benevolent sexism and allocations to female recipients.

Recent research shows an increase in the number of trained teachers teaching foreign languages to learners aged 7–11 in English primary schools. Part of this increase stems from a government-funded four-week teaching placement abroad as part of a languages programme in initial teacher education (ITE). Student teachers’ cultural, linguistic and professional skills improved during their training, but little is known about the long-term effects on teachers once qualified. This small scale study draws on Byram's framework for developing intercultural competence and on Mezirow's transformative learning theory to investigate how the professional landscape within which teachers train impacts on their socialisation into the profession. An online questionnaire was sent to 100 practitioners who had trained in one higher education institution with well-established comparative teaching placements abroad. Following the analysis, we approached two respondents to discuss the findings and explore the key themes in more d...

This paper aims to encourage greater reflexivity about the limits of prejudice reduction as a model of social change, particularly when applied to societies characterised by historically entrenched patterns of inequality. We begin by outlining some underlying values and assumptions of this model. We then elaborate how our research on political attitudes in post-apartheid South Africa has led us to question, qualify and sometimes reject those assumptions and move towards a ‘contextualist’ perspective on the efficacy of different models of social change. We agree that the project of getting us to like one another may be crucial for producing change in some contexts. In other contexts, however, it is an epiphenomenon that distracts psychologists from the main causes of, and solutions to, problems such as race, class, or gender discrimination. In still others, with an irony that is evidenced increasingly by research, prejudice reduction may actually contribute to the very problem it is designed to resolve. That is, it may diminish the extent to which social injustice is acknowledged, rejected and challenged.

This paper presents the implications and findings of a longitudinal evaluation of a UK charity’s network of therapeutic projects for their effectiveness in improving child outcomes following child sexual abuse. Eight intervention projects across England and Wales participated in this one group pre- and post-test evaluation leading to a final sample of 42 children. We collected qualitative and quantitative data via the individual projects. These data included responses from the children’s parents, the therapists and from the children themselves. The findings of this evaluation indicate improvements in the children’s outcomes in some domains but persistence of problems in others. No deterioration was observed. We conclude the article by addressing the strengths and limitations of the evaluation and suggesting recommendations for future practitioner-researcher collaborations.

Objectives: This article presents a Cochrane/Campbell systematic review of the evidence on the effect of parent training to support the parenting of parents with intellectual disabilities. Method: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disability with usual care or with a control group were included in the review. Outcomes: The attainment of parenting skills specific to the intervention, safe home practices, and the understanding of child health were the outcomes of interest. Results: Three trials met the inclusion criteria. All three indicated improved parenting skills following parenting training. Conclusions: The quality of the evidence is moderate to low, with limited information available to assess possible bias. The presented evidence seems promising; however, there is a need for larger RCTs of interventions before conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of parent training for this group of parents.

IntroductionReproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. Scientific claims should not gain credence because of the status or authority of their originator but by the replicability of their supporting evidence. Even research of exemplary quality may have irreproducible empirical findings because of random or systematic error.RationaleThere is concern about the rate and predictors of reproducibility, but limited evidence. Potentially problematic practices include selective reporting, selective analysis, and insufficient specification of the conditions necessary or sufficient to obtain the results. Direct replication is the attempt to recreate the conditions believed sufficient for obtaining a previously observed finding and is the means of establishing reproducibility of a finding with new data. We conducted a large-scale, collaborative effort to obtain an initial estimate of the reproducibility of psychological science.ResultsWe conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. There is no single standard for evaluating replication success. Here, we evaluated reproducibility using significance and P values, effect sizes, subjective assessments of replication teams, and meta-analysis of effect sizes. The mean effect size (r) of the replication effects (Mr = 0.197, SD = 0.257) was half the magnitude of the mean effect size of the original effects (Mr = 0.403, SD = 0.188), representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had significant results (P < .05). Thirty-six percent of replications had significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.ConclusionNo single indicator sufficiently describes replication success, and the five indicators examined here are not the only ways to evaluate reproducibility. Nonetheless, collectively these results offer a clear conclusion: A large portion of replications produced weaker evidence for the original findings despite using materials provided by the original authors, review in advance for methodological fidelity, and high statistical power to detect the original effect sizes. Moreover, correlational evidence is consistent with the conclusion that variation in the strength of initial evidence (such as original P value) was more predictive of replication success than variation in the characteristics of the teams conducting the research (such as experience and expertise). The latter factors certainly can influence replication success, but they did not appear to do so here. Reproducibility is not well understood because the incentives for individual scientists prioritize novelty over replication. Innovation is the engine of discovery and is vital for a productive, effective scientific enterprise. However, innovative ideas become old news fast. Journal reviewers and editors may dismiss a new test of a published idea as unoriginal. The claim that “we already know this” belies the uncertainty of scientific evidence. Innovation points out paths that are possible; replication points out paths that are likely; progress relies on both. Replication can increase certainty when findings are reproduced and promote innovation when they are not. This project provides accumulating evidence for many findings in psychological research and suggests that there is still more work to do to verify whether we know what we think we know.

Economic games in field settings have been subject to criticism concerning their ecological validity. We use social identity theory and the intergroup contact hypothesis as a framework to illustrate how economic games can be applied to field settings with higher ecological validity. A quasi-experiment in two rural Cameroonian villages studied participants’ allocation of rice to co-inhabitants of their village. The villages are characterized by different degrees of contact between the ethnic groups and the sexes. Our results indicate that women who are segregated from each other disadvantage other women more than men or women who experience higher amounts of contact. These findings are interesting from a theoretical and methodological perspective since we utilized a nonmonetary stake in naturalistic intergroup settings.

Parents with intellectual or learning disabilities may need support to provide adequate care for their children and prevent problems that can arise in children's welfare or development. Parent training programmes may help them to learn the parenting skills they need. This review found three randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the evidence in the studies is moderate to low. One study found improvement in mother‐child interaction compared with the control group, whilst the second found improvement in safe home practices, recognition of child illness and safe use of medicines. The third study found improvement in child care and safety. More research is needed to assess the effects of these interventions before conclusions can be drawn. Abstract BACKGROUND Intellectual disability may impact on an individual's capacity to parent a child effectively. Research suggests that the number of intellectually disabled people with children is increasing. Children of parents with intellectual disabilities may be at increased risk of neglectful care which could lead to health, developmental and behavioural problems, or increased risk of intellectual disability. However, there is some indication that some parents with intellectual disabilities are able to provide adequate child care if they are given appropriate training and support to do so. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of parent training interventions to support the parenting of parents with intellectual disabilities. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts International, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, and ZETOC. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials comparing parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disabilities with usual care or with a control group. Outcomes of interest were: the attainment of parenting skills specific to the intervention, safe home practices and the understanding of child health. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and undertook data extraction. MAIN RESULTS Three trials met the inclusion criteria for this review but no meta‐analysis was possible. One study reported improved maternal‐child interaction following group parent training compared with the control group. The second study reported some improvements in parents knowledge of life threatening emergencies, ability to recognise dangers and identify precautions and smaller improvements in their ability to implement precautions, use medicines safely and recognise child illness and symptoms. The third study reported improvement in child care and safety skills following the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is some risk of bias in the included studies, with limited information available to assess possible bias and to fully assess the findings of one included study. Whilst the evidence presented here does seem promising with regard to the ability of such interventions to improve parenting knowledge and skill in this population, there is a need for larger RCTs of interventions before conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of parent training for this group of parents.

Previous research has shown that exposure to sexist (vs. non-sexist) humor results in more tolerance of sexist discrimination (Ford & Fergusson, 2004). In the current research, three studies investigated the effects of exposure to sexist humor on men’s rape proclivity. In Study 1, male students were exposed to either sexist or non-sexist jokes. Males exposed to sexist jokes reported higher levels of rape proclivity in comparison to males exposed to non-sexist jokes. Study 2 was an online study in which we replicated Study 1, but also measured male participants’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. Study 3 was a replication of Study 2, in which we controlled for the sexual content of the jokes. Overall, the results of Study 2 and Study 3 indicated that men who scored high (vs. low) on hostile sexism reported higher levels of rape proclivity after exposure to sexist versus non-sexist jokes. No such effects were obtained for benevolent sexism.