匿名心理测量:透明的数据共享政策会影响数据收集吗?

IF 2.7 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychologica Belgica Pub Date : 2019-09-19 DOI:10.5334/pb.503
J. Eberlen, Emmanuel Nicaise, Sarah Leveaux, Youri L. Mora, O. Klein
{"title":"匿名心理测量:透明的数据共享政策会影响数据收集吗?","authors":"J. Eberlen, Emmanuel Nicaise, Sarah Leveaux, Youri L. Mora, O. Klein","doi":"10.5334/pb.503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As researchers, we are advised to share our data to improve transparency and increase the reproducibility of experiments. Simultaneously, making data freely accessible can raise ethical questions regarding the participants’ privacy. We first outline the challenges regarding “open data” for researchers in light of the GDPR. Then, we turn to the impact of an open-access data sharing policy on the participants: could the participants’ knowledge about the future use of the data alter the data itself? Through two pre-registered studies (N = 193, collected on campus and N = 543, online participation), we investigate whether disclosing that anonymized data will be publicly shared vs. not shared influences a potential participants’ intention to take part in the study. Using both frequentist and Bayesian analysis, we conclude towards an absence of effect of a difference in data sharing policy on scores in the Big Five questionnaire and social desirability, careless response behavior, and results in the anchoring paradigm. In the second study, a lexicometric analysis of participants’ reactions to openly sharing data reveals a readiness to share data and support transparency under the condition of preserved anonymity. Hence, if anonymity can be ensured, there seems to be no methodological or ethical drawback in transparent and open data sharing policies for many psychological studies.","PeriodicalId":46662,"journal":{"name":"Psychologica Belgica","volume":"59 1","pages":"373 - 392"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometrics Anonymous: Does a Transparent Data Sharing Policy Affect Data Collection?\",\"authors\":\"J. Eberlen, Emmanuel Nicaise, Sarah Leveaux, Youri L. Mora, O. Klein\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/pb.503\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As researchers, we are advised to share our data to improve transparency and increase the reproducibility of experiments. Simultaneously, making data freely accessible can raise ethical questions regarding the participants’ privacy. We first outline the challenges regarding “open data” for researchers in light of the GDPR. Then, we turn to the impact of an open-access data sharing policy on the participants: could the participants’ knowledge about the future use of the data alter the data itself? Through two pre-registered studies (N = 193, collected on campus and N = 543, online participation), we investigate whether disclosing that anonymized data will be publicly shared vs. not shared influences a potential participants’ intention to take part in the study. Using both frequentist and Bayesian analysis, we conclude towards an absence of effect of a difference in data sharing policy on scores in the Big Five questionnaire and social desirability, careless response behavior, and results in the anchoring paradigm. In the second study, a lexicometric analysis of participants’ reactions to openly sharing data reveals a readiness to share data and support transparency under the condition of preserved anonymity. Hence, if anonymity can be ensured, there seems to be no methodological or ethical drawback in transparent and open data sharing policies for many psychological studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychologica Belgica\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"373 - 392\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychologica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.503\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.503","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

作为研究人员,我们被建议分享我们的数据,以提高透明度并增加实验的再现性。同时,让数据自由访问可能会引发有关参与者隐私的道德问题。我们首先根据GDPR概述了研究人员在“开放数据”方面面临的挑战。然后,我们转向开放访问数据共享政策对参与者的影响:参与者对数据未来使用的了解会改变数据本身吗?通过两项预先注册的研究(N=193,在校园内收集,N=543,在线参与),我们调查了披露匿名数据将公开共享与不共享是否会影响潜在参与者参与研究的意愿。使用频率分析和贝叶斯分析,我们得出结论,数据共享政策的差异对五大问卷的得分和社会期望、粗心的反应行为没有影响,并导致锚定范式。在第二项研究中,对参与者对公开共享数据的反应进行字典计量分析,揭示了在保持匿名的条件下共享数据和支持透明度的意愿。因此,如果能够确保匿名性,那么对于许多心理学研究来说,透明和公开的数据共享政策似乎没有方法或道德缺陷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Psychometrics Anonymous: Does a Transparent Data Sharing Policy Affect Data Collection?
As researchers, we are advised to share our data to improve transparency and increase the reproducibility of experiments. Simultaneously, making data freely accessible can raise ethical questions regarding the participants’ privacy. We first outline the challenges regarding “open data” for researchers in light of the GDPR. Then, we turn to the impact of an open-access data sharing policy on the participants: could the participants’ knowledge about the future use of the data alter the data itself? Through two pre-registered studies (N = 193, collected on campus and N = 543, online participation), we investigate whether disclosing that anonymized data will be publicly shared vs. not shared influences a potential participants’ intention to take part in the study. Using both frequentist and Bayesian analysis, we conclude towards an absence of effect of a difference in data sharing policy on scores in the Big Five questionnaire and social desirability, careless response behavior, and results in the anchoring paradigm. In the second study, a lexicometric analysis of participants’ reactions to openly sharing data reveals a readiness to share data and support transparency under the condition of preserved anonymity. Hence, if anonymity can be ensured, there seems to be no methodological or ethical drawback in transparent and open data sharing policies for many psychological studies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychologica Belgica
Psychologica Belgica PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Harnessing Available Evidence in Single-Case Experimental Studies: The Use of Multilevel Meta-Analysis. The Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire: Validation of the French Version in Non-clinical Adults. Exploration of the Links Between Psychosocial Well-being and Face Recognition Skills in a French-Speaking Sample. Relationship Between Neurodevelopmental Areas and Difficulties in Emotional-Behavioural Variables in Children With Typical Development Under 2 Years of Age: Sex Differences. Body Aware: Adolescents' and Young Adults' Lived Experiences of Body Awareness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1