Suchergebnisse

In two studies, we examined whether open science practices, such as making materials, data, and code of a study openly accessible, positively affect public trust in science. Furthermore, we investigated whether the potential trust-damaging effects of research being funded privately (e.g. by a commercial enterprise) may be buffered by such practices. After preregistering six hypotheses, we conducted a survey study (Study 1; N = 504) and an experimental study (Study 2; N = 588) in two German general population samples. In both studies, we found evidence for the positive effects of open science practices on trust, though it should be noted that in Study 2, results were more inconsistent. We did not however find evidence for the aforementioned buffering effect. We conclude that while open science practices may contribute to increasing trust in science, the importance of making use of open science practices visible should not be underestimated.

Abstract
Learning effects due to repeated interviewing, also known as panel conditioning, are a major threat to response quality in later waves of a panel study. To date, research has not provided a clear picture regarding the circumstances, mechanisms, and dimensions of potential panel conditioning effects. In particular, the effects of conditioning frequency, that is, different levels of experience within a panel, on response quality are underexplored. Against this background, we investigated the effects of panel conditioning by using data from the GESIS Panel, a German mixed-mode probability-based panel study. Using two refreshment samples, we compared three panel cohorts with differing levels of experience on several response quality indicators related to the mechanisms of reflection, satisficing, and social desirability. Overall, we find evidence for both negative (i.e., disadvantageous for response quality) and positive (i.e., advantageous for response quality) panel conditioning. Highly experienced respondents were more likely to satisfice by speeding through the questionnaire. They also had a higher probability of refusing to answer sensitive questions than less experienced panel members. However, more experienced respondents were also more likely to optimize the response process by needing less time compared to panelists with lower experience levels (when controlling for speeding). In contrast, we did not find significant differences with respect to the number of "don't know" responses, nondifferentiation, the selection of first response categories and mid-responses, and the number of nontriggered filter questions. Of the observed differences, speeding showed the highest magnitude with an average increase of 6.0 percentage points for highly experienced panel members compared to low experienced panelists.