The Pragmatic American Revisited: A Direct Replication of Pickett and Baker (2014).

In 2014, Pickett and Baker cast doubt on the scholarly consensus that Americans are pragmatic about criminal justice. Previous research suggested this pragmaticism was evidenced by either null or positive relationships between seemingly opposite items (i.e., between dispositional and situational crime attributions and between punitiveness and rehabilitative policy support). Pickett and Baker argued that because these studies worded survey items in the same positive direction, respondents' susceptibility to acquiescence bias led to artificially inflated positive correlations. Using a simple split-ballot experiment, they manipulated the direction of survey items and demonstrated bidirectional survey items resulted in negative relationships between attributions and between support for punitive and rehabilitative policies. We replicated Pickett and Baker's methodology with a nationally representative sample of American respondents supplemented by a diverse student sample. Our results were generally consistent, and, in many cases, effect sizes were stronger than those observed in the original study. Americans appear much less pragmatic when survey items are bidirectional. Yet, we suggest the use of bidirectional over unidirectional survey items trades one set of problems for another. Instead, to reduce acquiescence bias and improve overall data quality, we encourage researchers to adopt item-specific questioning.

A cross-national study of the population-level association between alcohol consumption and suicide rates.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to explore the association between population-level alcohol consumption and cross-national suicide rates. Suicide mortality rates vary substantially by nation, as do the level and character of alcohol consumption. Only a few prior studies examined this association, however, and they used a small number of nations and failed to test for the multiple hypothesized pathways through which any association may operate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We obtained data from the World Health Organization for a sample of 83 nations. Controlling for potential structural covariates, we tested four theoretical mechanisms through which population-level alcohol consumption may influence national suicide rates. RESULTS: Results showed no evidence of threshold effects, nor were risky national drinking patterns associated with higher suicide rates. We found evidence for the most common explanation that total per capita consumption is linearly associated with suicide rates. Our other findings, however, suggested this linear association masks more complex beverage-specific effects. Per capita wine consumption was not associated with male or female suicide rates, per capita spirits consumption was associated with both male and female suicide rates, per capita beer consumption was associated with male suicide rates, and per capita consumption of "other" alcohol types was associated with female suicide rates. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Testing for only a linear association between total alcohol consumption and suicide rates fails to tell the whole story. Further research requires exploration of beverage-specific effects and other potential mechanisms, and consideration of national alcohol policies to reduce suicide rates.

Questionable, Objectionable or Criminal? Public Opinion on Data Fraud and Selective Reporting in Science.

Data fraud and selective reporting both present serious threats to the credibility of science. However, there remains considerable disagreement among scientists about how best to sanction data fraud, and about the ethicality of selective reporting. The public is arguably the largest stakeholder in the reproducibility of science; research is primarily paid for with public funds, and flawed science threatens the public's welfare. Members of the public are able to make meaningful judgments about the morality of different behaviors using moral intuitions. Legal scholars emphasize that to maintain legitimacy, social control policies must be developed with some consideration given to the public's moral intuitions. Although there is a large literature on popular attitudes toward science, there is no existing evidence about public opinion on data fraud or selective reporting. We conducted two studies-a survey experiment with a nationwide convenience sample (N = 821), and a follow-up survey with a representative sample of US adults (N = 964)-to explore community members' judgments about the morality of data fraud and selective reporting in science. The findings show that community members make a moral distinction between data fraud and selective reporting, but overwhelmingly judge both behaviors to be immoral and deserving of punishment. Community members believe that scientists who commit data fraud or selective reporting should be fired and banned from receiving funding. For data fraud, most Americans support criminal penalties. Results from an ordered logistic regression analysis reveal few demographic and no significant partisan differences in punitiveness toward data fraud.