Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes.

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students' understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.

Is the COVID-19 bad news game good news? Testing whether creating and disseminating fake news about vaccines in a computer game reduces people's belief in anti-vaccine arguments.

Improving vaccination eagerness is crucial, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and establishing new procedures to achieve that goal is highly important. Previous research (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019a, 2019b) has indicated that playing the "Bad News" game, in which a player spreads fake news to gain followers, reduces people's belief in fake news. The goal of the present paper was to test an analogous new game called "COVID-19 Bad News (CBN)" to improve one's eagerness to vaccinate against coronavirus. CBN was constructed to examine whether creating and disseminating fake news focused on vaccinations and the COVID-19 pandemic has a similar effect and improves people's attitudes toward vaccination. Two experiments were conducted where participants played CBN or Tetris and afterwards evaluated the credibility of statements about vaccines against COVID-19 and finally filled out a questionnaire concerning their attitudes toward vaccination. The results show that playing CBN does not reduce evaluations of the credibility of all statements that are unfavorable to vaccines (false as well as true). Additionally, it does not enhance readiness to vaccinate. Future research and limitations are discussed.

Do unbiased people act more rationally?-The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention.

Within different populations and at various stages of the pandemic, it has been demonstrated that individuals believe they are less likely to become infected than their average peer. This is known as comparative optimism and it has been one of the reproducible effects in social psychology. However, in previous and even the most recent studies, researchers often neglected to consider unbiased individuals and inspect the differences between biased and unbiased individuals. In a mini meta-analysis of six studies (Study 1), we discovered that unbiased individuals have lower vaccine intention than biased ones. In two pre-registered, follow-up studies, we aimed at testing the reproducibility of this phenomenon and its explanations. In Study 2 we replicated the main effect and found no evidence for differences in psychological control between biased and unbiased groups. In Study 3 we also replicated the effect and found that realists hold more centric views on the trade-offs between threats from getting vaccinated and getting ill. We discuss the interpretation and implication of our results in the context of the academic and lay-persons' views on rationality. We also put forward empirical and theoretical arguments for considering unbiased individuals as a separate phenomenon in the domain of self-others comparisons.

It Matters to Whom You Compare Yourself: The Case of Unrealistic Optimism and Gender-Specific Comparisons.

Unrealistic Optimism (UO) appears when comparing participants' risk estimates for themselves with an average peer, which typically results in lower risk estimates for the self. This article reports nuanced effects when comparison varies in terms of the gender of the peer. In three studies (total N = 2,468, representative sample), we assessed people's risk estimates for COVID-19 infections for peers with the same or other gender. If a peer's gender is not taken into account, previous studies were replicated: Compared with others, participants perceived themselves as less likely to get infected with COVID-19. Interestingly, this effect was qualified by gender: Respondents perceived women as less threatened than men because women are perceived as more cautious and compliant with medical guidelines.

Temporal aspects of unrealistic optimism and robustness of this bias: A longitudinal study in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Numerous studies on unrealistic optimism (UO) have shown that people claim they are less exposed to COVID-19 infection than others. Yet, it has not been assessed if this bias evolves; does it escalate or diminish when the information about the threat changes? The present paper fills this gap. For 12 months 120 participants estimated their own and their peers' risk of COVID-19 infection. Results show that UO regarding COVID-19 infection is an enduring phenomenon-It was the dominant tendency throughout almost the entire study and was never substituted by Unrealistic Pessimism. While the presence of UO-bias was constant, its magnitude changed. We tested possible predictors of these changes: the daily new cases/deaths, the changes in governmental restrictions and the mobility of participants' community. Out of these predictors, only changes in governmental restrictions proved to be significant- when the restrictions tightened, UO increased.

Media intervention program for reducing unrealistic optimism bias: The link between unrealistic optimism, well-being, and health.

Unrealistic optimism is the tendency to perceive oneself as safer than others in situations that equally threaten everybody. By reducing fear, this bias boosts one's well-being; however, it is also a deterrent to one's health. Three experiments were run in a mixed-design on 1831 participants to eliminate unrealistic optimism (measured by two items-probability of COVID-19 infection for oneself and for others; within-subjects) toward the probability of COVID-19 infection via articles/videos. A between-subject factor was created by manipulation. Ostensibly, daily newspaper articles describing other people diligently following medical recommendations (experiment 1) and videos showing people who did not follow these recommendations (experiment 2) reduced unrealistic optimism. The third experiment, which included both articles and videos, replicated these results. These results can be applied to strategies for written and video communications that can be used by governments and public health agencies as best practices concerning not only COVID-19 but also any subsequent public health threat while promoting proactive, optimal, and healthy functioning of the individual.