This is an extremely relevant and interesting study that shows that behavioral intentions measured in survey experiments should not be mistaken for a measure of actual behavior. And it is a nice example of studies that replicate themselves by using different research designs!
If you are interested in why many-analyst studies may overestimate uncertainty, you might want to take a look at our recent open access article: Toward a more credible assessment of the credibility of science by many-analyst studies | PNAS www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
We discuss a relatively new meta-scientific research design: many-analyst studies that attempt to assess the replicability and credibility of resea...
I am happy that my paper with Sabine Düval is now published. We use survey experiments & causal mediation analyses to explore gender ideologies & norms underlying the division of housework. We argue that traditional ideologies may have been overestimated in previous research...
Sociology is behind on ** reproducibility ** but we can get together to catch up! Join our 3 sessions at the ECSR conference in Barcelona (ecsr2024.com@sociologicalsci.bsky.social , we require data & code or a good reason.
This year we host in October the META-REP 2024 an international conference focusing on meta-science and replicability in the cognitive, behavioral, and social sciences. The deadline for submissions is April 30. Contribute to vital discussions on meta-science and replicability. #metarep#openscience
Sociology is behind on transparency but we can get together to catch up! In Europe, the ECSR conference in Barcelona will host two sessions on reproducibility, with special attention to what journals can do: ecsrnet.eu/other-events/ At Sociological Science, we're now requiring data and code.
We are happy to announce the new DFG-funded longterm German Longitudinal Environmental Study (GLEN). @glen-study.bsky.socialglen-studie.de#sciencenews#Klimawandel#climatechange
Ross et al. (Nature, 2022) claim that in most fields women are disadvantaged, but their results show that in only 2 out of 13 fields women are less likely to be granted authorship. For women, it seems that science is not as dismal as reported in the Nature article.
"If your data contradicts the common wisdom: ignore your data." It seems that Ross et al. followed this advice when they concluded in their recent Nature article that women are credited less likely authorship in "most scientific fields". See our comment: osf.io/preprints/so...
