No harm in being self-corrective: Self-criticism and reform intentions increase researchers' epistemic trustworthiness and credibility in the eyes of the public

被引:20
作者
Altenmuller, Marlene Sophie [1 ,2 ]
Nuding, Stephan [1 ]
Gollwitzer, Mario [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Ludwig Maximilians Univ Munchen, Munich, Germany
[2] Ludwig Maximilians Univ Munchen, Social Psychol, Munich, Germany
关键词
credibility; open science; reforms; self-criticism; trust; TRUST; UNCERTAINTY;
D O I
10.1177/09636625211022181
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
Science should be self-correcting. However, researchers often hesitate to admit errors and to adopt reforms in their own work. In two studies (overall N = 702), we test whether scientific self-criticism and reform intentions expressed by researchers damage or rather improve their reputation in the eyes of the public (i.e. perceivers). Across both studies, such self-correction (compared to no self-correction) increases perceivers' epistemic trustworthiness ascriptions, credibility perceptions, and willingness to further engage with science. Study 2 revealed that these effects were largely driven by the no self-criticism condition. In addition, researchers' commitment to implementing reforms had positive effects and rejecting reforms had negative effects on perceptions, irrespective of the extent of these reforms. These findings suggest that researchers' fear that self-criticism and expressing reform intentions may damage their reputation may be unfounded.
引用
收藏
页码:962 / 976
页数:15
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [1] Anvari F., 2018, Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, V3, P266, DOI DOI 10.1080/23743603.2019.1684822
  • [2] BBVA Foundation, 2011, UND SCI
  • [3] Fallibility in Science: Responding to Errors in the Work of Oneself and Others
    Bishop, D. V. M.
    [J]. ADVANCES IN METHODS AND PRACTICES IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2018, 1 (03) : 432 - 438
  • [4] Humble Beginnings: Current Trends, State Perspectives, and Hallmarks of Humility
    Chancellor, Joseph
    Lyubomirsky, Sonja
    [J]. SOCIAL AND PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY COMPASS, 2013, 7 (11): : 819 - 833
  • [5] G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences
    Faul, Franz
    Erdfelder, Edgar
    Lang, Albert-Georg
    Buchner, Axel
    [J]. BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2007, 39 (02) : 175 - 191
  • [6] The Reputational Consequences of Failed Replications and Wrongness Admission among Scientists
    Fetterman, Adam K.
    Sassenberg, Kai
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (12):
  • [7] Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics
    Fiske, Susan T.
    Dupree, Cydney
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2014, 111 : 13593 - 13597
  • [8] The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty
    Frewer, LJ
    Hunt, S
    Brennan, M
    Kuznesof, S
    Ness, M
    Ritson, C
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH, 2003, 6 (01) : 75 - 85
  • [9] Hendriks F., 2016, Studies in Communication Sciences, V16, P124, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SCOMS.2016.10.003
  • [10] Replication crisis = trust crisis? The effect of successful vs failed replications on laypeople's trust in researchers and research
    Hendriks, Friederike
    Kienhues, Dorothe
    Bromme, Rainer
    [J]. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE, 2020, 29 (03) : 270 - 288