Determining the effects of training duration on the behavioral expression of habitual control in humans: a multilaboratory investigation.

It has been suggested that there are two distinct and parallel mechanisms for controlling instrumental behavior in mammals: goal-directed actions and habits. To gain an understanding of how these two systems interact to control behavior, it is essential to characterize the mechanisms by which the balance between these systems is influenced by experience. Studies in rodents have shown that the amount of training governs the relative expression of these two systems: Behavior is goal-directed following moderate training, but the more extensively an instrumental action is trained, the more it becomes habitual. It is less clear whether humans exhibit similar training effects on the expression of goal-directed and habitual behavior, as human studies have reported contradictory findings. To tackle these contradictory findings, we formed a consortium, where four laboratories undertook a preregistered experimental induction of habits by manipulating the amount of training. There was no statistical evidence for a main effect of the amount of training on the formation and expression of habits. However, exploratory analyses suggest a moderating effect of the affective component of stress on the impact of training over habit expression. Participants who were lower in affective stress appeared to be initially goal-directed, but became habitual with increased training, whereas participants who were high in affective stress were already habitual even after moderate training, thereby manifesting insensitivity to overtraining effects. Our findings highlight the importance of the role of moderating variables such as individual differences in stress and anxiety when studying the experimental induction of habits in humans.

No evidence for a difference in 2D:4D ratio between youth with elevated prenatal androgen exposure due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia and controls.

The second-to-fourth digit ratio (2D:4D) has been associated with sexual dimorphism, with a lower 2D:4D in males. A large body of research has relied on the 2D:4D as a proxy for prenatal androgen exposure, and includes reports of relationships between 2D:4D and a wide range of human traits. Here, we examine the validity of the 2D:4D proxy by studying the association between 2D:4D and classical Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency, a condition characterized by excessive prenatal exposure to androgens during most of the gestational period. To this end, we retrospectively examine 513 serial radiographs of the left hand obtained clinically in 90 youth with classical CAH (45 female) and 70 control youth (31 female). Replicating previous reports, we observe associations of the 2D:4D with sex (lower 2D:4D in males) and age (increase of 2D:4D through development). However, we find no evidence for differences in 2D:4D between CAH and controls (full sample: ß = -0.001 (-0.008, 0.006); females: ß = -0.004 [-0.015, 0.007]; males: ß = 0.001, [-0.008, 0.011]). Although our findings do not rule out a small association between the 2D:4D and CAH, they cast doubt on the usefulness of the 2D:4D as a biomarker for prenatal androgen exposure in behavioral research.

Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015.

Being able to replicate scientific findings is crucial for scientific progress1-15. We replicate 21 systematically selected experimental studies in the social sciences published in Nature and Science between 2010 and 201516-36. The replications follow analysis plans reviewed by the original authors and pre-registered prior to the replications. The replications are high powered, with sample sizes on average about five times higher than in the original studies. We find a significant effect in the same direction as the original study for 13 (62%) studies, and the effect size of the replications is on average about 50% of the original effect size. Replicability varies between 12 (57%) and 14 (67%) studies for complementary replicability indicators. Consistent with these results, the estimated true-positive rate is 67% in a Bayesian analysis. The relative effect size of true positives is estimated to be 71%, suggesting that both false positives and inflated effect sizes of true positives contribute to imperfect reproducibility. Furthermore, we find that peer beliefs of replicability are strongly related to replicability, suggesting that the research community could predict which results would replicate and that failures to replicate were not the result of chance alone.