@article{8749868,
  abstract     = {{To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from 2 separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete 1 version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: Materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for 4 of 5 hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to + 0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for 2 hypotheses and a lack of support for 3 hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, whereas considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim.}},
  author       = {{Landy, Justin F. and Jia, Miaolei (Liam) and Ding, Isabel L. and Viganola, Domenico and Tierney, Warren and Dreber, Anna and Johannesson, Magnus and Pfeiffer, Thomas and Ebersole, Charles R. and Gronau, Quentin F. and Ly, Alexander and van den Bergh, Don and Marsman, Maarten and Derks, Koen and Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan and Proctor, Andrew and Bartels, Daniel M. and Bauman, Christopher W. and Brady, William J. and Cheung, Felix and Cimpian, Andrei and Dohle, Simone and Donnellan, M. Brent and Hahn, Adam and Hall, Michael P. and Jiménez-Leal, William and Johnson, David J. and Lucas, Richard E. and Monin, Benoît and Montealegre, Andres and Mullen, Elizabeth and Pang, Jun and Ray, Jennifer and Reinero, Diego A. and Reynolds, Jesse and Sowden, Walter and Storage, Daniel and Su, Runkun and Tworek, Christina M. and Van Bavel, Jay J. and Walco, Daniel and Wills, Julian and Xu, Xiaobing and Yam, Kai Chi and Yang, Xiaoyu and Cunningham, William A. and Schweinsberg, Martin and Urwitz, Molly and Collaboration, The Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests and Uhlmann, Eric L. and Hughes, Sean Joseph and Collaboration, The Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests}},
  issn         = {{0033-2909}},
  journal      = {{PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN}},
  keywords     = {{History and Philosophy of Science,General Psychology,conceptual replications,crowdsourcing,forecasting,research robustness,scientific transparency,SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGY,CONCEPTUAL REPLICATIONS,INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES,1ST OFFERS,METAANALYSIS,IMPLICIT,REPLICABILITY,ATTITUDES,SCIENCE,CONSEQUENCES}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{5}},
  pages        = {{451--479}},
  title        = {{Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests : making transparent how design choices shape research results}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000220}},
  volume       = {{146}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}

Altmetric

View in Altmetric

Web of Science

Times cited: