The scientific enterprise has long been based on the presumption of replication, although scientists have recently become aware of various corruptions of the enterprise that have hurt replicability. In this article, we begin by considering three illustrations of research paradigms that have all been subject to intense scrutiny through replications and theoretical concerns. The three paradigms are one for which the corpus of research points to a real finding, one for which the corpus of research points to a significantly attenuated effect, and one for which the debate is ongoing. We then discuss what scientists can learn—and how science can be improved—through replications more generally. From there, we discuss what we believe needs to be done to improve scientific inquiry with regard to replication moving forward. Finally, we conclude by providing readers with several different approaches to replication and how these approaches progress science. The approaches discussed include multilab replications of many effects, multilab replications of specific effects, adversarial collaborations, and stand-alone applications.

Although the benefits of crowdsourcing research models have been outlined elsewhere, very little attention has been paid to the application of these models to cross-cultural behavioral research. In this manuscript, we delineate two types of crowdsourcing initiatives—researcher crowdsourced and participant crowdsourced. Researcher crowdsourced refers to initiatives where researchers are gathered to work toward a shared goal. Participant crowdsourced refers to those which allow a researcher to gather a large number of participants within a short time frame. We explore the utility of each type of initiative while providing readers with a framework that can be used when deciding whether researcher or participant crowdsourcing initiatives would be most fruitful for their work. Perceived strengths of a researcher crowdsourced initiative with a cross-cultural focus is based on contributor data from Psi Chi’s Network for International Collaborative Exchange (NICE) and is integrated into this framework. Claims are made for the utility of both researcher and participant crowdsourcing as a way to increase generalizability and reliability, decrease time burdens, democratize research, educate individuals on open science, and provide mentorship. These claims are supported with data from NICE contributors.

No abstract

The scientific enterprise has long been based on the presumption of replication, although recently scientists have become aware of various corruptions of the enterprise which have hurt replicability. In this paper, we begin by considering three illustrations of research paradigms that have all been subject to intense scrutiny through replications and theoretical concerns. The three paradigms are one for which the corpus of research points to a real finding, one for which the corpus of research points to a significantly attenuated effect, and one for which the debate is ongoing. We then discuss what scientists can learn -- and how science can be improved -- through replications more generally. From there, we discuss what we believe needs to be done to improve scientific inquiry with regard to replication moving forward. Finally, we conclude by providing readers with several different approaches to replication and how these approaches progress science. The approaches discussed include multilab replications of many effects, multilab replications of specific effects, adversarial collaborations, and stand-alone applications.

Scholars suggest that marginalized people in non-urban areas experience higher distress levels and fewer psychosocial resources than in urban areas. Researchers have yet to test whether precise proximity to urban centers is associated with mental health for marginalized populations. We recruited 1733 people who reported living in 45 different countries. Participants entered their home locations and completed measures of anxiety, depression, social support, and resilience. Regression and thematic analyses were used to determine what role distance from legislative and urban centers may play in mental health when marginalized people were disaggregated. Greater distance from legislative center predicted higher anxiety and resilience. Greater distance from urban center also predicted more resilience. Thematic analyses yielded five categories (e.g., safety, connection) that further illustrated the impact of geographic location on health. Implications for community mental health are discussed including the need to better understand and further expand resilience in rural areas.