Too WEIRD, Too Fast? Preprints About COVID-19 in the Psychological Sciences

That behavioral sciences are overrepresented by some countries, in terms of samples and authors, is a well-documented finding. Considering the immediate policy implications, the present study explored whether this bias also exists for research on the coronavirus pandemic. Preprints posted on PsyArXiv between two time periods in 2020 (March-April and May-December) with keywords related to "COVID-19" were sourced and their participant and author composition were assessed. Western and rich democracies were overrepresented in terms of authors and participants;preprints posted by authors from western and democratic countries were cited more and were published in journals with a higher impact factor. Implications, especially regarding a reductionist bifurcation of research as "WEIRD" or "non-WEIRD," are discussed.

Using Normative Language When Describing Scientific Findings: Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects on Trust and Credibility.

BACKGROUND: Scientists often make cognitive claims (eg, the results of their work) and normative claims (eg, what should be done based on those results). Yet, these types of statements contain very different information and implications. This randomized controlled trial sought to characterize the granular effects of using normative language in science communication. OBJECTIVE: Our study examined whether viewing a social media post containing scientific claims about face masks for COVID-19 using both normative and cognitive language (intervention arm) would reduce perceptions of trust and credibility in science and scientists compared with an identical post using only cognitive language (control arm). We also examined whether effects were mediated by political orientation. METHODS: This was a 2-arm, parallel group, randomized controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 1500 US adults (age 18+) from the Prolific platform who were representative of the US population census by cross sections of age, race/ethnicity, and gender. Participants were randomly assigned to view 1 of 2 images of a social media post about face masks to prevent COVID-19. The control image described the results of a real study (cognitive language), and the intervention image was identical, but also included recommendations from the same study about what people should do based on the results (normative language). Primary outcomes were trust in science and scientists (21-item scale) and 4 individual items related to trust and credibility; 9 additional covariates (eg, sociodemographics, political orientation) were measured and included in analyses. RESULTS: From September 4, 2022, to September 6, 2022, 1526 individuals completed the study. For the sample as a whole (eg, without interaction terms), there was no evidence that a single exposure to normative language affected perceptions of trust or credibility in science or scientists. When including the interaction term (study arm × political orientation), there was some evidence of differential effects, such that individuals with liberal political orientation were more likely to trust scientific information from the social media post's author if the post included normative language, and political conservatives were more likely to trust scientific information from the post's author if the post included only cognitive language (ß=0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.10; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the authors' original hypotheses that single exposures to normative language can reduce perceptions of trust or credibility in science or scientists for all people. However, the secondary preregistered analyses indicate the possibility that political orientation may differentially mediate the effect of normative and cognitive language from scientists on people's perceptions. We do not submit this paper as definitive evidence thereof but do believe that there is sufficient evidence to support additional research into this topic, which may have implications for effective scientific communication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries osf.io/kb3yh; https://osf.io/kb3yh. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/41747.

Effective or predatory funding? Evaluating the hidden costs of grant applications.

Researchers are spending an increasing fraction of their time on applying for funding; however, the current funding system has considerable deficiencies in reliably evaluating the merit of research proposals, despite extensive efforts on the sides of applicants, grant reviewers and decision committees. For some funding schemes, the systemic costs of the application process as a whole can even outweigh the granted resources-a phenomenon that could be considered as predatory funding. We present five recommendations to remedy this unsatisfactory situation.

Using COVID-19 Pandemic as a Prism: A Systematic Review of Methodological Approaches and the Quality of Empirical Studies on Physical Activity Behavior Change.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of scientific endeavors. The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of the research on physical activity (PA) behavior change and its potential to contribute to policy-making processes in the early days of COVID-19 related restrictions. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of methodological quality of current research according to PRISMA guidelines using Pubmed and Web of Science, of articles on PA behavior change that were published within 365 days after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). Items from the JBI checklist and the AXIS tool were used for additional risk of bias assessment. Evidence mapping is used for better visualization of the main results. Conclusions about the significance of published articles are based on hypotheses on PA behavior change in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Among the 1,903 identified articles, there were 36% opinion pieces, 53% empirical studies, and 9% reviews. Of the 332 studies included in the systematic review, 213 used self-report measures to recollect prepandemic behavior in often small convenience samples. Most focused changes in PA volume, whereas changes in PA types were rarely measured. The majority had methodological reporting flaws. Few had very large samples with objective measures using repeated measure design (pre and during the pandemic). In addition to the expected decline in PA duration, these studies show that many of those who were active prepandemic, continued to be active during the pandemic. Conclusions: Research responded quickly at the onset of the pandemic. However, most of the studies lacked robust methodology, and PA behavior change data lacked the accuracy needed to guide policy makers. To improve the field, we propose the implementation of longitudinal cohort studies by larger organizations such as WHO to ease access to data on PA behavior, and suggest those institutions set clear standards for this research. Researchers need to ensure a better fit between the measurement method and the construct being measured, and use both objective and subjective measures where appropriate to complement each other and provide a comprehensive picture of PA behavior.

The Pandemic as a Portal: Reimagining Psychological Science as Truly Open and Inclusive.

Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this article, we call on psychological scientists-focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context for such conversations-to begin reimagining our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss whom our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.

Organizing the Methodological Toolbox: Lessons Learned From Implementing Developmental Methods Online.

Adapting studies typically run in the lab, preschool, or museum to online data collection presents a variety of challenges. The solutions to those challenges depend heavily on the specific questions pursued, the methods used, and the constraints imposed by available technology. We present a partial sample of solutions, discussing approaches we have developed for adapting studies targeting a range of different developmental populations, from infants to school-aged children, and utilizing various online methods such as high-framerate video presentation, having participants interact with a display on their own computer, having the experimenter interact with both the participant and an actor, recording free-play with physical objects, recording infant looking times both offline and live, and more. We also raise issues and solutions regarding recruitment and representativeness in online samples. By identifying the concrete needs of a given approach, tools that meet each of those individual needs, and interfaces between those tools, we have been able to implement many (but not all) of our studies using online data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review aligning available tools and approaches with different methods can inform the design of future studies, in and outside of the lab.

Psychological Science in the Wake of COVID-19: Social, Methodological, and Metascientific Considerations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic's wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon-an event that hinges on human-to-human contact-we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger-not weaker-in its wake.

COVID-19 research risks ignoring important host genes due to pre-established research patterns.

It is known that research into human genes is heavily skewed towards genes that have been widely studied for decades, including many genes that were being studied before the productive phase of the Human Genome Project. This means that the genes most frequently investigated by the research community tend to be only marginally more important to human physiology and disease than a random selection of genes. Based on an analysis of 10,395 research publications about SARS-CoV-2 that mention at least one human gene, we report here that the COVID-19 literature up to mid-October 2020 follows a similar pattern. This means that a large number of host genes that have been implicated in SARS-CoV-2 infection by four genome-wide studies remain unstudied. While quantifying the consequences of this neglect is not possible, they could be significant.