Can Results-Blind Selection Improve Science Communication?

Abstract

Journalists are often maligned for covering sensational or desirable research results at the expense of studies with stronger methods. In the present study, we aimed to test how journalists’ preferences shift when studies are selected based on their methods rather than results (results-blind selection). Practicing journalists and editors, journalism faculty, and journalism graduate students ( N = 413) read summaries of real social-psychology studies and rated their interest in reporting on them. Participants were randomly assigned to read either “traditional” summaries that included the results or “results-blind” summaries that excluded the results. Summaries varied on three within-subjects dimensions: replication status, preregistration status, and belief consistency. Participants expressed more interest in replicable (vs. not replicable) and preregistered (vs. nonpreregistered) studies regardless of whether they learned the results, suggesting that these studies have features that are valued by journalists. Meanwhile, results-blind selection showed potential for reducing confirmation bias, suggesting it may be worth further exploration if feasibility challenges can be addressed.