Search

Your search keyword '"Field, Sarahanne M."' showing total 16 results
Start Over Author "Field, Sarahanne M."
16 results on '"Field, Sarahanne M."'

2. How can we make sound replication decisions?

Author

Davis-Stober, Clintin P., Sarafoglou, Alexandra, Aczel, Balazs, Chandramouli, Suyog H., Errington, Timothy M., Field, Sarahanne M., Fishbach, Ayelet, Freire, Juliana, Ioannidis, John P. A., Oberauer, Klaus, Pestilli, Franco, Ressl, Susanne, Schad, Daniel J., Schure, Judith ter, Tentori, Katya, van Ravenzwaaij, Don, Vandekerckhove, Joachim, and Gundersen, Odd Erik

Subjects
RESEARCH personnel, REFORMS, ATTITUDE (Psychology), CRISES, DECISION making
Abstract

Replication and the reported crises impacting many fields of research have become a focal point for the sciences. This has led to reforms in publishing, methodological design and reporting, and increased numbers of experimental replications coordinated across many laboratories. While replication is rightly considered an indispensable tool of science, financial resources and researchers' time are quite limited. In this perspective, weexamine different values and attitudes that scientists can consider when deciding whether to replicate a finding and how. We offer a conceptual framework for assessing the usefulness of various replication tools, such as preregistration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2025
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform.

Author

Trueblood, Jennifer S., Allison, David B., Field, Sarahanne M., Fishbach, Ayelet, Gaillard, Stefan D. M., Gigerenzer, Gerd, Holmes, William R., Lewandowsky, Stephan, Matzke, Dora, Murphy, Mary C., Musslick, Sebastian, Popov, Vencislav, Roskies, Adina L., Schure, Judith ter, and Teodorescu, Andrei R.

Subjects
SCHOLARLY publishing, SCHOOL credits, SCIENTIFIC knowledge, SCIENCE publishing, PUBLICATION bias
Abstract

For most researchers, academic publishing serves two goals that are often misaligned--knowledge dissemination and establishing scientific credentials. While both goals can encourage research with significant depth and scope, the latter can also pressure scholars to maximize publication metrics. Commercial publishing companies have capitalized on the centrality of publishing to the scientific enterprises of knowledge dissemination and academic recognition to extract large profits from academia by leveraging unpaid services from reviewers, creating financial barriers to research dissemination, and imposing substantial fees for open access. We present a set of perspectives exploring alternative models for communicating and disseminating scientific research. Acknowledging that the success of new publishing models depends on their impact on existing approaches for assigning academic credit that often prioritize prestigious publications and metrics such as citations and impact factors, we also provide various viewpoints on reforming academic evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2025
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. The process of replication target selection in psychology:what to consider?

Author

Pittelkow, Merle Marie, Field, Sarahanne M., Isager, Peder M., Van't Veer, Anna E., Anderson, Thomas, Cole, Scott N., Dominik, Tomáš, Giner-Sorolla, Roger, Gok, Sebahat, Heyman, Tom, Jekel, Marc, Luke, Timothy J., Mitchell, David B., Peels, Rik, Pendrous, Rosina, Sarrazin, Samuel, Schauer, Jacob M., Specker, Eva, Tran, Ulrich S., Vranka, Marek A., Wicherts, Jelte M., Yoshimura, Naoto, Zwaan, Rolf A., Van Ravenzwaaij, Don, Pittelkow, Merle Marie, Field, Sarahanne M., Isager, Peder M., Van't Veer, Anna E., Anderson, Thomas, Cole, Scott N., Dominik, Tomáš, Giner-Sorolla, Roger, Gok, Sebahat, Heyman, Tom, Jekel, Marc, Luke, Timothy J., Mitchell, David B., Peels, Rik, Pendrous, Rosina, Sarrazin, Samuel, Schauer, Jacob M., Specker, Eva, Tran, Ulrich S., Vranka, Marek A., Wicherts, Jelte M., Yoshimura, Naoto, Zwaan, Rolf A., and Van Ravenzwaaij, Don

Abstract

Increased execution of replication studies contributes to the effort to restore credibility of empirical research. However, a second generation of problems arises: the number of potential replication targets is at a serious mismatch with available resources. Given limited resources, replication target selection should be well-justified, systematic and transparently communicated. At present the discussion on what to consider when selecting a replication target is limited to theoretical discussion, self-reported justifications and a few formalized suggestions. In this Registered Report, we proposed a study involving the scientific community to create a list of considerations for consultation when selecting a replication target in psychology. We employed a modified Delphi approach. First, we constructed a preliminary list of considerations. Second, we surveyed psychologists who previously selected a replication target with regards to their considerations. Third, we incorporated the results into the preliminary list of considerations and sent the updated list to a group of individuals knowledgeable about concerns regarding replication target selection. Over the course of several rounds, we established consensus regarding what to consider when selecting a replication target. The resulting checklist can be used for transparently communicating the rationale for selecting studies for replication.

Published
2023

7. The process of replication target selection in psychology: What to consider?

Author

Pittelkow, Merle-Marie, Field, Sarahanne M., Isager, Peder M., van't Veer, Anna E., Anderson, Thomas, Cole, Scott N., Dominik, Tomas, Giner-Sorolla, Roger, Gok, Sebahat, Heyman, Tom, Jekel, Marc, Luke, Timothy J., Mitchell, David B., Peels, Rik, Pendrous, Rosina, Sarrazin, Samuel, Schauer, Jacob M., Specker, Eva, Tran, Ulrich S., Vranka, Marek A., Wicherts, Jelte M., Yoshimura, Naoto, Zwaan, Rolf A., van Ravenzwaaij, Don, Pittelkow, Merle-Marie, Field, Sarahanne M., Isager, Peder M., van't Veer, Anna E., Anderson, Thomas, Cole, Scott N., Dominik, Tomas, Giner-Sorolla, Roger, Gok, Sebahat, Heyman, Tom, Jekel, Marc, Luke, Timothy J., Mitchell, David B., Peels, Rik, Pendrous, Rosina, Sarrazin, Samuel, Schauer, Jacob M., Specker, Eva, Tran, Ulrich S., Vranka, Marek A., Wicherts, Jelte M., Yoshimura, Naoto, Zwaan, Rolf A., and van Ravenzwaaij, Don

Abstract

Increased execution of replication studies contributes to the effort to restore credibility of empirical research. However, a second generation of problems arises: the number of potential replication targets is at a serious mismatch with available resources. Given limited resources, replication target selection should be well-justified, systematic and transparently communicated. At present the discussion on what to consider when selecting a replication target is limited to theoretical discussion, self-reported justifications and a few formalized suggestions. In this Registered Report, we proposed a study involving the scientific community to create a list of considerations for consultation when selecting a replication target in psychology. We employed a modified Delphi approach. First, we constructed a preliminary list of considerations. Second, we surveyed psychologists who previously selected a replication target with regards to their considerations. Third, we incorporated the results into the preliminary list of considerations and sent the updated list to a group of individuals knowledgeable about concerns regarding replication target selection. Over the course of several rounds, we established consensus regarding what to consider when selecting a replication target. The resulting checklist can be used for transparently communicating the rationale for selecting studies for replication.

Published
2023

8. Supplement: The Process of Replication Target Selection in Psychology: What to Consider?

Author

Pittelkow, Merle-Marie, Field, Sarahanne M., Isager, Peder M., van’t Veer, Anna E., Anderson, Thomas, Cole, Scott N., Dominik, Tomáš, Giner-Sorolla, Roger, Gok, Sebahat, Heyman, Tom, Jekel, Marc, Luke, Timothy J., Mitchell, David B., Peels, Rik, Pendrous, Rosina, Sarrazin, Samuel, Schauer, Jacob M., Specker, Eva, Tran, Ulrich S., Vranka, Marek A., Wicherts, Jelte M., Yoshimura, Naoto, Zwaan, Rolf A., and van Ravenzwaaij, Don

Abstract

Supplementary file containing materials and additional sensitivity analysis

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. The process of replication target selection in psychology: what to consider?

Author

Pittelkow, Merle-Marie, primary, Field, Sarahanne M., additional, Isager, Peder M., additional, van’t Veer, Anna E., additional, Anderson, Thomas, additional, Cole, Scott N., additional, Dominik, Tomáš, additional, Giner-Sorolla, Roger, additional, Gok, Sebahat, additional, Heyman, Tom, additional, Jekel, Marc, additional, Luke, Timothy J., additional, Mitchell, David B., additional, Peels, Rik, additional, Pendrous, Rosina, additional, Sarrazin, Samuel, additional, Schauer, Jacob M., additional, Specker, Eva, additional, Tran, Ulrich S., additional, Vranka, Marek A., additional, Wicherts, Jelte M., additional, Yoshimura, Naoto, additional, Zwaan, Rolf A., additional, and van Ravenzwaaij, Don, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. Creative destruction in science

Author

Warren, Tierney, Jay, Hardy, Ebersole, Charles R., Keith, Leavitt, Domenico, Viganola, Elena Giulia Clemente, Michael, Gordon, Anna, Dreber, Magnus, Johannesson, Thomas, Pfeiffer, Eric Luis Uhlmann, Abraham, Ajay T., Matus, Adamkovic, Jais, Adam-Troian, Rahul, Anand, Arbeau, Kelly J., Awtrey, Eli C., Azar, Ofer H., Štěpán, Bahník, Gabriel, Baník, Ana Barbosa Mendes, Barger, Michael M., Ernest, Baskin, Jozef, Bavolar, Berkers, Ruud M. W. J., Randy, Besco, Michał, Białek, Bishop, Michael M., Helena, Bonache, Sabah, Boufkhed, Brandt, Mark J., Butterfield, Max E., Nick, Byrd, Caton, Neil R., Ceynar, Michelle L., Mike, Corcoran, Costello, Thomas H., Cramblet Alvarez, Leslie D., Jamie, Cummins, Curry, Oliver S., Daniels, David P., Daskalo, Lea L., Liora, Daum-Avital, Day, Martin V., Deeg, Matthew D., Dennehy, Tara C., Erik, Dietl, Eugen, Dimant, Artur, Domurat, Christilene du Plessis, Dmitrii, Dubrov, Elsherif, Mahmoud M., Yuval, Engel, Fellenz, Martin R., Field, Sarahanne M., Mustafa, Firat, Freitag, Raquel M. K., Enav, Friedmann, Omid, Ghasemi, Goldberg, Matthew H., Amélie, Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Lorenz, Graf-Vlachy, Griffith, Jennifer A., Dmitry, Grigoryev, Sebastian, Hafenbrädl, David, Hagmann, Hales, Andrew H., Hyemin, Han, Harman, Jason L., Andree, Hartanto, Holding, Benjamin C., Astrid, Hopfensitz, Joachim, Hüffmeier, Huntsinger, Jeffrey R., Katarzyna, Idzikowska, Innes-Ker, Åse H., Bastian, Jaeger, Kristin, Jankowsky, Jarvis, Shoshana N., Nilotpal, Jha, David, Jimenez-Gomez, Daniel, Jolles, Bibiana, Jozefiakova, Pavol, Kačmár, Mariska, Kappmeier, Matthias, Kasper, Lucas, Keller, Viktorija, Knapic, Mikael, Knutsson, Olga, Kombeiz, Marta, Kowal, Goedele, Krekels, Tei, Laine, Daniel, Lakens, Bingjie, Li, Ronda F., Lo, Jonas, Ludwig, Marcus, James C., Marsh, Melvin S., Martinoli, Mario, Marcel, Martončik, Allison, Master, Masters-Waage, Theodore C., Lewend, Mayiwar, Jens, Mazei, Mccarthy, Randy J., Mccarthy, Gemma S., Stephanie, Mertens, Leticia, Micheli, Marta, Miklikowska, Talya, Miron-Shatz, Andres, Montealegre, David, Moreau, Carmen, Moret-Tatay, Marcello, Negrini, Newall, Philip W. S., Gustav, Nilsonne, Paweł, Niszczota, Nurit, Nobel, Aoife, O'Mahony, Orhan, Mehmet A., Deirdre, O'Shea, Oswald, Flora E., Miriam, Panning, Pantelis, Peter C., Mariola, Paruzel-Czachura, Mogens Jin Pedersen, Gordon, Pennycook, Ori, Plonsky, Vince, Polito, Price, Paul C., Primbs, Maximilian A., John, Protzko, Michael, Quayle, Rima-Maria, Rahal, Shahinoor Rahman, Md., Liz, Redford, Niv, Reggev, Reynolds, Caleb J., Marta, Roczniewska, Ivan, Ropovik, Ross, Robert M., Roulet, Thomas J., Andrea May Rowe, Silvia, Saccardo, Margaret, Samahita, Michael, Schaerer, Joyce Elena Schleu, Schuetze, Brendan A., Ulrike, Senftleben, Seri, Raffaello, Zeev, Shtudiner, Jack, Shuai, Ray, Sin, Varsha, Singh, Aneeha, Singh, Tatiana, Sokolova, Victoria, Song, Tom, Stafford, Natalia, Stanulewicz, Stevens, Samantha M., Eirik, Strømland, Samantha, Stronge, Sweeney, Kevin P., David, Tannenbaum, Tepper, Stephanie J., Kian Siong Tey, Hsuchi, Ting, Tingen, Ian W., Ana, Todorovic, Tse, Hannah M. Y., Tybur, Joshua M., Vineyard, Gerald H., Alisa, Voslinsky, Vranka, Marek A., Jonathan, Wai, Walker, Alexander C., Wallace, Laura E., Tianlin, Wang, Werz, Johanna M., Woike, Jan K., Wollbrant, Conny E., Wright, Joshua D., Sherry J., Wu, Qinyu, Xiao, Paolo Barretto Yaranon, Siu Kit Yeung, Sangsuk, Yoon, Karen, Yu, Meltem, Yucel, Psychometrics and Statistics, Human Technology Interaction, Department of Social Psychology, Entrepreneurship & Innovation (ABS, FEB), Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde, Social Psychology, and IBBA

Subjects
Open science, Creative destruction, Theory testing, Transparency (market), SELF-ESTEEM, 050109 social psychology, Conceptual replication, Direct replication, MEASURING SOCIAL PREFERENCES, STATISTICAL POWER, Cultural diversity, Work-family conflict, Falsification, Gender discrimination, Applied Psychology, Work, Health and Performance, media_common, HYPOTHESIS, SDG 5 - Gender Equality, 05 social sciences, SDG 10 - Reduced Inequalities, Justice and Strong Institutions, Scholarship, Theory pruning Theory testing Direct replication Conceptual replication Falsification Hiring decisions Gender discrimination Work-family conflict Cultural differences Work values Protestant work ethic, Psychology, Theory pruning, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, SDG 16 - Peace, Work values, media_common.quotation_subject, Best practice, SDG 5 – Gendergelijkheid, BF, Replication, 0502 economics and business, 0501 psychology and cognitive sciences, ATTITUDES, Positive economics, MANAGEMENT RESEARCH, LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS, Hiring decisions, Protestant work ethic, SDG 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, PUBLICATION, Morality, Cultural differences, REPLICABILITY, Explanatory power, 050203 business & management
Abstract

Contains fulltext : 228242.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents’ reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void - reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article. 19 p.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Two Bayesian tests of the GLOMOsys Model.

Author

Field, Sarahanne M., Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Newell, Ben R., Zeelenberg, René, and van Ravenzwaaij, Don

Abstract

Priming is arguably one of the key phenomena in contemporary social psychology. Recent retractions and failed replication attempts have led to a division in the field between proponents and skeptics and have reinforced the importance of confirming certain priming effects through replication. In this study, we describe the results of 2 preregistered replication attempts of 1 experiment by Förster and Denzler (2012). In both experiments, participants first processed letters either globally or locally, then were tested using a typicality rating task. Bayes factor hypothesis tests were conducted for both experiments: Experiment 1 (N = 100) yielded an indecisive Bayes factor of 1.38, indicating that the in-lab data are 1.38 times more likely to have occurred under the null hypothesis than under the alternative. Experiment 2 (N = 908) yielded a Bayes factor of 10.84, indicating strong support for the null hypothesis that global priming does not affect participants' mean typicality ratings. The failure to replicate this priming effect challenges existing support for the GLOMOsys model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results