Replication crisis = trust crisis? The effect of successful vs failed replications on laypeople's trust in researchers and research. (April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hendriks, Friederike; Kienhues, Dorothe; Bromme, Rainer
• Is Part Of: Public understanding of science. Volume 29:Number 3(2020)
• Page Start: 270
• Page End: 288
• Publication Date: 2020-04
• Subjects: credibility -- epistemic trust -- public understanding of science -- replication -- science communication -- trust -- trustworthiness; Science news -- Periodicals; Science -- Social aspects -- Periodicals; 303.483
• DOI: 10.1177/0963662520902383
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0963-6625

Abstract

In methodological and practical debates about replications in science, it is (often implicitly) assumed that replications will affect public trust in science. In this preregistered experiment ( N = 484), we varied (a) whether a replication attempt was successful or not and (b) whether the replication was authored by the same, or another lab. Results showed that ratings of study credibility (e.g. evidence strength, ηP 2 = .15) and researcher trustworthiness (e.g. expertise, ηP 2 = .15) were rated higher upon learning of replication success, and lower in case of replication failure. The replication's author did not make a meaningful difference. Prior beliefs acted as covariate for ratings of credibility, but not trustworthiness, while epistemic beliefs regarding the certainty of knowledge were a covariate to both. Hence, laypeople seem to notice that successfully replicated results entail higher epistemic significance, while possibly not taking into account that replications should be conducted by other labs.