Imperial College London

DrSarahOtner

Business School

Junior Research Fellow
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 2683s.otner

 
 
//

Location

 

288aBusiness School BuildingSouth Kensington Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Otner,
author = {Otner, S and Landy, J and Jia and Ding, I and Viganola, D and Tierney, W and Dreber, A and Johanneson, M and Pfeiffer, T and Ebersole, C and Gronau, Q and Ly, A and van, den Bergh D and Marsman, M and Derks, K and Wagenmakers, E-J},
journal = {Psychological Bulletin},
title = {Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/74339},
}

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB - To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from two separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete one version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for four out of five hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to +0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for two hypotheses, and a lack of support for three hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable tothe skill of the research team in designing materials, while considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim.
AU - Otner,S
AU - Landy,J
AU - Jia
AU - Ding,I
AU - Viganola,D
AU - Tierney,W
AU - Dreber,A
AU - Johanneson,M
AU - Pfeiffer,T
AU - Ebersole,C
AU - Gronau,Q
AU - Ly,A
AU - van,den Bergh D
AU - Marsman,M
AU - Derks,K
AU - Wagenmakers,E-J
SN - 0033-2909
TI - Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results
T2 - Psychological Bulletin
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/74339
ER -