Search

Abstract: Reviewers of research are more lenient when evaluating studies on important topics [Wilson, T. D., Depaulo, B. M., Mook, D. G., & Klaaren, K. J. (1993). Scientists’ evaluations of research: the biasing effects of the importance of the topic. Psychological Science, 4(5), 323–325]. Three experiments (N =145, 36, and 91 psychologists) investigated different explanations of leniency, including inflation of assessments (applying a heuristic associating importance with quality), oversight (failing to detect flaws), and error-weighting (prioritizing Type II error avoidance). In Experiment 1, psychologists evaluated the publishability and rigor of studies in a 2 (topic importance)×2 (accuracy motivation)×2 (research domain) design. Experiment 2 featured an exact replication of Wilson et al. and suggested that report length moderated the effects of importance on perceived rigor, but not on publishability. In Experiment 3, a manipulation of error-weighting replaced the manipulation of domain (Experiment 1). Results favored error-weighting, rather than inflation or oversight. Perceived seriousness of Type II error (in Experiments 1 and 3) and the error-weighting manipulation (in Experiment 3) predicted study evaluations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In two studies, the present research tested whether a paper-based game intervention that guides participants into understanding and questioning their assumptions about gender can decrease biases. Participants in Study 1 ( N  = 143 college students) and Study 2 ( N  = 341 high school students) played a game in which they either had to realize that a scientist character was a woman (Intervention condition) or a professor (Control condition) to solve the mystery. Across both studies, in a game with a storyline that included both male and female scientists, the vast majority of students who used gendered pronouns assumed that non-gendered scientist characters were men. In Study 1, playing the Intervention version of the game had no effect on college students' explicit or implicit attitudes toward women in science. In Study 2, there was a positive effect of the Intervention condition on implicit attitudes: participants in the Intervention condition were less likely to describe a female professor as a man than were participants in the Control condition. However, there was a negative effect of the Intervention condition on explicit attitudes toward women in science. Taken together, the present research points to the continued need for research on raising awareness of bias and developing interventions that can decrease biases while avoiding defensiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]