ORCID Profile
0000-0003-2572-2424
Current Organisation
University of California Davis
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 24-08-2019
Abstract: Participants in experience s ling method (ESM) studies are “beeped” several times per day to report on their momentary experiences—but participants do not always answer the beep. Knowing whether there are systematic predictors of missing a report is critical for understanding the extent to which missing data threatens the validity of inferences from ESM studies. Here, 228 university students completed up to four ESM reports per day while wearing an unobtrusive audio recording device for a week. These audio recordings provided an alternative source of information about what participants were doing when they missed or completed reports (3,678 observations). We predicted missing ESM reports from 46 variables coded from the EAR recordings, and found very little evidence that missing an ESM report was correlated with constructs typically of interest to ESM researchers. These findings provide reassuring evidence for the validity of ESM research among relatively healthy university student s les.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 19-07-2022
Abstract: What information do science journalists use when evaluating psychology findings? We examined this in a preregistered, controlled experiment by manipulating four factors in descriptions of fictitious behavioral psychology studies: (1) the study’s s le size, (2) the representativeness of the study’s s le, (3) the p-value associated with the finding, and (4) institutional prestige of the researcher who conducted the study. We investigated the effects of these manipulations on 181 real journalists’ perceptions of each study’s trustworthiness and newsworthiness. S le size was the only factor that had a robust influence on journalists’ ratings of how trustworthy and newsworthy a finding was, with larger s le sizes leading to an increase of about two thirds of one point on a 7-point scale. University prestige had no effect in this controlled setting, and the effects of s le representativeness and of p-values were inconclusive, but any effects in this setting are likely quite small. Exploratory analyses suggest that other types of prestige might be more important (i.e., journal prestige), and that study design (experimental vs. correlational) may also impact trustworthiness and newsworthiness.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 28-12-2021
Abstract: What research practices should be considered acceptable? Historically, scientists have set the standards for what constitutes acceptable research practices. However, there is value in considering non-scientists’ perspectives, including research participants’. 1,873 participants from MTurk and university subject pools were surveyed after their participation in one of eight minimal-risk studies. We asked participants how they would feel if (mostly) common research practices were applied to their data: p-hacking/cherry-picking results, selective reporting of studies, Hypothesizing After Results are Known (HARKing), committing fraud, conducting direct replications, sharing data, sharing methods, and open access publishing. An overwhelming majority of psychology research participants think questionable research practices (e.g., p-hacking, HARKing) are unacceptable (68.3--81.3%), and were supportive of practices to increase transparency and replicability (71.4--80.1%). A surprising number of participants expressed positive or neutral views toward scientific fraud (18.7%), raising concerns about data quality. We grapple with this concern and interpret our results in light of the limitations of our study. Despite ambiguity in our results, we argue that there is evidence (from our study and others’) that researchers may be violating participants’ expectations and should be transparent with participants about how their data will be used.
Publisher: The Royal Society
Date: 04-2022
DOI: 10.1098/RSOS.200048
Abstract: What research practices should be considered acceptable? Historically, scientists have set the standards for what constitutes acceptable research practices. However, there is value in considering non-scientists’ perspectives, including research participants'. 1873 participants from MTurk and university subject pools were surveyed after their participation in one of eight minimal-risk studies. We asked participants how they would feel if (mostly) common research practices were applied to their data: p -hacking/cherry-picking results, selective reporting of studies, Hypothesizing After Results are Known (HARKing), committing fraud, conducting direct replications, sharing data, sharing methods, and open access publishing. An overwhelming majority of psychology research participants think questionable research practices (e.g. p -hacking, HARKing) are unacceptable (68.3–81.3%), and were supportive of practices to increase transparency and replicability (71.4–80.1%). A surprising number of participants expressed positive or neutral views toward scientific fraud (18.7%), raising concerns about data quality. We grapple with this concern and interpret our results in light of the limitations of our study. Despite the ambiguity in our results, we argue that there is evidence (from our study and others’) that researchers may be violating participants' expectations and should be transparent with participants about how their data will be used.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 07-2023
No related grants have been discovered for Mijke Rhemtulla.