This study explores how researchers’ analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers’ expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team’s workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers’ results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.

People with mental disorders such as schizophrenia do not only suffer from the symptoms of their disorders but also from the stigma attached to it. Although direct intergroup contact is an effective tool to reduce stigmatization, it is rare in real life and costly to be established in interventions, and the success of traditional media campaigns is debatable. We propose Virtual Reality (VR) as a low-threshold alternative for establishing contact since it involves less barriers for affected and unaffected persons. In a 2 + 1 experiment (n = 114), we compared the effects of encounters with a person with schizophrenia through a VR video with contact through a regular video and no contact at all on anxiety, empathy, social proximity, and benevolence towards people with schizophrenia. We found that contact via VR reduced stigmatization only for participants who liked the person encountered. Our data suggest that it is crucial how participants evaluate the person that they encounter and that stronger perception of spatial presence during reception plays an important role, too. Therefore, we discussvarious boundary conditions that need to be considered in VR interventions and future research on destigmatization towards mental disorders, especially schizophrenia.

Researchers have started to demonstrate that media exposure to outgroups can reduce prejudice. However, in contexts of segregation a bias to select ingroup-rich media might hinder exposure and prevent those positive effects. We conducted a survey study (n = 1,095) in South Africa, a context with a notorious history of racial separation and persisting informal segregation. In accordance with the social identity gratification approach and social cognitive theory, respondents showed group-related selection biases. Respondents who identified more strongly with their ingroup, who perceived more distance towards outgroups, and who had less direct contact showed stronger biases. The findings remind us that those who would potentially benefit the most from outgroup exposure might also be those who are least likely to be exposed.

No abstract

No abstract