Keep Your Enemies Close: Adversarial Collaborations Will Improve Behavioral Science

AUTHORS: CORY J. CLARK, THOMAS COSTELLO, GREGORY MITCHELL & PHILIP E. TETLOCK

Behavioral scientists enjoy vast methodological freedom in how they operationalize theoretical constructs. We argue that this freedom may promote creativity in designing laboratory paradigms, but it also enables questionable research practices. Open Science norms impose some discipline but cannot constrain cherry-picking operational definitions that insulate preferred theories from rejection. Adversarial collaborations are an efficient method of improving our science’s capacity for self-correction and of promoting intellectual competition that exposes false claims. Although researchers are often initially reluctant to participate, the research community would be better served by institutionalizing adversarial collaboration into its peer-review process.

Double Misinformation: Effects on Eyewitness Remembering

AUTHORS: HARTMUT BLANK, ANU PANDAY, ROSS EDWARDS, EWA SKOPICZ-RADKIEWICZ, VIOLET GIBSON & VASUDEVI REDDY

Eyewitnesses may be exposed to multiple pieces misinformation that contradict each other. In these situations, two mechanisms may produce opposite effects on eyewitness remembering: (1) multiple chances to be misled enhance the misinformation effect and (2) noticing contradictions between multiple pieces of misinformation may decrease the effect, compared to when there is only one piece of misinformation. Across three experiments, we found support for both of these effects. The first mechanism dominates at low levels of misinformation availability, and the second at high levels. These findings suggest that more misinformation can be less effective if it contradicts itself.

How Does the Type of Expected Evaluation Impact Students’ Self-Regulated Learning?

AUTHORS: SARAH K. TAUBER, VISHAL J. THAKKAR & MEGAN A. PLESHEK

Educators adopt various methods to evaluate their students, but little is known about how expected evaluations impact students’ study decisions. In four experiments, students self-paced their study of a multimedia lesson. Students expected to teach the material, to take a test (Experiments 1-4), or to write a paper (Experiment 3). Importantly, students did not actually teach or write a paper. Instead, students took a comprehension test, and in Experiments 3 and 4, reported reasons for their study decisions. Students who expected a socially demanding evaluation spent longer studying than did students expecting other evaluations. Additionally, students who expected to teach obtained higher comprehension scores than students expecting other evaluations.

JARMAC Featured Content