52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

A growing body of research shows that older adults, Black women, and other groups often encounter stigmatization that manifests not as negative prejudice, but as indifference and inattention—that is, interpersonal invisibility. We propose an affordance-management theory to explain who is interpersonally invisible, to whom, and with what consequences. A social affordance-management perspective suggests that people seek to detect and strategically engage with those who facilitate or obstruct achievement of important goals. We argue that invisibility emerges from the perception that another person neither helps nor hurts one’s ability to achieve chronically or acutely active goals. We thus distinguish among phenomena commonly subsumed under the term stigmatization: invisibility-based stigmatization of those perceived to be irrelevant, and threat-based stigmatization of those perceived to obstruct one’s goals. Invisibility and threat-based stigmatization are theorized to differ in origin, manifestation, and impact. Furthermore, rather than being a static property of particular target groups, interpersonal invisibility dynamically emerges from perceiver goals, target cues, and situational features. Nonetheless, some perceivers, targets, situations, and goals are more likely to lead to invisibility than others. This affordance-based theory of invisibility helps to organize the heterogeneous field of stigma research; unifies a diverse array of social, cognitive, motivational, and affective phenomena; and suggests numerous novel directions for future stigma research from both perceiver and target perspectives.

Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) are widely used to measure salivary testosterone. However, little is known about how accurately different EIAs assess testosterone, partially because estimates across various EIAs differ considerably. We compared testosterone concentrations across EIAs of three commonly used manufacturers (DRG International, Salimetrics, and IBL International) to liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Relative to EIAs from Salimetrics and IBL International, EIAs supplied by DRG International provided the closest approximation to LC-MS/MS testosterone concentrations with the least measurement error. Additionally, EIAs largely overestimated testosterone in women's saliva samples with higher testosterone concentrations, relative to men's.Examining our results and comparing them to existing data revealed that testosterone EIAs had decreased linear correspondence with LC-MS/MS in comparison to cortisol EIAs. Overall, this paper provides researchers with information to better measure testosterone in their research and more accurately compare testosterone measurements across different methods.

People seek to detect who facilitates and who impedes their goal pursuit. The resulting relevance appraisals of opportunity and threat, respectively, can strongly shape subsequent social judgment and behavior. However, important questions about the nature of relevance appraisals remain unanswered: Are relevance appraisals unidimensional or multidimensional? Are people evaluated as generally posing opportunities and/or threats, or as dynamically relevant depending on perceiver goals? We test two hypotheses. First, we propose that opportunity and threat are appraised independently, rather than as endpoints of a single dimension. If so, then others can be evaluated as (a) facilitating a goal, (b) impeding a goal, (c) both facilitating and impeding a goal, or (d) neither facilitating nor impeding a goal. Second, we hypothesize that relevance appraisals shift dynamically with perceiver goals. For example, a single person may be appraised as facilitating one’s mate-seeking goal, but as neither facilitating nor impeding one’s self-protection goal. In two studies, participants rated the extent to which a variety of targets (e.g., a doctor, a 5-year-old child) pose threats and opportunities to different goals. Confirmatory factor analyses support both hypotheses. We also explore relationships between the Relevance Appraisal Matrix and the stereotype content (Fiske et al., 2002) and ABC (Koch et al., 2016) models of stereotypes, finding evidence that relevance appraisals are distinct from stereotypes of group attributes. In sum, we provide a framework for understanding the structure of relevance appraisals: A central and consequential, yet dynamic and relatively understudied, aspect of social cognition.

Prior research found that testosterone change after defeat predicted the decision to compete against the same opponent, but testosterone change after victory was unrelated to competitive behavior. The present research tested whether testosterone responses have differential effects on competitive decision-making depending on whether an individual either barely or decisively won a competition. Seventy-one undergraduate males provided an afternoon saliva sample and then participated in a laboratory cognitive contest in which they were randomly assigned to experience a relatively close or decisive victory against a male confederate. Participants provided a second saliva sample after the competition and then chose whether to: (a) compete against the same opponent, (b) compete against a new opponent, or (c) complete an alternative non-competitive task. Participants also reported how much they enjoyed the competitive task. Testosterone change and the propensity to compete were positively related after a decisive victory, but were negatively related after a close victory. These effects were driven by the decision to compete against a new opponent. In fact, very few participants chose to compete against the same opponent. Testosterone change after a decisive victory was also positively associated with participants' self-reported enjoyment of the competitive task. Together, these results provide new evidence that a close versus decisive victory moderates the effect of testosterone change on future competitive behavior, an effect that may be linked to changes in reward processing systems.