Bounded research ethicality: researchers rate themselves and their field as better than others at following good research practice

Bounded ethicality refers to people's limited capacity to consistently behave in line with their ethical standards. Here, we present results from a pre-registered, large-scale (N = 11,050) survey of researchers in Sweden, suggesting that researchers too are boundedly ethical. Specifically, researchers on average rated themselves as better than other researchers in their field at following good research practice, and rated researchers in their own field as better than researchers in other fields at following good research practice. These effects were stable across all academic fields, but strongest among researchers in the medical sciences. Taken together, our findings illustrate inflated self-righteous beliefs among researchers and research disciplines when it comes to research ethics, which may contribute to academic polarization and moral blindspots regarding one's own and one's colleagues' use of questionable research practices.

Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students' understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.

Self-enhancement and physical health: A meta-analysis

A prior meta-analysis yielded a positive relation between self-enhancement and psychological health. This article presents the first meta-analysis of the association between self-enhancement and physical health (k = 87; N = 22,415). The meta-analysis relied predominantly on social desirability as an operationalization of self-enhancement and secondarily on comparative judgement and narcissism. Further, the meta-analysis operationalized physical health in terms of self-rated health, symptoms and biomarkers. Overall, self-enhancement yielded a near-zero association with physical health, r = .01. However, this association was more pronounced for comparative judgement (r = .18, k = 6) than social desirability (r = .03, k = 41) or narcissism (r = -.0001, k = 8), and for self-rated health (r = .09, k = 9) than symptoms (r = .01, k = 29) or biomarkers (r = -.13, k = 17). The association between self-enhancement and physical health fluctuates across measures of both constructs calling for more focussed and nuanced investigations.

Biased Social Comparison in the Moment of Crisis

Abstract. The better-than-average effect (BTAE) is a mechanism where people perceive oneself as better than others. The BTAE could be one of the phenomena explaining why people follow – in the moment of a global health crisis – guidelines (“I am superior to others, and I [will]) take extra precautions, e.g., a vaccine shot”). In this paper, we investigate the BTAE with 3,066 respondents. In Study 1, in all countries, across two measurements in time, the BTAE was present: Participants rated their involvement in self-protection as greater in comparison to others. Study 2 replicated this effect, proving its robustness. Participants estimated their willingness to vaccinate as higher than others. The BTAE was a significant predictor of willingness to vaccinate.

Both better and worse than others depending on difficulty: Replication and extensions of Kruger’s (1999) above and below average effects

Above-and-below-average effects are well-known phenomena that arise when comparing oneself to others. Kruger (1999) found that people rate themselves as above average for easy abilities and below average for difficult abilities. We conducted a successful pre-registered replication of Kruger’s (1999) Study 1, the first demonstration of the core phenomenon (N = 756, US MTurk workers). Extending the replication to also include a between-subject design, we added two conditions manipulating easy and difficult interpretations of the original ability domains, and with an additional dependent variable measuring perceived difficulty. We observed an above-average-effect in the easy extension and below-average-effect in the difficult extension, compared to the neutral replication condition. Both extension conditions were perceived as less ambiguous than the original neutral condition. Overall, we conclude strong empirical support for Kruger’s above-and-below-average effects, with boundary conditions laid out in the extensions expanding both generalizability and robustness of the phenomenon.