We tested the hypothesis that the importance of the topic of research can make people overlook methodological flaws in the research. Two samples of scientists, faculty at a major medical school and research psychologists, evaluated the methodological rigor and publishability of brief descriptions of flawed research studies. Two versions of each study were identical except for the importance of the topic (e.g., heart disease vs. heartburn). When the topic was important, scientists in both samples were significantly more likely to overlook the methodological flaws, and significantly more lenient in their recommendations that the studies be published.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GilbertD.T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107–119.
2.
LordC.G.RossL.LepperM.R. (1979). Biased assimilation and altitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.
3.
MookD.G.WilsonT.D.DcPauloB.M. (1992). Shortcomings of research on important Social Problems. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
4.
NisbettR.E.WilsonT.D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personallty and Social Psychology, 35, 250–256.
5.
PratkanisA.R.GreenwaldA.G.LeippeM.R.BaumgardnerM.H. (1988). In search of reliable persuasion effects: III. The sleeper effect is dead. Long live the sleeper effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 203–218.
6.
RosenthalR.RosnowR.L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
ThorndikeE.L.A, (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29.
8.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
