Adversarial collaboration: An undervalued approach in behavioral science.

Open Science initiatives such as preregistration, publicly available procedures and data, and power analyses have rightly been lauded for increasing the reliability of findings. However, a potentially equally important initiative-aimed at increasing the validity of science-has largely been ignored. Adversarial collaborations (ACs) refer to team science in which members are chosen to represent diverse (and even contradictory) perspectives and hypotheses, with or without a neutral team member to referee disputes. Here, we provide background about ACs and argue that they are effective, essential, and underutilized. We explain how and why ACs can enhance both the reliability and validity of science and why their benefit extends beyond the realm of team science to include venues such as fact-checking, wisdom of crowds, journal reviewing, and sequential editing. Improving scientific validity would increase the efficacy of policy and interventions stemming from behavioral science research, and over time, it could help salvage the reputation of our discipline because its products would be perceived as resulting from a serious, open-minded consideration of diverse views. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors.

We identify points of conflict and consensus regarding (a) controversial empirical claims and (b) normative preferences for how controversial scholarship-and scholars-should be treated. In 2021, we conducted qualitative interviews (n = 41) to generate a quantitative survey (N = 470) of U.S. psychology professors' beliefs and values. Professors strongly disagreed on the truth status of 10 candidate taboo conclusions: For each conclusion, some professors reported 100% certainty in its veracity and others 100% certainty in its falsehood. Professors more confident in the truth of the taboo conclusions reported more self-censorship, a pattern that could bias perceived scientific consensus regarding the inaccuracy of controversial conclusions. Almost all professors worried about social sanctions if they were to express their own empirical beliefs. Tenured professors reported as much self-censorship and as much fear of consequences as untenured professors, including fear of getting fired. Most professors opposed suppressing scholarship and punishing peers on the basis of moral concerns about research conclusions and reported contempt for peers who petition to retract papers on moral grounds. Younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship. These results do not resolve empirical or normative disagreements among psychology professors, but they may provide an empirical context for their discussion.

Unpacking insanity defence standards: an experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law / Descifrar los criterios de defensa de la vesania: estudio experimental de las pruebas de racionalidad y control en derecho penal

The present study investigated the impact of different legal standards on mock juror decisions concerning whether a defendant was guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Undergraduate students (N=477) read a simulated case summary involving a murder case and were asked to make an insanity determination. The cases differed in terms of the condition of the defendant (rationality deficit or control deficit) and the legal standard given to the jurors to make the determination (Model Penal Code, McNaughten or McNaughten plus a separate control determination). The effects of these variables on the insanity determination were investigated. Jurors also completed questionnaires measuring individualism and hierarchy attitudes and perceptions of facts in the case. Results indicate that under current insanity standards jurors do not distinguish between defendants with rationality deficits and defendants with control deficits regardless of whether the legal standard requires them to do so. Even defendants who lacked control were found guilty at equal rates under a legal standard excusing rationality deficits only and a legal standard excluding control and rationality deficits. This was improved by adding a control test as a partial defence, to be determined after a rationality determination. Implications for the insanity defence in the Criminal Justice System are discussed (AU)

Este estudio ha investigado la repercusión de los diversos cánones legales en las decisiones simuladas acerca de si un acusado es culpable o no por motivos de vesania. Una muestra de 477 estudiantes universitarios leyeron el resumen de caso relativo a un asesinato, pidiéndoseles luego que determinasen si había enajenación mental. Los casos diferían en cuanto a la condición del acusado (déficit de racionalidad o de control) y el criterio legal proporcionado a los jurados para que tomaran la determinación (Código penal modelo, McNaughten o McNaughten mas una determinación sobre el control). Se investigó el efecto de estas variables en la determinación de vesania. Los jurados rellenaron también cuestionarios que medían actitudes de individualismo y jerarquía y la percepción de los hechos del caso. Los resultados indican que con los criterios de demencia actuales los jurados no distinguen entre acusados con déficit de racionalidad y aquellos con déficit de control, aunque los criterios legales se lo exijan. Incluso los acusados que carecían de control fueron hallados culpables en la misma proporción con un criterio legal que disculpaba el déficit de racionalidad y con otro que excluía los déficit de control y racionalidad. Consiguió mejorarse añadiendo una prueba de control como defensa parcial a determinar tras la decisión sobre la racionalidad. Se comentan las implicaciones para la defensa de la enajenación mental en el sistema de justicia penal (AU)