Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty.

This study explores how researchers' analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers' expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team's workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers' results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.

Driven by context? The interrelated effects of parents, peers, classrooms on development of prejudice among Swedish majority adolescents.

Prejudice is one of the major threats to the cohesion of multicultural societies and adolescent years play a key role in its development. How social contexts contribute to adolescent prejudice is, however, not yet well-known. This 3-wave study of Swedish majority adolescents (N = 659; MageT1 = 13.41; MageT3 = 17.33) examined the effects of parents' and peers' attitudes on changes in youth attitudes toward immigrants as well as an interplay between parent, peer, and school context. The results of multilevel analyses revealed that within-person fluctuations in youth attitudes were positively related to fluctuations in peers' but not parents' attitudes. Both parents' and peers' attitudes, however, significantly predicted the differences in level and rate of change in attitudes between adolescents. In addition to these direct effects, mediation analysis showed that parents' attitudes predicted youth attitudes indirectly, via the attitudes of the peers youth associate with, suggesting an overall greater importance of parental bias. Peers' attitudes did not moderate the effects of parents but youth from ethnically diverse classrooms were less affected by their parents' prejudice than youth from less diverse classrooms. The findings contribute to a better understanding of the role of social context in the development of prejudice. They suggest that while parents set the stage, peers explain the day-to-day variation in prejudice, and that classroom diversity offsets some of the negative effects of parental bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Politics and Prejudice: How Political Discussion With Peers Is Related to Attitudes About Immigrants During Adolescence.

Research on prejudice has shown that with whom we surround ourselves matters for intergroup attitudes, but these studies have paid little attention to the content of those interactions. Studies on political socialization and deliberation have focused on the content of interaction by examining the transmission of norms as well as the direct consequences of political discussion on attitudes and behavior. However, this literature has not focused on prejudice as a potential consequence. In this study, we combine these approaches to examine if political discussions with peers during adolescence matter for prejudice. We rely on five waves of a Swedish panel of adolescents, ages 13-22. Results show an association between political discussion and prejudice over time, and that this relationship increases as adolescents grow older. Results also demonstrate that the effect of political discussions depends on the level of prejudice in one's peer network. Discussion with low prejudice friends is associated with lower levels of prejudice over time, while political discussion with high prejudice peers is not significantly related to attitudes.