Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty

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.

Like the cool kids? The role of popular classmates in the development of anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence

While classmates have been identified as important socializing agents in relation to adolescents’ prejudice, there is limited understanding of how popularity status plays into classroom transmission of prejudicial attitudes. Drawing on theories of social influence, we used a three-wave panel of Swedish adolescents ( N = 941, aged 13–15) to examine the role of sociometric and prestige popular classmates in the development of adolescents’ anti-immigrant attitudes. Multilevel repeated measurement models revealed positive relationships between popular and individual prejudice; between sociometric prejudice and the level and rate of change; and between prestige prejudice and wave-to-wave shifts in individual prejudice. Overall, we found sociometrically popular classmates to be more influential in relation to adolescents’ prejudice. Additionally, we found the effect of sociometric prejudice to be more pronounced if political issues were frequently discussed in the classroom.

Does classroom diversity improve intergroup relations? Short- and long-term effects of classroom diversity for cross-ethnic friendships and anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence

This study examined short- and long-term effects of ethnic classroom diversity for intergroup relations in adolescence. Using a five-year panel of Swedish majority youth ( MageT1 = 13.40, MageT5 = 17.30), we found only limited direct effects of classroom diversity on anti-immigrant attitudes. However, classroom diversity increased the likelihood of cross-ethnic friendships, which in turn was associated with lower levels of anti-immigrant attitudes. Moreover, we found that the effect of classroom diversity on friendships remained also after adolescents transitioned to new schools. The findings highlight the importance of longitudinal analyses and contribute to a deeper understanding of how intergroup relations develop during adolescence. It brings new insights related to the longevity of classroom effects and to cross-ethnic friendships’ ability to mediate the diversity–attitudes relationship.

Politics and Prejudice: How Political Discussion With Peers Is Related to Attitudes About Immigrants During Adolescence

Research on prejudice has shown that with whom we surround ourselves matters for intergroup attitudes, but these studies have paid little attention to the content of those interactions. Studies on political socialization and deliberation have focused on the content of interaction by examining the transmission of norms as well as the direct consequences of political discussion on attitudes and behavior. However, this literature has not focused on prejudice as a potential consequence. In this study, we combine these approaches to examine if political discussions with peers during adolescence matter for prejudice. We rely on five waves of a Swedish panel of adolescents, ages 13-22. Results show an association between political discussion and prejudice over time, and that this relationship increases as adolescents grow older. Results also demonstrate that the effect of political discussions depends on the level of prejudice in one's peer network. Discussion with low prejudice friends is associated with lower levels of prejudice over time, while political discussion with high prejudice peers is not significantly related to attitudes.