Public Opinion on Selective Reporting, Publication Bias, and Lack of Data Sharing in Psychology

In psychological science, as in other fields, several research practices underlie issues with the reliability and integrity of the knowledge produced. In the proposed study we will build on a survey study by Picket and Roche (2017) who examined moral judgments about data fraud and selective reporting, and found that people in the USA believe both practices to be immoral and deserving of punishment. We will assess public opinion in four large samples that are quota-equivalent to the OCED statistics in the variables age, sex, and where possible education level, in four European countries that differ in their general trust in science (Spain, The Netherlands, Italy, and Poland) and will ask participants about three research practices in psychological science, namely selective reporting, publication bias, and lack of data sharing. Participants will indicate their opinion both before and after the incentive structure in science that leads researchers to perform these practices is carefully explained. The main outcome measures include moral acceptability of these three practices, trust in knowledge produced by Psychological Science (both measured before and after the incentive structure explanation), and agreement with tax money going to Psychological Science should be lowered if no responsibility is taken to resolve these practices. Our hypothesis is that the general public will judge the three practices to be morally unacceptable, and we expect to see little change in these judgments after informing the public about current reward structures in science. Our goal is to provide input for future discussions about policies regarding reporting practices (e.g., pre-registering hypothesis tests to prevent p-hacking), publication practices (e.g., study registries in psychology to reduce the file-drawer), and data sharing (e.g., sharing data in a data repository alongside a publication). If the public believes current research practices to be morally unacceptable, the scientific community should work together to improve these practices to deserve the trust of the general public.