How can this situation be characterized, described, classified, or analyzed?
After writing the questions, I would write my responses, deciding which particular questions and responses interest me the most. Perhaps, for instance, I would find myself most interested in the effects of development on the "natives" of small towns, particularly the inevitability of increased property taxes. This process of questioning thus provides me with a specific, narrow, well-defined focus within the vast issue of development of small towns in the Rocky Mountain region.
Related Information: Topic Cross
The topic cross helps you to narrow your topic by using a visual strategy. Just as you would focus a camera or a microscope, you arrange key words and phrases about your topic in such a way that they eventually point to your specific area of interest.
Example of a Topic Cross The first step in the process of using the topic cross is brainstorming. Spend a few minutes listing words and phrases that come to mind when you think about your topic. Then decide which words and phrases are most interesting and arrange them in a hierarchy, moving from general (at the top of the list) to specific (at the bottom of the list). This hierarchy will become the vertical axis of your cross. Demonstration: If my topic is "development of small towns in the Rocky Mountain region," I might generate the following useful ideas in brainstorming (arranged from general to specific).
I would write this list in an imagined middle column of a piece of blank paper or a computer screen, leaving plenty of space between each item. Then I would scan the list to determine where my real interest lies. Which topics in this list will be too broad to write about, given my writing assignment? Which will be too narrow? In this case, I might choose "economic effects on impoverished landowners" as a workable topic area. Once I had thus identified my area of interest, I would begin listing words and phrases about or relevant to that item, placing them on the horizontal axis of my topic cross. The list I would generate about "economic effects on impoverished landowners" might look like this:
Examining this list, I might decide that "rising property taxes" is a sufficiently narrow topic that is not too narrow to develop with my own ideas and research I might do. By using this strategy, I have arrived at a narrow, workable topic.
If your writing assignment requires research, you will probably find that the research process itself will dictate how broad or narrow your topic should be. We have all had the experience of doing a library search on a word like "environment" and coming up with thousands of sources. Almost as common is the experience of searching a term like "cultural animation" and coming up with only one source that seems useful. The topics we choose are often directly related to our research processes and their results.
It is important to remember that a narrow topic is not the same thing as a thesis statement. Unlike a topic, a thesis makes a claim of fact, provides a claim of value, or makes a recommendation about a topic under consideration. For example, your narrowed topic might be "the underemphasis on foreign language in U.S. secondary schools." A focused thesis statement making a claim about this topic might read, "U.S. secondary schools should require elementary students to take at least one course in a foreign language sometime during the 4th through 6th grades."
Transforming a workable topic into a possible thesis is really just a continuation of the narrowing process, with an emphasis on what you want to say about your topic. In this way, it is much like the "hypothesis" stage of the scientific method. You arrive at a thesis by attempting to make a statement about the topic you have chosen.
A working thesis is a tentative statement that you make about your topic early in the writing process, for the purpose of directing your thinking early. This thesis is likely to change somewhat or to be abandoned altogether as you move through the writing process, so it is best not to become too enamored of it.
There are two components of a working thesis. The first is, quite simply, your topic; and the second is your tentative statement about your topic. For example, if my narrowed topic is
"Rising property taxes in small towns in the Rocky Mountain region..."
I might add the following statement about that topic:
"...cause longtime residents and landowners in those towns not to be able to keep their property."
As I begin whatever research is necessary to support this thesis, I might find that I can't make this much of a claim. Or I might find that there are complexities that I hadn't considered. As I uncover new information about my topic, I will want to alter my working thesis accordingly, until it is workable and supportable.
A In The St. Martin's Handbook , Third Edition [italics], Andrea Lunsford and Robert Connors suggest a process for moving from a topic to a research "hypothesis," by way of examining the "issue" at hand and framing this issue as a "research question." The following is an example of how I might move from topic to hypothesis if my narrowed topic is "rising property taxes in small towns in the Rocky Mountain region."
This hypothesis, like a working thesis, is simply an early speculation on what I might find when I begin to research. As I read more and more about my topic, I will probably find that I need to make changes to the hypothesis in order to make it a supportable thesis. As I uncover new information about my topic, I will want to alter my working thesis accordingly, until it is workable and supportable.
One of the greatest challenges in written argument is determining what it is that you would like to (and are able to) say about your topic.
Before you begin drafting an argument paper, you need to decide (tentatively, at least) what it is that you will be arguing about the topic you have chosen. The following prompts should help you focus your argument from a topic to a position on that topic. What is your topic? (e.g.--Rising property taxes in small towns in the Rocky Mountain region) What are three controversies associated with this topic? (e.g.--Rising property taxes make the town affordable only to the wealthy. This changes the flavor the flavor of the town. It forces long-time land owners to sell their land.) What are three questions people might ask about these controversies? (e.g.--Are these rising property taxes, which are the results of development in small towns in the Rocky Mountain region, forcing long-time land owners out of their home towns? Are rising taxes and land values changing the whole cultural and economic foundation of the towns? Given the effects of rising property taxes on impoverished land owners in small towns, is development in this area a good idea?) Decide which of these questions you are most interesting in exploring. (e.g.--Given the effects of rising property taxes on impoverished land owners in small towns, is development in this area a good idea?) Now list several ways people might respond if you asked them your question. (e.g.--No, because impoverished land owners are unable to maintain the new standard of living. Yes, because development is always a good idea. Yes, because development is inevitable, and we can do nothing about it. Perhaps, but city planners and local government must find ways to protect the interests of impoverished land owners when they determine property taxes.) Finally, decide where you stand in this range of responses. Think of a thesis that expresses your view. Write out your thesis and revise it throughout your research process until it is specific and takes a single arguable position. (e.g.--Because impoverished land owners in small towns in the Rocky Mountain region are often badly hurt by the rising property taxes resulting from development, city planners and local government must find ways to protect the interests of these land owners when they determine property taxes.)
Don Zimmerman, Journalism and Technical Communication Professor Writers' understanding of topics and their fields of study allow them to focus on a specific topic. Following a good problem solving process or scientific method can help you select a topic. Whereas on the job, topics emerge from day to day activities. When working, you don't need to look for topics to write about. Your respective field/job responsibilities allow you to find the problems.
The ways that topics are approached and the types of topics that are discussed vary from discipline to discipline. It is important to investigate the types of topics that are discussed (and the ways that they are discussed) in your own discipline. As a writer, it is necessary to determine what topics are talked about and why in your own discipline (or in the discipline for which you are writing). This can be done by way of talking to professionals in the discipline, looking at relevant journals, and conducting Internet and database searches (to name a few possibilities).
Related Information: Browsing Journals Important to Your Discipline
Almost every discipline has journals that are associated with it, and scholars in the discipline depend on these journals in order to remain informed about what topics are being discussed. For example, scholars in the field of psychology rely on psychological journals; doctors rely on medical journals; and English professors rely on literary journals. Because journals are at the center of each discipline's current discussions, it is a good idea to browse them when looking for current topics. If you are unsure of how to go about doing this, talk to a professor in your discipline, a reference librarian in your library, or a librarian in your library's Current Periodicals room. These people can usually provide you with a few titles of important journals relevant to your field. Once you have these titles, you can locate a few issues of each journal in the Current Periodicals room, sit down for an hour or two, and look through the articles to see what is being talked about and what interests you.
Related Information: Online Searches and Databases
One way of getting to the sources which will discuss topics current to your discipline is by searching the various computer databases and search engines related to that discipline. A database is simply an arrangement of information by way of similar subject matter. For example, if you were researching a topic for a Sociology essay on group behavior of Deadheads, you might go to the Social Sciences Index to find sources related to your topic. For information on how to find relevant and useful databases, talk to the reference librarian in your library, or ask an expert in your field which databases he or she uses regularly.
Related Information: Talking to Professionals in Your Discipline
One of the most efficient ways to learn what topics are currently being discussed in your discipline is to talk to the experts: instructors and other professionals working within that discipline. We often forget that these people can be valuable resources to us, and can point us toward books, journals, databases, and other sources of information that scholars in our various fields use often.
Lauel Nesbitt and Dawn Kowalski. (1994-2024). Choosing and Refining Topics . The WAC Clearinghouse. Colorado State University. Available at https://wac.colostate.edu/repository/writing/guides/.
Copyright © 1994-2024 Colorado State University and/or this site's authors, developers, and contributors . Some material displayed on this site is used with permission.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Marlene sophie altenmüller.
Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
Mario gollwitzer, associated data.
We provided all materials, the anonymized data and analyses, and supplementary materials online at the Open Science Framework via the following link: https://osf.io/phfq3/ .
Research is often fueled by researchers’ scientific, but also their personal interests: Sometimes, researchers decide to pursue a specific research question because the answer to that question is idiosyncratically relevant for themselves: Such “me-search” may not only affect the quality of research, but also how it is perceived by the general public. In two studies ( N = 621), we investigate the circumstances under which learning about a researcher’s “me-search” increases or decreases laypeople’s ascriptions of trustworthiness and credibility to the respective researcher. Results suggest that participants’ own preexisting attitudes towards the research topic moderate the effects of “me-search” substantially: When participants hold favorable attitudes towards the research topic (i.e., LGBTQ or veganism), “me-searchers” were perceived as more trustworthy and their research was perceived as more credible. This pattern was reversed when participants held unfavorable attitudes towards the research topic. Study 2 furthermore shows that trustworthiness and credibility perceptions generalize to evaluations of the entire field of research. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
“Being a scientist is, at the most fundamental level, about being able to study what’s exciting to you”, says Jeremy Yoder, a gay man studying experiences of queer individuals in science [ 1 ]. Like Yoder, many researchers are passionate about their research and dedicated to their field. After all, they are free to choose research questions they deem important and are interested in. Freedom of science and research secures the independence of the academic from the political and other spheres. In return, researchers are expected to be neutral and objective and make their research process transparent to guarantee that this freedom is not exploited for personal gains.
Just as people differ in what they are interested in in their personal lives, researchers differ in what they find more or less fascinating and worth studying. Such fascination can have multiple causes and is often rooted in a perceived personal connection to a topic. For instance, Sir Isaac Newton allegedly became interested in gravity after an apple fell on his head [ 2 ]. A specific type of personal connection exists when researchers study a phenomenon because they are directly (negatively) affected by that phenomenon. In 1996, Harvard alumni and neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor suffered a rare form of stroke that made her undergo major brain surgery, affected her personal and academic life tremendously, and eventually awakened her interest in studying the plasticity of the brain [ 3 ]. In 2006, she published an award-winning book covering her research and her personal story that led her to pursue this path. The Jill Bolte Taylor case is, thus, a prototypical example for such “me-search”: researchers studying a phenomenon out of a particular personal affection by (or connection to) this phenomenon. “Me-search” thus means pursuing a scientific question when the answer to that question is idiosyncratically relevant for the individual researcher (as opposed to when the answer is relevant per se).
Being directly affected by a phenomenon provides researchers studying it with a high degree of expertise and motivation: Jill Bolte Taylor, for instance, claims to bring a deep personal understanding and compassion to her research and work with patients [ 4 , 5 ]. That said, being personally affected may also come at the cost of losing one’s scientific impartiality and neutrality for the subject: Jill Bolte Taylor was criticized for being overly simplistic in her scientific claims and mixing them with esoteric ideas, and for pushing her own agenda (i.e., selling her story) by dramatizing her own experiences [ 4 – 7 ].
While some criticized Jill Bolte Taylor heavily, the general public does not seem to have a problem with her research as “me-search”. Her book is currently translated into 30 languages, and thousands of people visit her talks and keynote addresses [ 4 – 6 ]. Does that suggest that the general public tends to turn a blind eye on conflicts of interest that may arise from a researchers’ personal affection by their research object? While the Jill Bolte Taylor case seems to suggest so, research on science communication and public understanding of science has shown that people are highly sensitive to potential conflicts of interest arising from researchers’ personal involvement: perceiving researchers as pursuing an “agenda” for personal reasons is a major factor predicting people’s loss of trust in researchers and science [ 8 – 11 ]. On the other hand, people may see personal (“autoethnographic”) experiences of researchers personally affected by their topic as valuable and laudable ‒ it may imply that “they know what they’re talking about” [ 12 – 14 ]. Similarly, revealing a personal interest or even passion for a particular research topic (e.g., due to being personally affected) could also overcome the stereotypical perception of scientists as distant “nerds in the ivory tower” [ 15 , 16 ]: researchers who openly disclose the idiosyncratic relevance of their research topic may appear more approachable, more likeable, and more trustworthy [ 17 – 19 ].
Thus, the public’s reaction to “me-search” seems to be ambivalent and contingent on certain boundary conditions. Thus, the question we are going to address in this article is whether and when ‒ that is, under which circumstances ‒ a researcher’s personal affection by a research topic (“me-search”) positively vs. negatively impacts public perceptions regarding the trustworthiness of the respective researcher (and the entire research area in general) and the extent to which this researcher’s findings are perceived as credible .
This potentially ambivalent perception of “research as me-search” can be understood from a motivated reasoning [ 20 ] perspective: Laypeople receive and process information in a manner biased towards their own beliefs, expectations, or hopes. This also applies to the reception of scientific information [ 21 , 22 ]: For example, laypeople are more likely to dismiss scientific evidence if it is inconsistent with their beliefs [ 23 , 24 ] or if it threatens important (moral) values [ 25 , 26 ] or their social identity, respectively [ 27 – 29 ].
However, identity-related and attitudinal motivated science reception might differ in their underlying mechanisms. For identity-related motivated science reception, biased perception of information, which is relevant to a social identity, is driven by a defense motivation to protect this positive social identity [ 30 ]. Thus, identity-threating scientific information is countered by identity-protection efforts, such as discrediting the findings and the source. These efforts will be more pronounced among strongly identified individuals [ 27 – 29 ]. For attitudinal motivated science reception, however, the mechanism might function as a broader perception filter. When confronted with new scientific information about the respective attitude object, the perceptual focus will be directed at clues helping to uphold prior attitudes (i.e., confirmation bias [ 31 ]): Potentially attitude-inconsistent information is attenuated, while potentially attitude-consistent information is accentuated. The ambivalent nature of “me-search” might allow to be easily bend in such a motivated manner and, thus, lead to biased perceptions of a researcher either way: when the findings are in line with one’s prior beliefs, being personally affected may be considered an asset–the respective researcher is perceived as more trustworthy and his/her findings as more credible (compared to no idiosyncratic relevance). However, when the findings are inconsistent with one’s prior beliefs, idiosyncratic relevance may be considered a flaw–the respective research is perceived as biased, untrustworthy, and less competent, and his/her findings are likely perceived as less credible than when idiosyncratic relevance is absent.
Prior research on motivated science reception mainly focused on laypeople’s reactions towards specific scientific findings: after learning about the outcome of a particular study, participants dismiss the research (and devalue the researcher) if these outcomes are consistent vs. inconsistent with their prior beliefs [ 23 – 25 , 27 – 29 ]. However, people might be prone to motivated science reception even before results are known, judging researchers proverbially just by their cover (e.g., by biographical data, personal and scientific interests and motivations). People who hold positive attitudes towards a certain research topic might perceive “me-searchers” as more trustworthy and anticipate their results to be more credible (before knowing the specific outcomes). By contrast, people who hold negative attitudes towards a certain research topic they might trust “me-searchers” less and expect their findings to be less credible.
Additionally, motivated reception processes can be extended over and above the specific information under scrutiny and lead to questioning the scientific method in itself–a phenomenon termed the “scientific impotence excuse” [ 32 ]. In line with that, critical evaluations of specific researchers and their findings are sometimes generalized to the entire field of research [ 27 ]. Thus, the fact that a researcher engages in “me-search” might be interpreted in a way that fits best to one’s preexisting convictions and may generalize to the entire field of research.
In two studies, laypeople read alleged research proposals concerning potentially polarizing research topics (i.e., LGBTQ issues and veganism) which were submitted by researchers who disclosed being either personally affected or not affected by the respective topic. We investigated whether ( Study 1 ) and when (i.e., moderated by preexisting positive attitudes towards the respective research topic, Studies 1 and 2) such “me-search” information increased or decreased laypeople’s perceptions regarding these researchers’ epistemic trustworthiness and the anticipated credibility of their future scientific findings. Of note, we use the term “credibility” to differentiate evidence-related trust/credibility from person-related trust/credibility (i.e. “trustworthiness”). Further, we test whether one researcher’s “me-search” impacts the evaluation of the entire respective field ( Study 2 ).
For both studies in this paper, we report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures [ 33 ]. All materials, the anonymized data, and analyses are available online at the Open Science Framework (OSF; see https://osf.io/phfq3/ ). Before starting the respective study, informed consent was obtained. Participants read a GDPR-consistent data protection and privacy disclosure declaration specifically designed for the present study. Only participants who gave their consent could start the respective survey. According to German laws and ethical regulations for psychological research [ 34 ], gathering IRB approval is not necessary if (i) the data are fully anonymized, (ii) the study does not involve deception, (iii) participants’ rights (e.g., voluntary participation, the right to withdraw their data, etc.) are fully preserved, and (iv) participating in the study is unlikely to cause harm, stress, or negative affect. The present studies met all of these criteria; therefore, no IRB approval had to be obtained.
In our first study, we conducted an online experiment investigating the main effect of a researcher’s disclosure of being personally affected vs. not affected by their research on their trustworthiness and the credibility of their future research. Further, we tested whether laypeople’s preexisting attitudes towards the research topic moderate this effect.
Four-hundred and eleven German participants were recruited via mailing lists and social networks. Ninety-seven participants had to be excluded due to pre-specified criteria: Sixty-seven participants failed the manipulation check; 25 participants failed the pre-specified time criteria (viewing the manipulation stimulus less than 30sec, taking less than 3min or more than 20min for participation); 5 participants had apparently implausible response patterns (e.g., “straight-lining;” identical responses on every single item on more than one questionnaire page in a row). Eighty-five further participants failed the attention check. Excluding them did not change the overall results, so, for the sake of statistical power, we did not exclude these 85 cases. The final sample consisted of N = 314 participants. We conducted sensitivity analyses using G*Power [ 35 ] for determining which effect sizes can detected with this sample in a moderated (multiple) regression analysis: At α = 0.05 and with a power of 80%, small-to-medium effects (f 2 ≥0.03) can be detected with this sample. Participants were mostly female (74% female, 25% male, 2% other) and their age ranged between 16 and 68 years ( M = 26.79; SD = 10.18). Most participants were currently studying at a university (71%; working: 21%; unemployed or other: 8%). Participants who were currently studying or already had a university degree (93%) came from a variety of disciplines (law, economics, and social sciences: 49%; humanities: 16%; mathematics and natural sciences: 14%; medicine and life sciences: 11%; engineering: 4%).
After obtaining informed consent, we asked participants to imagine they were browsing the website of a research institute and came across a short proposal for a new research project by a researcher named Dr. Lohr (no gender was indicated for greater generalizability and avoiding possible gender confounds). Next, participants read the beginning of the alleged proposal of a planned research project for which Dr. Lohr was allegedly applying for external funding. The text briefly introduced the planned project (i.e., investigating social reactions to queer employees at the workplace) and a statement of Dr. Lohr explaining why they were interested in conducting this project. Participants were randomly allocated to two groups. In the “not personally affected” condition, Dr. Lohr wrote:
“ I am interested in investigating this research topic in more detail not only out of scientific reasons but also because I–as someone who does not identify as homosexual and is not affected by my own research–really think we need more evidence-based knowledge about queer topics which we can implement in everyday life .”
In the “personally affected” condition, Dr. Lohr wrote:
“ I am interested in investigating this research topic in more detail not only out of scientific reasons but also because I–as someone who identifies as homosexual and is affected by my own research–really think we need more evidence-based knowledge about queer topics which we can implement in everyday life .”
We added a definition for the word “queer” below the proposal: “ Queer is a term used as self-description by people who do not identify as heterosexual and/or who do not identify with the gender assigned at birth . The term is often used as umbrella term for LGBTQ (lesbian , gay , bisexual , trans and queer) and describes all people who identify as queer .” After completing an attention check question (see pre-registration), we measured participants’ trust in Dr. Lohr with the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI; [ 36 ]), which was constructed for measuring trust in experts encountered online. It consists of 14 opposite adjective pairs measuring an overall trustworthiness score (Cronbach’s α = .95) as well as the sub-dimensions expertise (e.g., competent–incompetent, Cronbach’s α = .92) and integrity/benevolence (e.g., honest–dishonest, Cronbach’s α = .93) on 6-point bipolar Likert scales. Factor analyses (see Appendix A in the supplementary materials, https://osf.io/phfq3/ ) suggest that a two-factor model (with expertise and integrity/benevolence) fit the data better than a three-factor model (as suggested by [ 36 ]), corroborating the idea of a cognitive-rational dimension and an affective dimension of trustworthiness [ 37 ]. Next, participants rated the extent to which they found Dr. Lohr’s research credible on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “not at all” to 6 = “very much” (6 items, e.g., “I think Dr. Lohr’s future findings will be credible;” “I will be critical of Dr. Lohr’s research results” (reverse-coded); Cronbach’s α = .84).
Next, we measured participants’ own positive attitudes towards LGBTQ issues—the moderator variable in our design—with eleven statements developed from research on sympathy, group attitudes, and allyship [ 38 , 39 ] rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all” to “very much” (e.g., “I think that LGBTQ-related topics receive more attention than necessary” (reverse-coded); “I am open to learning more about concerns raised by LGBTQ people;” Cronbach’s α = .93). Next, we conducted a manipulation check by asking participants to indicate whether Dr. Lohr disclosed being personally affected by their research (“Dr. Lohr stated being personally affected;” “Dr. Lohr stated not being personally affected;” “Dr. Lohr did not say anything about being affected or not”).
Finally, we measured demographic variables (age, gender, occupation, academic discipline) and control variables: general perceptions of researchers’ neutrality (self-developed 6-point bipolar scale with 4 adjective-pairs, e.g. subjective–objective, and 6 distractor pairs, e.g. introverted–extraverted, Cronbach’s α = .81) and Public Engagement with Science (PES) with two measures adapted from a survey by the BBVA Foundation [ 40 ]: a 5-item scale measuring PES frequency (e.g., “How often do you read news about science?” 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 =“never” to 5 =“almost daily,” Cronbach’s α = .78) and a multiple choice question measuring 15 potential PES experiences during the last 12 months (e.g., “I know someone who does scientific research;” “I visited a science museum”). Participants had the opportunity to participate in a lottery and sign up for more information and were debriefed.
Our randomized groups did not differ in regard to general perception of neutrality in science ( p = .924) or PES (PES frequency, p = .709; PES experiences, p = .533). Table 1 summarizes all means, standard deviations, correlations and internal consistencies of the measured variables.
Variable | α | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Expertise | 4.61 | 0.91 | .92 | |||||||
2. Integrity/benevolence | 4.94 | 0.79 | .93 | .72 | ||||||
3. Epistemic trustworthiness | 4.80 | 0.79 | .95 | .92 | .94 | |||||
4. Credibility | 4.10 | 0.92 | .84 | .68 | .68 | .73 | ||||
5. Attitudes towards LGBTQ | 4.93 | 1.02 | .93 | .23 | .32 | .30 | .47 | |||
6. Neutrality expectation | 4.12 | 0.88 | .81 | .17 | .17 | .18 | .10 | .08 | ||
7. PES frequency | 3.25 | 0.71 | .78 | -.08 | -.09 | -.09 | -.08 | -.07 | .10 | |
8. PES experiences | 6.92 | 2.98 | - | -.11 | -.05 | -.09 | -.02 | -.03 | .05 | .56 |
Note . N = 314.
* indicates p < .05.
** indicates p < .01.
*** indicates p < .001. α represents internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α). Variables 1–6 ranged from 1 to 6, variable 7 ranged from 1–5 and variable 8 ranged from 0–15.
First, we tested the main effect of the researcher’s disclosure of being personally affected on epistemic trustworthiness and credibility of future findings. Laypeople trusted Dr. Lohr significantly more in the “personally affected” condition ( M = 4.92, SD = 0.75) than in the “not personally affected” condition ( M = 4.66, SD = 0.81), t (312) = 2.93, p = .004, d = 0.33, 95% CI d [0.11; 0.56]. For credibility, the difference between the “personally affected” condition ( M = 4.15, SD = 0.96) and the “not personally affected” condition ( M = 4.04, SD = 0.86) was not significant, t (312) = 1.02, p = .306, d = 0.12, 95% CI d [-0.11; 0.34]. Further exploring the two dimensions of epistemic trustworthiness, Dr. Lohr was perceived as higher on integrity/benevolence, t (312) = 3.19, p = .002, d = 0.36, 95% CI d [0.14; 0.59], and on expertise, t (312) = 2.17, p = .030, d = 0.25, 95% CI d [0.02; 0.47] when disclosing being personally affected.
Second, we tested whether the effect of being personally affected by the research topic on trustworthiness was moderated by participants’ pre-existing attitudes towards LGBTQ issues. Using standardized linear regression, we again found a main effect of condition on trustworthiness, beta = 0.15, p = .004, 95% CI beta [0.05, 0.26]. There was a significant main effect of participants’ pre-existing attitudes, beta = 0.30, p < .001, 95% CI beta [0.20, 0.40] and the condition × attitudes interaction effect was significant, beta = 0.19, p < .001, 95% CI beta [0.08, 0.29], increasing the amount of explained variance in trustworthiness by 3% to R 2 adj = .14. Table 2 summarizes the results. Fig 1A displays the interaction effect and standardized simple slopes analysis further qualifies it: Participants with more positive attitudes towards LGBTQ issues (+1 SD above sample mean) trusted Dr. Lohr more when the researcher was personally affected vs. not affected, beta = 0.34, p < .001, 95% CI beta [0.20, 0.49]. For participants with less positive attitudes towards LGBTQ issues (-1 SD below sample mean), this effect appears to be reversed, yet the simple slope was not significant, beta = -0.03, p = .646, 95% CI B [-0.18, 0.11]. The same pattern of interaction effects emerged for both, integrity/benevolence ( p = .009, total R 2 adj = .14) and expertise ( p < .001, total R 2 adj = .10); full analyses are reported in Appendix B (see https://osf.io/phfq3/ ).
Linear regression plots for the interaction effect of attitudes × condition on epistemic trustworthiness (Fig 1A) and credibility (Fig 1B) with 95% confidence intervals: Participants’ attitudes towards the research topic moderated how a researcher’s disclosure of being personally affected (vs. being not personally affected) by one’s own research was perceived.
Predictor | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
95% CI | 95% CI | |||
Epistemic trustworthiness | ||||
condition | 0.15 | [0.05, 0.26] | .02 | [-.01, .05] |
attitudes | 0.30 | [0.20, 0.40] | .09 | [.03, .15] |
condition × attitudes | 0.19 | [0.08, 0.29] | .04 | [-.00, .07] |
Credibility | ||||
condition | 0.04 | [-0.06, 0.13] | .00 | [-.01, .01] |
attitudes | 0.48 | [0.39, 0.58] | .24 | [.16, .32] |
condition × attitudes | 0.21 | [0.12, 0.31] | .05 | [.01, .09] |
*** indicates p < .001. Condition is standardized by effect coding (-1 = not personally affected, 1 = personally affected). beta represents standardized regression weights. sr 2 represents the semi-partial correlation squared.
Regarding our second dependent variable, credibility, we found no main effect of condition, beta = 0.04, p = .456, 95% CI beta [-0.06, 0.13]. However, there was a significant main effect of participants’ pre-existing attitudes, beta = 0.48, p < .001 95% CI beta [0.39, 0.58]: Participants with more positive attitudes anticipated a higher credibility of future research findings in this condition than participants with less positive attitudes. Similar to epistemic trustworthiness, there was a significant condition × attitudes interaction effect, beta = 0.21, p < .001, 95% CI beta [0.12, 0.31], increasing the amount of explained variance in credibility by 4% to R 2 adj = .26. Table 2 summarizes the results. Fig 1B displays this interaction effect: Again, participants with more positive attitudes towards LGBTQ issues (+1 SD above sample mean) anticipated Dr. Lohr’s future research findings to be more credible when the researcher was personally affected vs. not affected, beta = 0.25, p < .001, 95% CI beta [0.12, 0.38]. However, for participants with more negative attitudes (-1 SD below sample mean) this effect was significantly reversed: They rated the future research as less credible when the researcher was personally affected vs. not affected, beta = -0.18, p = .009, 95% CI B [-0.31, -0.04].
Results from Study 1 suggest that LGBTQ researchers are perceived as more trustworthy and their future findings as more credible when they disclose being personally affected by their research topic (i.e., being queer themselves), but only if perceivers hold positive attitudes towards LGBTQ issues. By contrast, holding less favorable attitudes towards LGBTQ issues lead to more skeptical reactions towards personally affected vs. unaffected researchers. This finding shows that learning about a researcher’s personal affection by their research can, indeed, go both ways, as suggested by our theoretical reasoning. On a more general level, our research suggests that public reactions towards “me-search” is a matter of pre-existing attitudes, and, thus, a case of motivated science reception [ 21 , 22 ].
There are some limitations to this first study: As most people in our sample held rather positive attitudes towards the LGBTQ community ( M = 4.93, SD = 1.02; on a scale from 1 to 6), predicted values on trustworthiness and credibility at the lower end of the attitude spectrum are probably less reliable. Also, we did not control for participants’ own identification as belonging to the LGBTQ community. Thus, we cannot differentiate clearly between attitudinal and identity-related effects, which is important because attitudes and identity concerns have a psychologically distinguishable impact on motivated science reception [ 27 , 28 ]. Additionally, replicating our results in a different domain is necessary to be able to generalize our findings. Another question of generalizability that is left unanswered is how such individual experiences with one personally affected researcher might impact laypeople’s perception of the entire field. This calls for more research on the double-edged nature of the moderating effect of preexisting attitudes.
In our preregistered second study (see https://osf.io/c9r4e ), we aimed to replicate our findings in a more diverse sample and with a different research topic that has the potential of polarizing participants even more strongly. We used the same design as in Study 1, but changed the proposed research topic to perceptions of vegans and introduced a vegan vs. non-vegan researcher. Again, we hypothesized that laypeople’s attitudes towards veganism moderate the effects on trustworthiness as well as credibility of future research. Additionally, we tested whether the effect of one researcher being personally affected by their own research generalizes to the broader perception of their entire field. Furthermore, we also explored whether the moderation by attitudes towards veganism prevailed when controlling for self-identification as being vegan (not included in preregistration).
We conducted an a-priori power analysis using G*Power [ 35 ] for detecting the hypothesized interaction effect in a moderated multiple regression analysis ( f 2 = 0.04, based on Study 1, with 1- β = 0.90 and α = 0.05, which resulted in a total sample of N = 265. Anticipating exclusions (see specified criteria) of comparable size as in the previous study, we aimed for a sample of at least 350 participants.
We collected data from 364 participants via mailing lists and social media. Fifty-seven participants had to be excluded due to our preregistered criteria (see https://osf.io/c9r4e ): one participant was younger than 16 years, 31 failed the manipulation check, 10 took less than 20sec viewing the proposal, 12 took less than 3min or more than 20min for participation, 3 had apparently implausible patters of response (i.e., “straight-lining;” identical responses on every single item on more than one questionnaire page in a row). The final sample consisted of N = 307 participants (76% female, 23% male, 1 other) who were between 18 and 79 years old ( M = 33.55, SD = 13.92). Approximately half of the sample (50%) was currently studying at a university, further 40% were working and 10% not working, one person was currently in training. Eighty-five percent were currently studying or already held a university degree (social sciences: 49%, humanities: 17%, natural sciences: 14%, life sciences: 8%, engineering: 6% and other 6%). Most participants did not consider themselves as vegans (89%).
We used the same materials and procedure as in Study 1 (see OSF for full materials: https://osf.io/phfq3/ ). However, we changed the research topic to “perceptions of vegans”. Participants were randomly assigned to two conditions. In the “not personally affected” condition, the researcher Dr. Lohr wrote:
“ I was interested in investigating this research questions not only out of scientific reasons but because , as someone who is not living as a vegan and , thus , not personally affected by my own research , I think we have a need for more evidence-based knowledge regarding the social embedding of vegan lifestyles , which we can acknowledge in everyday life .”
“… because , as someone who is living as a vegan and , thus , personally affected by my own research , I think we have a need for more evidence-based knowledge regarding the social embedding of vegan lifestyles , which we can acknowledge in everyday life . ”
As dependent variables, we again used the 14-item METI [ 36 ] to measure epistemic trustworthiness, but we expanded the measure for credibility of future research by adding one more item (“I would express skepticism towards Dr. Lohr’s future findings”) to better capture the behavioral aspects of credibility (now: 7 items; Cronbach’s α = .86). We also added a measure of participants’ evaluation of the entire field (not the specific researcher) as a third dependent variable. This 12-item scale was adapted from a related study [ 28 ] (e.g., “I think researchers who do research on that topic sometimes lack competence,” “I think it is difficult to apply results from this line of research to reality;” 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “not at all” to 6 = “very much;” Cronbach’s α = .85). Next, participants’ attitudes towards veganism (i.e., the moderator variable) were measured with a 14-item scale adapted from the attitude measure in Study 1 by changing and adding items (e.g., “I think veganism is exaggerated” (reverse-coded) and “I can imagine being a vegan myself;” 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “not at all” to 6 = “very much;” Cronbach’s α = .95).
To reduce exclusions after data collection, participants could proceed only if they answered all attention checks correctly (4 items; multiple choice). We added self-identification as vegan as a control variable (“Do you presently consider yourself a vegan?” yes/no); and an open-ended question about participants’ opinion regarding the researcher being personally affected to explore how laypeople rationalize their opinion. These responses were later coded for valence (positive, negative, mixed, or neutral) and content (deductive and inductive coding) by two raters blind to the specific research question (see Appendix C in the supplementary materials, https://osf.io/phfq3/ ; interrater reliability for valence, Cohen’s κ = .86, p < .01; and for content, Cohen’s κ = .74, p < .01). Again, the questionnaire closed with a sign-up for a lottery and more information as well as a debriefing.
Our randomized groups did not differ in regard to PES (PES frequency, p = .147; PES experiences, p = .101). However, they did differ significantly in regard to the general perception of neutrality in science ( p = .049). Possible implications are addressed in the Discussion. Table 3 summarizes all means, standard deviations, correlations and internal consistencies. In the following, we report our findings for all three dependent variables (trustworthiness, credibility, evaluation of the entire field), consecutively.
Variable | α | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Expertise | 4.68 | 0.91 | .92 | ||||||||
2. Integrity/ benevolence | 4.75 | 0.75 | .90 | .71 | |||||||
3. Epistemic trustworthiness | 4.72 | 0.76 | .94 | .92 | .93 | ||||||
4. Credibility | 3.97 | 0.96 | .86 | .66 | .70 | .73 | |||||
5. Evaluation of field | 2.95 | 0.78 | .85 | -.40 | -.43 | -.45 | -.64 | ||||
6. Attitudes towards veganism | 4.26 | 1.23 | .95 | .04 | .15 | .11 | .39 | -.46 | |||
7. Neutrality expectation | 4.18 | 0.91 | .86 | .05 | .06 | .05 | .08 | -.26 | .02 | ||
8. PES frequency | 3.30 | 0.68 | .75 | -.13 | -.06 | -.10 | -.03 | -.03 | .11 | .08 | |
9. PES experiences | 6.47 | 3.25 | - | -.14 | -.09 | -.12 | -.09 | .03 | .07 | -.02 | .51 |
Note . N = 307.
*** indicates p < .001. α represents internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α). Variables 1–7 ranged from 1 to 6, variable 8 ranged from 1–5 and variable 9 ranged from 0–15.
First, we ran the standardized regression model for epistemic trustworthiness. There was neither a significant main effect of condition on epistemic trustworthiness, beta = 0.04, p = .482, 95% CI beta [-0.07, 0.15] nor a significant main effect of attitudes towards veganism, beta = 0.07, p = .205, 95% CI beta [-0.04, 0.18]. However, the hypothesized condition × attitudes interaction effect was significant, beta = 0.22, p < .001, 95% CI beta [0.11, 0.34], increasing the amount of explained variance in trustworthiness by 4% to R 2 adj = .05. Table 4 summarizes the results. Fig 2A and standardized simple slopes analyses show that participants with more positive attitudes towards veganism (+1 SD above sample mean) trusted Dr. Lohr more when personally affected vs. not affected, beta = 0.26, p = .001, 95% CI beta [0.11, 0.42]. This conditional effect was reversed for participants with more negative attitudes (-1 SD below sample mean), who trusted Dr. Lohr less when personally affected vs. not affected, beta = -0.19, p = .020, 95% CI beta [-0.34, -0.03]. The interaction effect remained significant when controlling for participants’ self-identification as being vegan ( p < .001, total R 2 adj = .06). In secondary analyses, we explored the effects on the two facets of epistemic trustworthiness, separately. The same pattern of interaction effects emerged for both integrity/benevolence ( p < .001, total R 2 adj = .08) and expertise ( p = .005, total R 2 adj = .02); full analyses are reported in Appendix D in the supplementary materials (see https://osf.io/phfq3/ ).
Linear regression plots for the interaction effect of attitudes × condition on epistemic trustworthiness (Fig 2A), credibility (Fig 2B) and critical evaluation of the entire field (Fig 2C) with 95% confidence intervals: Participants’ attitudes towards the research topic moderated how a researcher’s disclosure of being personally affected (vs. being not personally affected) by one’s own research was perceived.
Predictor | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
95% CI | 95% CI | |||
Epistemic trustworthiness | ||||
condition | 0.04 | [-0.07, 0.15] | .00 | [-.01, .01] |
attitudes | 0.07 | [-0.04, 0.18] | .01 | [-.01, .02] |
condition × attitudes | 0.22 | [0.11, 0.34] | .05 | [.00, .10] |
Credibility | ||||
condition | -0.07 | [-0.17, 0.03] | .01 | [-.01, .02] |
attitudes | 0.35 | [0.25, 0.45] | .12 | [.05, .18] |
condition × attitudes | 0.25 | [0.15, 0.35] | .06 | [.01, .11] |
Critical evaluation of field | ||||
condition | -0.00 | [-0.10, 0.10] | .00 | [-.00, .00] |
attitudes | -0.41 | [-0.51, -0.31] | .17 | [.09, .24] |
condition × attitudes | -0.27 | [-0.37, -0.18] | .07 | [.02, .12] |
On credibility, there was no significant main effect of condition, beta = -.07, p = .146, 95% CI beta [-0.17, 0.03] but a significant main effect of attitudes towards veganism, beta = .35, p < .001, 95% CI beta [0.25, 0.45]. As predicted, the condition × attitudes interaction effect was also significant for credibility, beta = 0.25, p < .001, 95% CI beta [0.15, 0.35], increasing the amount of explained variance in credibility by 6% to R 2 adj = .21. Table 4 summarizes these results. Fig 2B and standardized simple slope analyses qualify the interaction effect: In line with the results for trustworthiness, participants with more positive attitudes (+1 SD above sample mean) anticipated Dr. Lohr’s future findings to be more credible when personally affected vs not affected, beta = 0.18, p = .016, 95% CI beta [0.03, 0.32], while the conditional effect for participants with more negative attitudes (-1 SD below sample mean) changed its sign, beta = -0.32, SE ( B ) = 0.14, p < .001, 95% CI beta [-0.47, -0.18]. As before, the interaction effect remained significant when controlling for self-identification as being vegan ( p < .001, total R 2 adj = .21).
Third, we investigated whether this moderation effect generalizes to the evaluation of the entire field of veganism research. There was no significant main effect of condition, beta = -.00, p = .989, 95% CI beta [-0.10, 0.10] but a significant main effect of attitudes, beta = -.41, p < .001, 95% CI beta [-0.51, -0.31]. Again, we found the hypothesized condition × attitude interaction effect, beta = -.27, p < .001, 95% CI beta [-0.37, -0.18], increasing the amount of explained variance in critical evaluation by 7% to R 2 adj = .27. Again, Table 4 summarizes these results and Fig 2C and standardized simple slopes analyses further qualify the interaction effect: Participants with more positive attitudes towards veganism (+1 SD above sample mean) were less critical of research on veganism when Dr. Lohr was personally affected vs. not affected, beta = -0.28, p < .001, 95% CI beta [-0.41, -0.14]. By contrast, this conditional effect was reversed for participants with more negative attitudes towards veganism (-1 SD below sample mean), beta = 0.27, p < .001, 95% CI beta [0.14, 0.41]. This interaction effect also remained significant when controlling for self-identification as being vegan ( p < .001, total R 2 adj = .28).
Overall, participants who responded to the open-ended question expressed mostly negative opinions about the researcher being personally affected by his own research (negative: 48%, neutral: 21%, positive: 17%, and mixed: 14%). The most frequently mentioned (negative) remark was that a “me-searcher” might be biased towards their research (60%; e.g., “ By introducing himself as being affected , I fear he cannot evaluate the results of his research objectively ”). The second most frequently mentioned remark was that such idiosyncratic relevance is irrelevant (24%; e.g., “ It wouldn’t make a difference ”). Positive remarks were mentioned less frequently: Participants ascribed more motivation (11%; e.g. “ I think interest , also personal interest , is an important prerequisite for determined research ”) or knowledge about the topic (8%; e.g. “ Very good , most likely , he thus is knowledgeable about the subject matter and can conduct the study in a more purposeful manner ”) to the “me-searcher”, or recognized the transparency (7%; e.g., “ The main thing is transparency . People are always biased , perhaps even unconsciously ”; for more details, see Appendix C in the supplementary materials: https://osf.io/phfq3/ ).
In Study 2, we replicated the moderation effect of preexisting attitudes on the effect of a researcher disclosing being personally affected (vs. not affected) by their own research on participants’ epistemic trustworthiness and credibility ascriptions regarding the research and researcher’s future findings. Further, we showed that this effect generalizes to the evaluation of the entire research area. Here, positive attitudes towards veganism determined how learning about an openly vegan researcher impacted participants’ perceptions of trustworthiness and credibility as well as the evaluation of the entire field of veganism research compared to learning about a non-vegan (i.e., non-affected) researcher. Participants who held more positive attitudes towards veganism reported more trust, higher anticipated credibility of future findings, and a less critical evaluation of the field when confronted with a vegan researcher. Conversely, for participants with less positive attitudes this effect was reversed. The moderation by positive attitudes towards veganism persisted when controlling for participants’ self-identification as vegans. Overall, the interaction effects observed in Study 2 explained similar amounts of variance as in Study 1 (epistemic trustworthiness: 3% vs. 4%, and credibility: 4% vs. 6%). Further, qualitative analyses revealed that most participants reported negative–or, at least, mixed–perceptions of a “me-searcher” (e.g., “me-searchers” may be biased, but also highly motivation and knowledgeable), which corroborated our theoretical prediction that “me-search” may be a double-edged sword. Interestingly, these qualitative findings seem somewhat contradictory to the quantitative findings, according to which there was no main effect of researchers’ idiosyncratic affection by their research topic.
In Study 2, one caveat is that the groups differed significantly in regard to participants’ general expectations of neutrality in science. Participants who read about the personally affected researcher had weaker expectations of neutrality; yet, when added to the regression model as a control, the pattern of results remained unchanged (see Appendix E in the supplementary materials, https://osf.io/phfq3/ ). Further, as a second caveat, we show that participants generalized their perceptions to the overall field of veganism research. However, this research area might be considered quite narrow and, thus, future research should investigate how far such generalization processes stretch out to perceptions of broader areas of research (e.g., health psychology).
In two studies, we show that laypeople’s perception of researchers who disclose being personally affected by their own research can be positive as well as negative: The effect of such “me-search” was moderated by laypeople’s preexisting attitudes. Queer or vegan researchers were perceived as more trustworthy and their future findings were anticipated to be more credible when participants had positive, sympathizing attitudes towards the related research object (i.e., LGBTQ community or veganism). When participants’ attitudes were less positive, this pattern reversed. In Study 2, we extended our research from individualized perceptions of single researchers and their findings to evaluations of the entire field of research. Participants who were confronted with a personally affected researcher seemed to consider this person a representative example and generalized their judgment to their evaluation of the entire (though here quite narrow) research area.
We explored epistemic trustworthiness in more detail in both studies, namely the cognitive-rational facet of expertise and the affective facet of integrity/benevolence: Both were impacted by researchers’ disclosure of being personally affected, although effect sizes for expertise were descriptively smaller than for integrity/benevolence. This points to “me-search”–when received positively–possibly adding to the perception of competence-related aspects like a deeper knowledge of a phenomenon (e.g., via anecdotal insights) [ 12 – 14 ] and, even more so, warmth-related aspects like seeming more sincere, benevolent, transparent and, thus, approachable [ 15 , 16 , 41 ]. Disclosing such personal interest in a scientific endeavor might be able to bridge the stereotypical perception of cold and distant “science nerds” by revealing passionate, human and, thus, more relatable side of a researcher. When received negatively, however, “me-search” might be regarded as harboring vested interests, which casts doubts on a researcher’s neutrality and objectivity [ 8 – 11 , 42 ].
In general, the main models tested here explained between 5% and 28% of variance which may not appear impressive at first glance. However, our studies posed a very strict test of the effects of “me-search” by only using a subtle manipulation sparse in information followed by measures of very specific perceptions which might have contributed to an understatement of the real-world impact.
“Me-search” neither automatically sparks trust nor mistrust in laypeople, even if their explicit opinions seem rather negative. In line with assumptions from motivated science reception [ 22 , 43 ], our findings suggests that the ambivalence of the fact that a researcher is personally affected can be seized as an opportunity to interpret the situation in a manner that best fits to preexisting attitudes: Researchers, their findings and even their entire field of research are evaluated–even before learning about specific findings–based on prior attitudes towards the research topic. We show in Study 2 that the moderation effect of participants’ positive attitudes towards the respective research topic (i.e., veganism) prevails when controlling for self-identification with the topic (i.e., being a vegan). This suggests that, indeed, in motivated reasoning attitudinal and identity-related processes can be differentiated: Here, social identity protection could be ruled out as alternative explanation for the effects of pre-existing attitudes. Noteworthily, we demonstrate that motivated science reception already operates when the results are not (yet) known. This points towards a perceptual filter made up of pre-existing attitudes that is activated when confronted with scientific information and leads to biased pre-judgments: Ambivalent cues (i.e., “me-search”) are prematurely interpreted in line with prior attitudes without actually knowing whether the new scientific information will be attitude-consistent or inconsistent (when, later, results are reported).
Future research on the motivated reception of “me-search” should focus on three open questions. First, while we consider it a strength of our studies that the results of the proposed research project were not yet known, it might be interesting to see how being personally affected or not interacts with the perceived direction of the communicated scientific results (e.g. supporting vs. opposing a certain position): To what extent can the first, premature evaluation of a “me-searching” researcher be adapted if the actual results are inconsistent with this pre-judgment?
Second, the investigation of what specific characteristics of “me-search” are instrumentalized by benevolent or skeptical perceivers might not only provide practical tips on how to handle being personally affected (e.g., in science communication) but also important theoretical insights on the building blocks of trust in science and researchers (see discussion above regarding the effects on the facets of epistemic trustworthiness). As one example, knowing that a qualitative level of knowledge is highly valued could further research on the trust-benefit of enriching statistical evidence with anecdotal and narrative elements [ 44 , 45 ]. As second example, we argue that researchers’ self-disclosure of being personally affected by their research might signal transparency and, thus, improve the perception of the trust facets integrity and benevolence. Yet, even the disclosure of not being personally affected could have such an effect on a researcher’s reputation and, at the same time, it might be less ecologically valid (as, presumably, it is rather unusual to explicitly state to not be affected by something). Introducing a control group without any information about a researcher’s relation towards their research object might bring light to this.
Third, we demonstrated the moderation effect of preexisting attitudes for two research areas (i.e., LGBTQ and veganism) and in different populations. Yet, further research should investigate whether this effect will hold up for other areas, more diverse samples and different kinds of “me-search”, as well. For example, in some research fields being personally affected by the research might be perceived as more morally charged than in others and, thus, having stronger polarizing effects [ 46 ]: While, in veganism-research, “me-search” might be grounded in an ideological choice (e.g., thinking its morally wrong to consume animal products and, thus, being vegan), having a stroke and, following, studying stroke-related brain plasticity is likely perceived as less ideological. Also, different scientific methods (typically) used in a field might impact the perceptions of “me-search” depending on how prone for subjectivity these methods are perceived to be (e.g., qualitative “me-search” like autoethnographic analyses might be perceived more critically than when using seemingly objective, quantitative methods like physiological measures). Further, researchers who are not directly personally affected by their research but “merely” interested in something for personal reasons (e.g., being highly empathetic towards queer concerns without identifying as queer) might not profit from disclosure of such personal motivations: Such researchers might be perceived as impostors [ 47 ] lacking the expertise stemming from directly firsthand experiences.
Finally, for the applied perspective on public engagement with science, it should again be noted, that motivated reasoning processes are activated even before specific results are presented (e.g. before hearing a talk or reading about a study). This might be important, as judgments are quickly formed and remembered [ 48 , 49 ] and, therefore, the first impression of a researcher might set the tone for further interactions and, particularly, for the acceptance and implementation of their findings. This emphasizes the importance of researchers knowing their audience (and their attitudes) when engaging in science communication.
Of course, there are also ethical considerations concerning “me-search”: Researchers should always declare any conflict of interests when conducting research [ 50 , 51 ]. Failing to disclose being personally affected by one’s own research might backfire severely on researchers’ reputation–especially concerning their trustworthiness and the credibility of their findings–and in particular, when this information is disclosed by someone else and not themselves. At least for achieving positive reputational effects, it seems researchers need to freely initiate the disclosure of limitations and problems themselves [ 41 , 52 ]. A possible solution for reaping all the benefits and protecting against the potential harms of engaging in “me-search” might be to actively seek out mixed research teams. Including affected as well as non-affected individuals in research projects might be worth considering from the stance of the public’s trust in science: It enables deep, even personal insights to the studied phenomenon, while still securing balanced perspectives and impartiality.
Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor became famous for turning her “stroke of fate” into productive and well-selling “me-search”. Yet, she was praised as well as heavily criticized for mixing her personal and scientific motivations: When research is also “me-search”, it can be perceived positively as well as negatively depending on laypeople’s preexisting attitudes towards the research object. Researchers who disclose being personally affected by their own research can benefit from this disclosure in terms of trustworthiness and credibility when it is perceived by laypeople with positive attitudes; however, for audiences with more negative attitudes this effect is reversed and disclosure can be harmful. One experience with a personally affected researcher might be enough to impact the evaluation of the whole field. Thus, openly acknowledging “me-search” in one’s research is an ambivalent matter and its communicative framing as well as the targeted audience should be well considered.
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
19 Mar 2021
PONE-D-20-38206
When research is me-search: Researcher interests affect laypeople’s trust in science depending on their pre-existing attitudes
Dear Dr. Altenmüller
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
VI have now received three reviews of your MS. All three reviewers see merit in the research presented in the paper. Two reviewers recommend publication after minor revision, whereas the third has recommended major revision, in particular in relation to the statistical analysis applied. In view of the comments of reviewer two, I am recommending major revision and would like to invite you to revise and resubmit the MS. As well as addressing al of the reviewers comments, please address the issues associated with the regression analysis raised by reviewer 2 in your resubmission.
I have received three reviews of your MS. All three reviewers see merit in the research presented in the paper. Two reviewers recommend publication after minor revision, whereas the third has recommended major revision, in particular in relation to the statistical analysis applied. In view of the comments of reviewer two, I am recommending major revision and would like to invite you to revise and resubmit the MS. As well as addressing al of the reviewers comments, please address the issues associated with the regression analysis raised by reviewer 2 in your resubmission.
Please submit your revised manuscript by 1st June 2021 If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Lynn Jayne Frewer, MSc PhD
Academic Editor
Journal Requirements:
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Partly
Reviewer #2: No
Reviewer #3: Yes
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: I like this line of research very much and think it's useful and largely well done. I wish you had a more diverse and larger sample but ... maybe next time. It's not necessary, it'd just make the results (especially in study 1 where you don't have a lot of non-LGBTQ friendly respondents.
Some concerns I have ...
1. Ecological validity for the 'non-affected' condition: It's not clear to me why anyone would ever say that they're studying something because they don't identify with it. I think, more likely, someone might just NOT say why they're studying something and just describe what they're studying with no context. Alternatively, a scientist might say they study something because (a) it personal affects them, or (b) it's just an interesting set of puzzles, or (c) both.
2. It's also probably worth making clear that disclosing that research is personally affecting the respondent is conceptually different from saying that a respondent is motivated by benevolence. In this regard, I worry a bit that both respondents are kind of making a (weak) benevolence claim that might be attenuating the results. As future research, you might consider research that adds a clear "and my motivation is to help this community ..." message as a condition. I also don't really understand the last sentence in either condition. They seem fairly vague.
3. Is 'affected' the right word? 'Interested' (as in conflict of interest) seems closer but that word may have too much baggage. But 'affected' has baggage too and we're all 'affected' by research in these areas. Maybe 'involved'?
4. I do not understand your argument about how the second study rules out social identity protection. More generally, I don't know that social identity protection and attitude protection are necessarily incompatible given that my identity might make it more likely that I hold certain evaluative beliefs (aka the basis of attitudes). And the fact you're vegan doesn't mean that veganism is a core part how you identify. If you want to get at identity protection, I'd want more evidence than this. I think you'd be better just to talk about motivated reasoning in a more general sense.
Some technical suggestions ...
1. You sometimes present percentages with two decimals, which is essentially four decimals (inasmuch as 21.34% = .2134), but your sample is less than a 1K people. This would seem to suggest that you're trying to be more precise than is reasonable. Id' just stick to two decimals throughout unless you have a good reason.
2. Does it make sense to call your behavioral trust measure 'credibility'? I worry a bit about this because there's so much variability in the trust literature when it comes to what we call the various constructs. In this regard, I note that credibility is often conceptualized as competence (even going back to Hovland in 1951). I think it might be safer just to talk about 'behavioral trust as willingness' to be vulnerable as that fits with the Roger/Davis/Schoorman model that the Muenster epistemic inventory is derived.
3. It'd be great if your tables and figures were a bit more descriptive such that they can 'stand alone'. In this regard, you might add sample sizes as well as variable range. The figure, in particular, are impossible to understand without referring to the text. In those cases, a detailed note is one important step but it'd also help to better label your axes and use a readable font.
4. Does it really make sense in the second study to include the bit about the overall field? In this regard, is vegan research really 'the field'? Why wouldn't the field be vegetarian studies? Or food studies? Or nutrition? Or biological science? You define field so narrowly that I'm not sure what this additional element adds.
5. You note that the effect sizes for expertise were smaller than the effect sizes for integrity/benevolence but can you really say that? I don't recall you testing the size of the difference, noting that the estimates have error associated with them such that they could easily overlap.
Reviewer #2: Thank you for making your data and analysis scripts openly available. The code seems to run fine and I can reproduce the results.
Method. Sample size
1. I appreciate that you took the effort to provide a power analysis, but post-hoc power is not particularly informative. What the reader needs to know is: given a specific sample size (N = 314), what is the smallest effect one can detect? In this case, it is r = .16 80% of the time, or r = .20 95% of the time. Or, since you’re using means comparisons, this is roughly a d = .32 80% of the time, or a d = .41 95% of the time. [I used the pwr() package for this].
I recommend adjusting this description to provide this information.
What I would like to see presented are the partial r correlations from the regression. It seems that, from your description, the most informative predictor here is ‘participant positive attitude’ and that needs to be compared to the other IV. Yes, there is an interaction, but the slopes are all positive in figure 1a and 1b, suggesting it’s simply a difference in strength rather than a manipulation of the direction of the effect. This can be seen in the figures (which are nice by the way, but please upload higher quality versions).
I recommend reporting the full regression model in a table along with partial correlations and standardised coefficients rather than only the raw coefficients in text.’
It would really be nice to have all the results in one table so that they can be easily compared across studies: I suggest including standardized betas and partial correlations.
‘Evaluation of the field’. It’s claimed that participants positive attitudes towards veganism moderate evaluations such that the effect changes direction, and the text points to Figure 2c. I think this must be a mistake: the slopes and CIs reported in-text are simply opposite of each other (eg b = -.43 and b = .43). Further, the graphs 2c depicts only negative slopes.
Figure 2a, in contrast, shows slopes with opposing directions. Please double check this.
The adjusted R squared for trustworthiness is tiny: R = .05. I’m not sure what to make of these effects, leaving me wondering about the value of this model. The size is similar between both studies, suggesting this is probably accurate.
Again, without partial R values, it’s hard for the reader to compare the relative strength of these effects and judge their merit.
The adjusted R-squared values for credibility and evaluation of the field are upwards of R = .20, which is more convincing (and this is noted in the discussion).
In the Study 2 discussion, the authors suggest that “The moderation…persisted when controlling for self-identification as a vegan… this has to be interpreted carefully.” I suggest you remove this caution or ignore the effect: either interpret something or don’t. There is no carefulness when you report an effect with an accompanying p-value. If you are not convinced that this result is not a fluke then simply describe your data. Either way, please remove this claim of caution.
Finally, you note that the expectations of neutrality was affected by the manipulation and claim this effect is “small” (d = .22). This is actually more of an average effect size in social/personality studies (see Funder & Ozer, 2019 and Gignac & Szodorai, 2016). I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it.
Additionally, earlier on in the manuscript (under Main effect of being affected) you interpret a similarly sized d = .25 at face value. If you have determined an alpha level of .05 as your criteria (which you did, and you also can see that smallest effect size based on the power analysis), you should stick to that criteria throughout and simply interpret the effects.
Finally, I admit that I am a bit puzzled by the overall pattern here: participants were less critical when Dr Lohr was affected; they saw results as more credible when Dr Lohr was affected; they trusted the results more when Dr Lohr was demonstrably biased?
What would happen if you asked the participant to rate whether the researcher is biased?
General Discussion
This is again an issue in the general discussion: you claim that ‘when participant attitudes were less positive, this pattern flipped…” but this pattern did not flip. We simply see a reduction in strength.
Conclusions
In sum, I think the key variable here is participant attitudes towards the topic. I’m not convinced of the moderation effect here for several reasons.
First, it does not reverse the direction of the effect: this is key for the claim
Second, the moderation itself is small. There’s not much of a difference between any two given slopes (with the exception of Figur 2a).
Third, the whole idea strikes me as strange: participant attitudes drive the effect always in a positive direction. Even when the researcher admits to being biased, participants don’t evaluate him more negatively. Plus, ‘bias’ itself wasn’t measures as far as I saw.
I think this is an interesting set of studies but it needs a bit more data to rule out some possible effects and I think the interpretation needs to be revised. I’d like to see these points addressed in a revision and I hope my comments are helpful in that regard.
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156-168.
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and individual differences, 102, 74-78.
Reviewer #3: This paper examines how peoples’ attitudes toward a topic influence their evaluation of research and researchers’ trustworthiness - in the context of research topics which have personal relevance to the researchers.
I believe the aim of this study is very interesting and timely, and a great addition to the research; the study is well done. Also positive is the osf documentation and preregistration of study 2.
While I am quite enthusiastic about the paper, I also have a few issues to remark:
Reading your abstract for the first time, I was a bit confused whose attitudes and interests you were talking about when and what you were measuring – Maybe lead the reader straighter to the point, instead of mirroring your introduction (even though the intro read quite smoothly)?
Methods and Results:
• Please report the results of the factor analyses justifying the scales for testing your hypotheses, can be in the supplement as well.
• p values should be reported in accord with APA reporting guidelines, not p < .05.
• Clearly state what you are testing when comparing the groups with attitudes +- 1SD from mean. “A regression was performed…” or as appropriate.
• Table 1,2 and probably a question of taste: I don’t know of a convention in which Cronbach’s alphas are displayed in the diagonal of a correlation table. Since they’re conceptually something different than correlations, I would suggest moving them to a single column.
• I don’t see a theoretical reason why you should test trustworthiness, and then the two scales separately, would you please justify this? (I think this should be avoided, if there is no indication from theory, and since the results are interdependent anyway. Reminds me of MANOVA)
Discussion (and maybe Introduction):
Finally, and probably most importantly, I am a bit unsure about your interpretation of the main effect on trustworthiness following the experimental variation – you discuss two ideas, and only in the “future research” section: a) there is a preference for anecdotal evidence vs. other types of evidence, i.e. someone affected has some type of special access to a research topic, and b) disclosing being affected / transparency signals benevolence (by the way, in line with intentionalist models of communication). Don’t your results – when dividing the trustworthiness measure into expertise and benevolence/integrity provide some (sure, provisional) evidence that allow you to dive deeper into these explanations in your argumentation? I believe your explanations of this effect could be argued more thoroughly. To that point, while I think it is alright that you only pose an exploratory research question in the introduction, here, you actually almost only provide anecdotal evidence yourselves to argue that question (which you may want to be clear about).
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .
Reviewer #1: No
Reviewer #3: No
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
Response to Reviewers
First, we would like to thank all reviewers for raising valid concerns regarding the first version of our manuscript.
Reviewer #1:
I like this line of research very much and think it's useful and largely well done. I wish you had a more diverse and larger sample but ... maybe next time. It's not necessary, it'd just make the results (especially in study 1 where you don't have a lot of non-LGBTQ friendly respondents.
Thank you. We have included this aspect as a potential limitation of our research and an outlook to future research to the General Discussion, p. 28: “Yet, further research should investigate whether this effect will hold up for other areas, more diverse samples and different kinds of “me-search”, as well.”
Thank you for this comment. First, based on your feedback, we have now refined what we mean by “me-search” and what - in our view - is the opposite of “me-search” (see p. 3). We now clarify that “me-search” or “being affected by a certain research topic” means pursuing a scientific question when the answer to that question is idiosyncratically relevant for the individual researcher as opposed to when the answer is relevant per se.
Regarding the design of our studies: Our intention in construing the “not affected” condition in that manner was to keep the factor “self-disclosure” constant. This means that in both conditions the research discloses his personal relation to the topic which is either idiosyncratically relevant (as the researcher is directly affected by it) or not idiosyncratically relevant (as the researcher is not directly affected by it). However, we agree that this way we might have involuntarily reduced the ecological validity as a byproduct. We now voice this concern in the General Discussion (p. 27-28: “Yet, even the disclosure of not being affected could have such an effect on a researcher’s reputation and, at the same time, it might be less ecologically valid (as, presumably, it is rather unusual to explicitly state to not be affected by something).”
This is an interesting point, thanks! With our studies, we are trying to investigate whether respondents actually make these benevolence inferences from researchers’ disclosure of “me-search”, and our results suggest that they do – if they hold a generally positive attitude towards the respective research topic.
Regarding the phrasing of our manipulation, our intention was to keep the research goal (more evidence-based knowledge) constant while varying the driving interest (affected vs. not affected), without producing too much demand by a public statement about desired outcomes (e.g., to support the community’s demands). We agree that both conditions might signal some benevolence (we argue via transparency) and that it would be interesting to test such a benevolence inference process more directly. Thus, in the General Discussion, we suggest to test this in future research thoroughly by introducing a more neutral control group: “Introducing a control group without any information about a researcher’s relation towards their research object might bring light to this.” (p. 28).
With this concern you hit the mark on something we also debated at length before deciding on the word “affected”. We feel, the German word „betroffen sein“ is semantically a combination of “being affected by something” and “being involved in something”. We agree that “involved” might have “less baggage” but it does not reflect the directly personal aspect of me-search (i.e., idiosyncratic relevance). For example, you could already be “involved” in something when a team member is affected. Further, “interested” can also be very unpersonal/neutral (e.g., when I find something scientifically interesting). Thus, we decided on “being affected” to best capture the German “betroffen sein”. We added more clarification in the Introduction (p.3) on what we exactly mean by “me-search”, as mentioned in an Author Response above, by adding the term “idiosyncratic relevance”. Still, we use “being affected” to reflect that it is not just a personal relevance (e.g., when debating whether to become vegan or strongly emphasizing with a certain group) but that you are already affected by the situation (e.g., when you already are vegan). We also extended our discussion on different kinds of me-search in the General Discussion section in line with this reasoning: “Further, researchers who are not directly personally affected by their research but “merely” interested in something for personal reasons (e.g., being highly empathetic towards queer concerns without identifying as queer) might not profit from disclosure of such personal motivations: Such researchers might be perceived as impostors [46] lacking the expertise stemming from directly firsthand experiences.” (p.28).
We fully agree that identity protection and attitude protection might go hand in hand (as you suggest, a social identity makes it most certainly more likely to have some corresponding attitudes). However, while these two might often co-occur, they still could be grounded in different psychological processes. In Study 2, we find some evidence for this.
Here, we asked participants specifically whether they “identified” as vegan (however, we did not ask for the strength or centrality of this identity). This identification as vegan did not have any independent effects and did not diminish the other effects when added as control variable in our regression models. At first, glance this seems at odds with prior findings on motivated reception being also driven by identity protection efforts (e.g., see studies by Nauroth and colleagues: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.1998 , https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117476 , https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516631289 ). This might be due to the specific situation we presented: In contrast to most research on motivated reception, we did not confront participants with specific findings or (pro/con) statements but an open-ended situation where results were not yet known. However, while identity did not play a role here, we did find an effect of attitudes in line with motivated reception. Thus, we interpret this as indication that this motivated reception effect based on participants’ attitudes might be functionally different from motivated reception effects based on identity protection. We argue that attitudes might work as broader perception filter that functions even before specific content (i.e., the scientific results) is known, while identity protection might need a specific threat (e.g., scientific evidence calling into question beliefs central to an identity) to lead to motivated responses (e.g. discrediting researchers and their findings when knowing what they say).
As these conclusions are, indeed, tentative, we refrain from overemphasizing their implications by only shortly mentioning them in the General Discussion (see p. 27-28: “This suggests that, indeed, in motivated reasoning attitudinal and identity-related processes can be differentiated: Here, social identity protection could be ruled out as alternative explanation for the effects of pre-existing attitudes.”).
Thank you for the suggestion, we changed the display of our percentages accordingly.
We fully agree, that trust-related concepts are defined differently by different people. Thus, we totally see the point in clearly defining the terms as we used them in our own research: We use the term “credibility” in clear (verbal) contrast to the term “trustworthiness” to make a distinction between person-related and evidence-related trust/credibility. Our factor analyses support this differentiation empirically (see Appendix A https://osf.io/phfq3/?view_only=a3694575674944fababa32b696e6e645 ). In addition, we added a clarifying note in the manuscript: p. 7 “[…] Of note, we use the term “credibility” to differentiate evidence-related trust/credibility from person-related trust/credibility, i.e. “trustworthiness”.”
We added more information to our tables and figures. The figures were uploaded in a higher quality and with better readable labels.
We agree, “veganism research” can only be considered as a very narrow field of research. It might be interesting to investigate how far the generalization stretches out to broader fields as you suggest. The point we make here might be considered a first step, showing that individual experiences of “me-search” are generalized to a broader circle of science reception. In Study 2, we discuss this now as a caveat (p.25: “Further, as a second caveat, we show that participants generalized their perceptions to the overall field of veganism research. However, this research area might be considered quite narrow and, thus, future research should investigate how far such generalization processes stretch out to perceptions of broader areas of research (e.g., health psychology).” And we added a small note in our General Discussion (p. 25: “Participants who were confronted with a personally affected researcher seemed to consider this person a representative example and generalized their judgment to their evaluation of the entire (though here quite narrow) research area.”).
Indeed, we only compared these descriptively. We make this clearer now, by adding “descriptively” in the respective sentence (p. 26 “[…], although effect sizes for expertise were descriptively smaller than for integrity/benevolence.”).
Reviewer #2:
Thank you for making your data and analysis scripts openly available. The code seems to run fine and I can reproduce the results.
Thank you for the recommendation. We changed our post hoc power analyses in Study 1 to sensitivity analyses as you suggested. We used G*Power again and arrive at the same results as you using the pwr() package (p.8: “We conducted sensitivity analyses using G*Power [34] for determining which effect sizes can detected with this sample in a moderated (multiple) regression analysis: At α=0.05 and with a power of 80%, small-to-medium effects (f²≥0.03) can be detected with this sample”).
Thank you for the suggestions. We now report standardized regression analyses and included tabular displays of the standardized regression coefficients and semi-partial correlations for all our multiple regression analyses (see Table 2 and 4). Further, we uploaded the figures in better quality and better readable labels.
Here, we are talking about the simple slopes which are reversed (slope of the predictor when the moderator is held at +/-1 SD). These simple slopes analyses are not directly reflected in the slopes of our figures as we here display the pattern from a different “angle” to help illustrate the conditional effects (mean differences between conditions at different values of the moderator): Here, the moderator is printed on the x-axis (instead of being displayed as slopes held at +/- 1 SD) and the slopes are separated by condition (instead of being displayed on the x-axis). To prevent confusion, we now clarified that in our phrasing in both Results sections (see also below).
As is now easily comparable (thanks to your suggestion regarding the standardized regression model and the semi-partial correlations), the effect we are most interested in, the interaction effect, is actually quite similar in size between all dependent variables in both studies. We agree, that these effects may appear small and that our models do not explain a lot of variance in total. However, we think our results can be considered relevant and we might even have underestimated the real-world impact of “me-search” for two reasons: 1) Our experimental manipulation was relatively subtle. 2) Participants were asked to judge the researchers on quite specific characteristics on the basis of very little information. We added a paragraph in the General Discussion dedicated to this aspect: “In general, the main models tested here explained between 5% and 28% of variance which may not appear impressive at first glance. However, our studies posed a very strict test of the effects of “me-search” by only using a subtle manipulation sparse in information followed by measures of very specific perceptions which might have contributed to an understatement of the real-world impact.” (p. 26).
We removed the claim of caution (see p. 24).
We removed the interpretation of the effect size, as the more important argument we want to make is the fact that adding neutrality expectations as control did not change the pattern of results: “Participants who read about the personally affected researcher had weaker expectations of neutrality; yet, when added to the regression model as a control, the pattern of results remained unchanged (see Appendix E in the supplementary materials, […]).” (p.25)
Thank you for these questions! In response, we analyzed the qualitative data from Study 2 and added these insights to the manuscript. Please, see our response to your last comment below.
Saying „the pattern flipped“, we wanted to express the fact that the conditional effect (mean between the conditions at +/-1 SD of attitudes towards the topic) changes its sign. We clarified that in our phrasing throughout both Results sections.
Regarding your first and second conclusion: please, see Author Responses above. Regarding your third conclusion: We understand that it might appear odd at first glance that „me-search“ might have negative as well as positive effects on trust in science. However, we think that makes our two studies noteworthy. Following your question what – if asked directly – participants might say about an affected researcher, we decided to include the qualitative data we assessed in Study 2 (participants’ self-reported opinion on the researcher being affected) in the paper. Here, it becomes clear that most participants express a negative or at least mixed opinion about a researcher being affected, the argument of potential bias being mentioned most often in the open text responses. However, on average, the affected researchers in both studies were not judged more negatively than the not affected researchers. We added the analyses and interpretation of the qualitative data throughout the text:
Study 2 – Method, p. 18: “[…] and an open-ended question about participants’ opinion regarding the researcher being personally affected to explore how laypeople rationalize their opinion. These responses were later coded for valence (positive, negative, mixed, or neutral) and content (deductive and inductive coding) by two raters blind to the specific research question (see Appendix C in the supplementary materials, https://osf.io/phfq3/?view_only=a3694575674944fababa32b696e6e645; interrater reliability for valence, Cohen’s κ=.86, p<.01; and for content, Cohen’s κ=.74, p<.01).”
Study 2 – Results, p. 23-24: “Participants’ Opinion. Overall, participants who responded to the open-ended question expressed mostly negative opinions about the researcher being affected by his own research (negative: 48%, neutral: 21%, positive: 17%, and mixed: 14%) about the researcher being affected by his own research. The most frequently mentioned (negative) remark was that a “me-searcher” might be biased towards their research (60%; e.g., “By introducing himself as being affected, I fear he cannot evaluate the results of his research objectively”). The second most frequently mentioned remark was that such idiosyncratic relevance is irrelevant (24%; e.g., “It wouldn’t make a difference”). Positive remarks were mentioned less frequently: Participants ascribed more motivation (11%; e.g. “I think interest, also personal interest, is an important prerequisite for determined research”) or knowledge about the topic (8%; e.g. “Very good, most likely, he thus is knowledgeable about the subject matter and can conduct the study in a more purposeful manner”) to the “me-searcher”, or recognized the transparency (7%; e.g., “The main thing is transparency. People are always biased, perhaps even unconsciously”; for more details, see Appendix C in the supplementary materials: https://osf.io/phfq3/?view_only=a3694575674944fababa32b696e6e645 ).”
Study 2 – Discussion, p. 24-25: “Further, qualitative analyses revealed that most participants reported negative – or, at least, mixed – perceptions of a “me-searcher” (e.g., “me-searchers” may be biased, but also highly motivation and knowledgeable), which corroborated our theoretical prediction that “me-search” may be a double-edged sword. Interestingly, these qualitative findings seem somewhat contradictory to the quantitative findings, according to which there was no main effect of researchers’ idiosyncratic affection by their research topic.”
General Discussion, p. 26: “’Me-search’ neither automatically sparks trust nor mistrust in laypeople, even if their explicit opinions seem rather negative. In line with assumptions from motivated science reception […]”
Reviewer #3:
This paper examines how peoples’ attitudes toward a topic influence their evaluation of research and researchers’ trustworthiness - in the context of research topics which have personal relevance to the researchers.
Thank you for this feedback. We clarified the phrasing in the abstract.
We added the factor analyses in appendix A: See also p. 9 Factor analyses (see Appendix A in the supplementary materials, https://osf.io/phfq3/?view_only=a3694575674944fababa32b696e6e645 ) suggest that a two-factor model (with expertise and integrity/benevolence) fit the data better than a three-factor model (as suggested by [36]), corroborating the idea of a cognitive-rational dimension and an affective dimension of trustworthiness [37].”
We changed the display of our p values to exact values with three decimals in the text and to significance-indicators (*) of up to three decimals in the tables.
We performed simple slopes analyses and described the conditional effects (see response to Reviewer 2). This was not made clear enough, so we specified that in our phrasing in the manuscript throughout both Results sections.
We changed the correlation tables (now Table 1 and 3) accordingly.
In this paper, we focused on overall trustworthiness and credibility. However, to gain further insights into the „building blocks of trust in science“ (see discussion on p. 27), we also explored whether and how the two facets of epistemic trustworthiness might be differentially impacted: While highly correlated, both might differentially impacted by “me-search” as there is reason to believe the two facets are, in fact, fueled by different perceptions (i.e., expertise by perceived competence and integrity/benevolence by more communal aspects). Thus, while not the focus of this paper, the separate analyses provide some tentative insights that are worth following up upon in future research (see also Author Response to the following concern).
We fully agree with these assumptions and discuss these in the General Discussion in two paragraphs (i.e., regarding the effects on the two facets of epistemic trustworthiness and in the future research section). We tried to connect and refine these paragraphs, so that the argumentation becomes clearer (p. 26: “This points to “me-search” – when received positively – possibly adding to the perception of competence-related aspects like a deeper knowledge of a phenomenon (e.g., via anecdotal insights) [12–14] and, even more so, warmth-related aspects like seeming more sincere, benevolent, transparent and, thus, approachable [15,16,41].” and p. 27: “[…] but also important theoretical insights on the building blocks of trust in science and researchers (see discussion above regarding the effects on the facets of epistemic trustworthiness). As one example, knowing that a qualitative level of knowledge is highly valued could further research on the trust-benefit of enriching statistical evidence with anecdotal and narrative elements [44,45].”).
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
16 Jun 2021
When research is me-search: How researchers' motivation to pursue a topic affects laypeople's trust in science
PONE-D-20-38206R1
Dear Dr. Altenmuller
We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.
Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .
When Research is Me-Search: How Researchers’ Motivation to Pursue a Topic Affects Laypeople’s Trust in Science
Dear Dr. Altenmüller:
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .
If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr. Lynn Jayne Frewer
Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.
Extracurriculars.
What’s covered:, how to pick the right research topic, elements of a strong research paper.
Composing a research paper can be a daunting task for first-time writers. In addition to making sure you’re using concise language and your thoughts are organized clearly, you need to find a topic that draws the reader in.
CollegeVine is here to help you brainstorm creative topics! Below are 100 interesting research paper topics that will help you engage with your project and keep you motivated until you’ve typed the final period.
A research paper is similar to an academic essay but more lengthy and requires more research. This added length and depth is bittersweet: although a research paper is more work, you can create a more nuanced argument, and learn more about your topic. Research papers are a demonstration of your research ability and your ability to formulate a convincing argument. How well you’re able to engage with the sources and make original contributions will determine the strength of your paper.
You can’t have a good research paper without a good research paper topic. “Good” is subjective, and different students will find different topics interesting. What’s important is that you find a topic that makes you want to find out more and make a convincing argument. Maybe you’ll be so interested that you’ll want to take it further and investigate some detail in even greater depth!
For example, last year over 4000 students applied for 500 spots in the Lumiere Research Scholar Program , a rigorous research program founded by Harvard researchers. The program pairs high-school students with Ph.D. mentors to work 1-on-1 on an independent research project . The program actually does not require you to have a research topic in mind when you apply, but pro tip: the more specific you can be the more likely you are to get in!
The introduction to a research paper serves two critical functions: it conveys the topic of the paper and illustrates how you will address it. A strong introduction will also pique the interest of the reader and make them excited to read more. Selecting a research paper topic that is meaningful, interesting, and fascinates you is an excellent first step toward creating an engaging paper that people will want to read.
A thesis statement is technically part of the introduction—generally the last sentence of it—but is so important that it merits a section of its own. The thesis statement is a declarative sentence that tells the reader what the paper is about. A strong thesis statement serves three purposes: present the topic of the paper, deliver a clear opinion on the topic, and summarize the points the paper will cover.
An example of a good thesis statement of diversity in the workforce is:
Diversity in the workplace is not just a moral imperative but also a strategic advantage for businesses, as it fosters innovation, enhances creativity, improves decision-making, and enables companies to better understand and connect with a diverse customer base.
The body is the largest section of a research paper. It’s here where you support your thesis, present your facts and research, and persuade the reader.
Each paragraph in the body of a research paper should have its own idea. The idea is presented, generally in the first sentence of the paragraph, by a topic sentence. The topic sentence acts similarly to the thesis statement, only on a smaller scale, and every sentence in the paragraph with it supports the idea it conveys.
An example of a topic sentence on how diversity in the workplace fosters innovation is:
Diversity in the workplace fosters innovation by bringing together individuals with different backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences, which stimulates creativity, encourages new ideas, and leads to the development of innovative solutions to complex problems.
The body of an engaging research paper flows smoothly from one idea to the next. Create an outline before writing and order your ideas so that each idea logically leads to another.
The conclusion of a research paper should summarize your thesis and reinforce your argument. It’s common to restate the thesis in the conclusion of a research paper.
For example, a conclusion for a paper about diversity in the workforce is:
In conclusion, diversity in the workplace is vital to success in the modern business world. By embracing diversity, companies can tap into the full potential of their workforce, promote creativity and innovation, and better connect with a diverse customer base, ultimately leading to greater success and a more prosperous future for all.
The reference page is normally found at the end of a research paper. It provides proof that you did research using credible sources, properly credits the originators of information, and prevents plagiarism.
There are a number of different formats of reference pages, including APA, MLA, and Chicago. Make sure to format your reference page in your teacher’s preferred style.
If you need more help brainstorming topics, especially those that are personalized to your interests, you can use CollegeVine’s free AI tutor, Ivy . Ivy can help you come up with original research topic ideas, and she can also help with the rest of your homework, from math to languages.
Disclaimer: This post includes content sponsored by Lumiere Education.
My Speech Class
Public Speaking Tips & Speech Topics
Jim Peterson has over 20 years experience on speech writing. He wrote over 300 free speech topic ideas and how-to guides for any kind of public speaking and speech writing assignments at My Speech Class.
Some examples of common research paper styles include:
Your research essay topic may also need to be related to the specific class you are taking. For example, an economics class may require a business research paper, while a class on human behavior may call for a psychology research paper.
The requirements for your paper will vary depending on whether you are in high school, college, or a postgraduate student. In high school, you may be able to choose an easy topic and cite five or six sources you found on Google or Yahoo!, but college term papers require more in-depth research from reliable sources, such as scholarly books and peer-reviewed journals.
Do you need some help with brainstorming for topics? Some common research paper topics include abortion, birth control, child abuse, gun control, history, climate change, social media, AI, global warming, health, science, and technology.
But we have many more!
On this page, we have hundreds of good research paper topics across a wide range of subject fields. Each of these topics could be used “as is” to write your paper, or as a starting point to develop your own topic ideas.
Can We Write Your Speech?
Get your audience blown away with help from a professional speechwriter. Free proofreading and copy-editing included.
The first step to developing an interesting research paper is choosing a good topic. Finding a topic can be difficult, especially if you don’t know where to start. Finding the Right Research Paper Topic
If you are in a class that allows you to choose your own term paper topic, there are some important areas to consider before you begin your project:
Your Level of Interest: Research papers are time-consuming; you will be spending countless hours researching the topic and related topics, developing several primary and secondary sources, and putting everything together into a paper that is coherent and accomplishes your objectives. If you do not choose a topic you are passionate about, the process will be far more tedious, and the finished product may suffer as a result.
Your Level of Experience: Being interested in a topic is great, but it is even more helpful if you already know something about it. If you can find a topic that you already have some personal and/or professional experience with, it will vastly reduce the amount of research needed and make the whole process much easier.
Available Information on the Topic: Be sure to choose a topic that is not only interesting but also one that has numerous sources available from which to compile your research. A researchable topic with several potential sources gives you access to the level of information you need to become an authority on the subject.
Your Audience: An interesting topic to you may not necessarily be interesting to your professor or whoever is grading your research paper. Before you begin, consider the level of interest of the person(s) who will be reading it. If you are writing a persuasive or argumentative essay, also consider their point of view on the subject matter.
As you begin researching your topic, you may want to revise your thesis statement based on new information you have learned. This is perfectly fine, just have fun and pursue the truth, wherever it leads. If you find that you are not having fun during the research phase, you may want to reconsider the topic you have chosen.
The process of writing the research paper is going to be very time consuming so it’s important to select a topic that is going to sustain your interest for the duration of the project. It is good to select a topic that is relevant to your life since you are going to spend a long time researching and writing about it. Perhaps you are considering starting your own business or pursuing a career in politics. Look through the suggested research paper topics and find one in a category that you can relate to easily. Finding a topic that you have some personal interest in will help make the arduous task a lot easier, and the project will have better results because of your vested interest.
Affirmative action, health, pharmacy, medical treatments, interpersonal communication, marketing and advertising, barack obama, discrimination, bill clinton, hilary clinton, computer crimes and security, cosmetic surgery, controversial, criminal justice, donald trump, easy/simple, environment, family violence, foreign policy, gambling and lotteries, the lgbtq community, generational conflict, gun control, hate crimes, immigration, middle east, maternity/paternity leave, natural disasters, police work, population explosion, pornography, prisons and prisoners, prostitution, ronald reagan, student loan debt, teen issues, women, mothers, what, why, and how, relationships.
We compiled an exhaustive list of topics that would make excellent research papers. The topics are specifically organized to help you find one that will work for your project. Broad topics are headed, and then below them are narrowed topics, all to help you find an area to focus on. The way we have organized the topics for research papers can save you lots of time getting prepared to write your research paper.
We have topics that fit into categories that cover such areas as education, environmental sciences, communication and languages, current events, politics, business, criminal justice, art, psychology, economics to name just a few. Simply get started by choosing the category that interests you and peruse through the topics listed in that category and you’ll be well on your way to constructing an excellent research paper.
Be sure to check other topics ideas: persuasive speech topics , argumentative speech topics , policy speech topics . We also have some sample outlines and essay templates .
Top 10 Microphone Isolation Shield Reflectors + Buyer’s Guide 2021
Best Microphones for Streaming, Gaming and Live Chats in 2022
How has music evolved? How has music effected history? Music of the past vs music of the present. How has the music industry effected the music’s quality?
Do you think abortion is legal? Why they do abortion?
Why are people instinctively afraid of animals that are not mammals?
Should abortion be legalized? Should domestic abuse and child abuse victims be granted clemency for killing their abuser?
Jewish holocaust and its contribution to European History, specifically Germany
What is the most popular college in the United States?
The Black Knight: Space Waste or Alien Satellite? The Moon Landing: Real or Hollywood Hoax? Have We Become Too Politically Correct? Paranormal Research: Real? Fake? Should it be offered in college? Who really was Jack the Ripper? Can a zombie apocalypse truly occur? Who is the best or worst president of the USA? The Men in Black: real or hoax?
Why Marching Band is a sport.
Marching band is not a sport
how did aids start?
Topic : Alternative medicine Research question : Does the alternative medicine is safe and standardized Hypothesis : analyse the quality controle of alternative medicine formulations
Does our nostalgic music/childhood songs affect our present lifestyle, and in what ways?
reverse discriminations is still discrimination so there’s no such thing as that. like reverse racism isn’t a thing because that is still racism
Men on birth control and not women.
You forget the topic Islamophobia 😉
You should add a music section. Is Muzio Clementi overshadowed by Mozart? The Toccata and Fugue in D- really wasn’t written by Bach The use of the “Dies Irae” in cinema Why is modern music so repetitive and simple compared to classical music?
I want to do a research project on Education
I want to research but not get a perfect topic help me give me a best topic about current affairs
Topic: History. Are the Crusades oversimplified? where they justified? If so, how? Topic: Current affairs. Is the term “conspiracy theory” used to discredit any non-mainstream, controversial opinions. Topic: Gun control. Does limiting magazine capacity for firearms have any effect on gun crime? Are high-capacity magazines ever necessary for self-defense? Topic: Economics. Are minimum wage laws necessary to guarantee “decent”, or do the laws of supply and demand automatically ensure that?
Are women funny?
I accept the Privacy Policy
Vivamus integer non suscipit taciti mus etiam at primis tempor sagittis euismod libero facilisi.
© 2024 My Speech Class
In school and college, you will be required to write research papers. Yes — papers in the plural. And that’s the first reason you may want to turn to Custom Writing and seek help with research projects.
When assigned a paper, the very first undertaking is to choose from a list of research topics. This is a daunting, even intimidating task, one that many people would prefer to circumvent altogether.
The good thing is:
There are hundreds of exciting and fun research topics for high school or college students from which to choose. With a variety of options, you are likely to find some interesting things to research. When you have good ideas and help available, this task becomes less threatening and more engaging.
But first: Let’s verify you have a complete comprehension of what writing a research paper entails. After all, you can’t be creative with an idea if you don’t know how to write about it. Then, you’ll find numerous interesting research topics for your work.
💉 health topics for research papers.
If you aren’t clear on what a research paper is, then you won’t get very far when writing one. A research paper is just as its name suggests — a form of academic writing that necessitates the independent investigation of a specified topic and reports the unique results of that investigation.
Suny Empire State College provides a great and exhaustive explanation of what a research paper is.
In order to write a paper, you are required to formulate a research question. This is a question associated with your topic that acts as a guide during your research, enabling you to focus and provide unique arguments.
Before you can produce a research question, you have to choose from countless research topics available. Another useful thing to do would be checking out free sample research papers . With that in mind, let’s examine how you can discover some unique research paper topics.
The choice of a research paper topic can be influenced by a number of factors, including:
Hopefully, you have been given some freedom of choice regarding academic paper topics. However, if you do have some choice in the matter, you might be speculating about how to narrow it down.
You are in luck!
There are a number of ways to effectively comb through the abundance of research paper topics and discover one that will work well for you. Here are some suggestions:
When it comes down to it, deciding on one of the many academic essay topics is the most substantial step of the process.
Once you have that narrowed down, you can focus your research and write a remarkable paper. Now, we want to give you some help. What follows is an extensive list of the most interesting research topics to get you started.
Now that you have a good idea of how to search for college research paper topics, you are ready for some suggestions. You might like one of them right off the bat, or you might be inspired by a particular topic and write something related to it.
Want to know the best part?
By the time you are finished reading this academic topics list, you will feel much more equipped for writing your research paper. For even better result, have a brainstorming session with a research topic generator to introduce a bigger variety of options.
Perhaps some of the best college research topics these days are in the IT field. Explore one of these interesting ideas in your paper:
Human history is full of exciting events, and despite what you might believe, not all of them have been explored. There are many incredible history research topics, such as:
Psychology has to offer plenty of interesting ideas for you to research. Just look through the discoveries made over the past decades, and you can understand that the human mind holds as many mysteries as the deep ocean.
It is why we would like to suggest a list of great experimental research topics in psychology. The science of human behavior is even more exciting when you can try your theories on practice.
If you still can’t decide on the topic for your research paper or thesis, just look through this collection of compelling proposals to give yourself an inspirational boost.
Research project ideas around education are always changing. This has resulted in a wide range of research topics, such as:
Perhaps there is nothing more complex than human culture and how people have interacted with each other throughout history. For this reason, these cultural topics might be of interest to you:
It is easy to find unique argumentative research paper topics. After all, we live in a crazy world in which all kinds of interesting things happen. Here are some suggestions:
Science is always bursting with new and exciting topics as we delve deeper into the mysteries of the universe and technology. Here are a few topic suggestions:
Just like science, health care is always changing, particularly as technology advances. With new discoveries in disease research and new technology being developed every day, the following topics are great examples of what you can write about in your paper:
Business is a broad field, so there are plenty of topics you can write about, such as:
Sometimes, there is no surrogate for a great paper on literature, and with the changing world, there are always innovative ways to observe literature, even the classics. Here are a few topic suggestions:
The world of politics is ever-changing. Understanding the complex mechanisms that regulate our lives is challenging. That’s why a research paper is a great way to clarify the matter. Whether you’re interested in global or local affairs, this section has got you covered.
Who says you can’t combine academia and entertainment? Great conclusions can come from fun research. The most important thing is to ask the right questions. Check out the following prompts and get inspired:
As an additional interest for studies, a sociology research paper can be written with the purpose of learning this or that aspect of society’s life. You may use personal experience or continue the research started by other authors. Interesting research projects in this area can be based on the following topics:
It is essential to remember that a good research paper on the subject of sociology will be appreciated by readers if you study a specific social phenomenon in detail, carry out statistical analysis, and perform a number of important procedures. The purpose of a research paper in this field is to cover current public issues, reveal important aspects of various problems, and, if possible, offer optimal solutions. This science requires concrete and well-grounded answers. Any deviations and ambiguous arguments can be regarded as an author’s incompetent attempt to investigate a complex topic.
With all of these topics at your disposal, you might still be feeling a little overwhelmed. However, they are divided into categories to make choosing one easier. It might also be helpful to look at some great research paper samples .
Composing a research proposal can sometimes be a part of a big study. If you not only want to describe a specific problem or to convey an idea to your readers, but also expect to promote your personal theory and receive the approval of a respected scientific community, it’s necessary to choose a topic which allows you to present your own ideas. Different types of writing can be included in this category: an analytical research paper, work on identifying the best ways and techniques for a particular topic, etc. The preparation of research proposal articles has some nuances, and the following topics can be studied:
The video below provides detailed instructions on how to write a research proposal. It is crucial to follow these rules so that the article to be up-to-date and properly formatted. Any attempts to bring something new are generally welcome; however, it is important not to forget about established rules.
A nursing research paper is an academic article that has specific format requirements. Citation rules in particular are very important, for example, an APA research paper format . In order to write a perfect paper and conduct high-quality research, follow the formatting rules and use any of these topics:
The compliance with the specific research project ideas will allow you to write a high-quality paper and will give you the opportunity to conduct research at a high level. Having completed the document, you can summarize and identify its crucial points. Following the rules of formatting is an integral part of working on any academic text.
In the process of writing research articles, it is necessary to adhere to a certain topic. You can choose any theme you want. A research paper will be successful if you stick to your topic and provide a real search for optimal ways of solving a particular issue. There are a few suggestions that can be helpful in the process of writing. If we talk about such an interesting sphere as the world of art, themes can be as follows.
Every culture has its distinct music. For many people, music is an integral part of everyday life. Film and theater productions use it to steer our emotions. When writing about music, you can choose from an endless number of ideas to research. Here are some examples:
There are more rules to creative writing than one might think. For example, narratives should be coherent, and world-building has to follow certain logic. Analyzing these peculiarities brings you one step closer to becoming a better writer.
You still haven’t found what you were looking for? This section might have what you need! Here you’ll find all kinds of topics. From psychology over physics to sociology, we compiled the most engaging ideas for you.
There are so many resources out there that will help you choose a topic and write an outstanding paper. This video gives you a bunch of topics for research papers, which means you now have even more from which to choose!
There is no doubt that writing a research paper is a daunting task.
If you feel you need help, even if you have managed to choose a topic, you can always hire a custom writing service to help you produce a fabulous research paper of which you will be proud and will guarantee you a good mark.
Whether you choose to write it on your own or get some help, we wish you luck writing your paper!
There are literally thousands of topics to choose from. “Biomarkers and colors: what is the correlation?” is a great topic on psychology. Should businesses be regulated: pros and cons is an exciting business research topic. Finally, Art as a form of protest is an art research topic worth exploring.
The first option is to ask your professor. Then you can browse through scientific journals and take a look at your library catalog. The final option for those who search for a creative idea is to take notes everywhere. Write things down while traveling, watching TV, and reading.
The Big Bang theory, Dwarf galaxies, and Supernova Astronomy are just a few of numerous astronomy research topics. Genetically modified organisms, Neurobiology of sleep, and Rainforest conservation are exciting research biology research topics. Artificial intelligence, Computer modeling, and Voice recognition are trendy computer science topics.
There are numerous exciting topics in various education research areas. Some of them are: Ability grouping, Computer literacy, Early childhood education, Multiculturalism, Parental involvement, Sex education, Violence in schools, and Virtual classrooms.
You might also be interested in:
The success of any college essay depends on the topic choice. If you want to impress your instructors, your essay needs to be interesting and unique. Don’t know what to write about? We are here to help you! In this article by our Custom-Writing.org team, you will find 335 interesting...
Social studies is an integrated research field. It includes a range of topics on social science and humanities, such as history, culture, geography, sociology, education, etc. A social studies essay might be assigned to any middle school, high school, or college student. It might seem like a daunting task, but...
If you are about to go into the world of graduate school, then one of the first things you need to do is choose from all the possible dissertation topics available to you. This is no small task. You are likely to spend many years researching your Master’s or Ph.D....
Looking for a good argumentative essay topic? In need of a persuasive idea for a research paper? You’ve found the right page! Academic writing is never easy, whether it is for middle school or college. That’s why there are numerous educational materials on composing an argumentative and persuasive essay, for...
Persuasive speech is the art of convincing the audience to understand and trust your opinion. Are you ready to persuade someone in your view? Our list of sports persuasive speech topics will help you find a position to take and defend. If you need more options quick, apart from contents...
Can there possibly be anything fun about academic writing? It seems there is – what are all those fun persuasive speech topics then for, after all? However, creating a bunch of good topics might seem hard the first time around. No need to worry though – there’s always plenty of...
A persuasive speech on any topic is a performance designed to convince people about something and prove your point. Choosing a suitable topic is crucial for your speech’s success. Do you need some help with finding easy topics for a persuasive speech? Then check these fantastic and easy ideas from...
Do you know the secret place where people go to get their good informative speech topics? Looking for an interesting topic for speech? Congratulations, because you’ve just found it! So, if you’re ready to get some really good topics for an informative speech, all you need to do is to...
A proposal argument is an essay in which you describe a specific issue that needs fixing. It focuses on problem solutions. Are you interested in writing high-quality proposal essays? Or maybe you’re wondering what can make your writing truly outstanding? Here you will find answers to these questions as well...
Sometimes you just wish there was a marketplace with vendors shouting, “Topics for argument essays! Who wants inspirational topics to write about?” Well, you are lucky enough: you’ll find plenty of inspiring things here! Coming up with some argument essay topics is quite easy! In this article, you’ll find some...
Are you searching for original, thought-provoking, and really controversial debate topics? Here they are! Selecting any of these 25 controversial topics for debate from Custom-writing.org, you can guarantee a heated dispute in class or exciting polemics with your friends. But first, let’s figure it out, what is debate and how you should pick up great...
Perhaps, each person has unforgettable memories of school life. It might be their first day when everything seemed to be exciting and unknown. Or it might be some picnic or trip when they spent a great day outside with their classmates. Writing a high school experience essay requires you to...
I want an essay research on The implementation of nursing theories in practice
I want an easy research in linguistics can u suggest an easy topic?
I didnt saw research topics in suggestion for linguistics
am looking for research topic on politics or ethics
I’m looking for a research paper on the vape culture among the youth.
I ‘m looking for research topic on digital marketing
I’m doing a mini research on qualitative research. I need some topics for qualitative research.Can you help me?
I am looking for research topics on dispensary optician care
The rooftop where a gunman shot at former President Donald Trump during a campaign rally was identified by the Secret Service as a potential vulnerability in the days before the event, two sources familiar with the agency’s operations told NBC News.
The building, owned by a glass research company, is adjacent to the Butler Farm Show, an outdoor venue in Butler, Pennsylvania. The Secret Service was aware of the risks associated with it, the sources said.
“Someone should have been on the roof or securing the building so no one could get on the roof,” said one of the sources, a former senior Secret Service agent who was familiar with the planning.
Understanding how the gunman got onto the roof — despite those concerns — is a central question for investigators scrutinizing how a lone attacker managed to shoot at Trump during Saturday’s campaign event.
The Secret Service worked with local law enforcement to maintain event security, including sniper teams poised on rooftops to identify and eliminate threats, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said. But no officers were posted on the building used by the would-be assassin, outside the event’s security perimeter but only about 148 yards from the stage — within range of a semiautomatic rifle like the one the gunman was carrying.
The Secret Service had designated that rooftop as being under the jurisdiction of local law enforcement, a common practice in securing outdoor rallies, Guglielmi said.Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger said his office maintains an Emergency Services Unit team, which deployed four sniper teams and four “quick response teams” at the rally. But he said the Secret Service agents were in charge of security outside the venue.
“They had meetings in the week prior. The Secret Service ran the show. They were the ones who designated who did what,” Goldinger said. “In the command hierarchy, they were top, they were No. 1.”
Goldinger said the commander of the Emergency Services Unit told him it was not responsible for securing areas outside the venue. “To me, the whole thing is under the jurisdiction of the Secret Service. And they will delineate from there,” he said.
The former senior Secret Service agent also said that even if local law enforcement “did drop the ball,” it’s still the agency’s responsibility “to ensure that they are following through either beforehand or in the moment.”
“Just because it is outside of the perimeter, it doesn’t take it out of play for a vulnerability, and you’ve got to mitigate it in some fashion,” the source added.
A volley of shots rang out minutes into Trump’s speech. He reached for his right ear — he said later it was pierced by a bullet — then dropped to the ground as Secret Service agents rushed to shield him. Trump emerged with blood on his ear and his face. One attendee was killed , and two others were injured.Witnesses listening to Trump’s speech from outside the event’s security perimeter recalled pointing out the gunman to law enforcement a couple of minutes before the shooting began. After the gunfire started, Secret Service personnel shot and killed the 20-year-old gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks .
The clamor over the Secret Service’s biggest failure since the shooting of President Ronald Reagan in 1981 is coming from both political parties, from former agents and from security experts.
“My question is: How did he get onto that roof undetected?” said Anthony Cangelosi, a former Secret Service agent who worked on protective details for presidential candidates, including John Kerry in 2004.
The Secret Service’s work on campaign events like Saturday’s begins with advance planning, setting up a security perimeter and positioning teams on the ground and on rooftops — often in partnership with local law enforcement. The ground deployments include a counterassault team, and the rooftop personnel include counter-sniper teams.
Guglielmi, the Secret Service spokesman, said the agency had two of its counterassault agents at the event and filled out the rest of the platoon with at least six officers from Butler County tactical units. The Secret Service also deployed two counter-sniper teams. Two other security units needed for the event were staffed by local law enforcement agencies, Guglielmi said. Those details were first reported by The Washington Post.Investigators will want to examine the Secret Service’s site security plan for the rally, said Cangelosi, the former Secret Service agent. He expects they’ll discover one of two things: Either officials failed to make an effective plan for keeping potential shooters off the building Crooks fired from, or officers on the ground failed to execute the plan.
“I don’t like making any assumptions, but it does look like some mistakes were made, that this was preventable,” said Cangelosi, now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
Although it’s common to task local law enforcement agencies with patrolling outside an event’s security perimeter, Cangelosi said, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all vulnerabilities are covered rests with the Secret Service.
If officials had placed an officer on the building where the gunman fired from, Cangelosi said, chances are he “wouldn’t even attempt what he attempted.”
“You don’t surrender the discretion of what’s supposed to be done to the local police,” he said. “In other words, you guys have the outer perimeter, but you would want to say, ‘We need an officer on that roof.’ Not ‘that’s your responsibility; do what you see fit.’”
Jim Cavanaugh, a retired special agent in charge with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who has worked on Secret Service details, told NBC News that while the Secret Service did a good job taking out the gunman after shots began, the failure to post officers on the building he scaled was “a tremendous lapse.”
“The only way to stop that is you have a lot of people, you get there first, and you command the high ground,” Cavanaugh said. “This is basic, and the Secret Service has done it for years successfully, so I’m really surprised that they did not have that high ground covered.”
The questions extended to Congress, where members demanded answers from the Secret Service and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security.“This raises serious concerns regarding how a shooter was able to access a rooftop within range and direct line of sight of where President Trump was speaking,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., wrote in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
Green asked Mayorkas to provide documentation relating to the event’s security plan, the screening of attendees and the level of resources provided to Trump’s Secret Service detail. A committee spokesperson told NBC News that Republican members would hold a briefing with Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle on Monday “to voice their concerns and ask pressing questions.”
Another lawmaker, Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., wrote Cheatle asking who approved the security plan, whether a proper threat assessment was conducted, whether attendees raised alarms and whether there were failures in following protocols that allowed the attack to happen.
“I call on all those responsible for the planning, approving, and executing of this failed security plan to be held accountable and to testify before Congress immediately,” Gallego wrote in a letter to Cheatle .
Robert McDonald, a former Secret Service agent who ran protection for Joe Biden when he was vice president, told NBC News that he believes the assassination attempt will prompt soul-searching and procedural changes at the agency.
“The Secret Service is going to need to ask some hard questions of itself here and be prepared to stand up and represent why, what happened,” McDonald said.
Cangelosi, the former Secret Service agent, said investigators are also likely to ask when agents identified Crooks as a potential threat, how they reacted and whether it’s possible they could have taken him down before he fired at Trump.Secret Service snipers are trained to make rapid decisions, he said. But it’s possible that if they noticed Crooks on the roof but couldn’t tell whether he had a rifle, agents might have waited to fire on him.
“If the sniper can’t tell whether he has a gun, he or she is not going to take the shot,” Cangelosi said. “Because God forbid it’s a child who’s just excited to see a political candidate, right? So you want to make sure that there’s actually a threat.”
If there was uncertainty, Cangelosi said, it’s possible the sniper team would have dispatched officers to investigate and confirm. But investigating a potential threat can take minutes, he said, while a gunman with a semiautomatic rifle can fire several shots in a matter of seconds.
That’s why, Cangelosi said, the best defense would have been to plan ahead to keep the shooter off the roof in the first place.
“Who wants to be in that position?” he said of the snipers protecting Trump on Saturday. “You’ve got to make a split-second call. And imagine if you’re wrong.”
Sarah Fitzpatrick is a senior investigative producer and story editor for NBC News. She previously worked for CBS News and "60 Minutes."
Julia Ainsley is the homeland security correspondent for NBC News and covers the Department of Homeland Security for the NBC News Investigative Unit.
Mike Hixenbaugh is a senior investigative reporter for NBC News, based in Maryland, and author of "They Came for the Schools."
Andrea Mitchell is chief Washington correspondent and chief foreign affairs correspondent for NBC News.
Jon Schuppe is an enterprise reporter for NBC News, based in New York.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Discover 250+ interesting topics to research that captivate readers' interest. Explore categories, techniques, and tips for engaging research. ... Personal Interests: Researching a topic you're genuinely passionate about can turn the entire process into an exciting adventure. Your enthusiasm will show in your work and make it more engaging ...
In conclusion, choosing a research topic (from research topic examples for students) is a pivotal step in a student's academic journey. By considering personal interests, aligning with academic goals, and exploring examples across different domains, students can unlock the potential for meaningful and impactful research.
Exploring Personal Interests and Experiences. Your personal interests and experiences can be a rich source of inspiration for research topics. Consider what you are passionate about and how it intersects with your field of study for your research paper ideas. Choose a topic that interests you. Keeping Up with Current Trends and Developments
1000+ FREE Research Topics & Title Ideas. Select your area of interest to view a collection of potential research topics and ideas. AI & Machine Learning. Blockchain & Cryptocurrency. Biotech & Genetic Engineering. Business & Management. Communication. Computer Science & IT. Cybersecurity.
Here are the two things that a great statement of research interests or SOP will do: It will clearly illustrate to the admissions committee that you possess a depth of interest and comprehension in your field and that you understand what goes into research. You will sound naïve if you talk about ideas that are too vague or nebulous, or ones ...
This will help you present yourself as a well-rounded and knowledgeable candidate for the program. When writing about your research interests for an admissions committee, it is important to be concise and clear. First, create a brief overview of the research topic that you are interested in. When possible, provide examples of how your research ...
The best research topics include personal interests, academic relevance, and potential impact. For example, if you're passionate about environmental conservation, you might explore the effectiveness of reforestation efforts in mitigating climate change, examining case studies from different regions for comprehensive analysis.
Examples of systemic racism-related psychology research topics include: Access to mental health resources based on race. The prevalence of BIPOC mental health therapists in a chosen area. The impact of systemic racism on mental health and self-worth. Racism training for mental health workers.
Step 5: Narrow down, then evaluate. By this stage, you should have a healthy list of research topics. Step away from the ideation and thinking for a few days, clear your mind. The key is to get some distance from your ideas, so that you can sit down with your list and review it with a more objective view.
Finalizing the Research Topic. Choose the research topic that resonates with your personal interests and goals: Aligns with personal interests and goals. Ensure that the topic aligns with your passion and long-term aspirations. Manageable and achievable. Select a topic that is realistically achievable within the given time frame and resource ...
113 Great Research Paper Topics. Posted by Christine Sarikas. General Education. One of the hardest parts of writing a research paper can be just finding a good topic to write about. Fortunately we've done the hard work for you and have compiled a list of 113 interesting research paper topics. They've been organized into ten categories and ...
Choosing a Topic. 1. Brainstorm possible topic ideas. Consider your personal interests. Talk about topics and your personal interests with classmates and peers. Reflect on interesting social media content you've recently encountered. Most social media content is not scholarly but can be explored with scholarly research from academic sources.
A good research interest statement sample can be hard to find. Still, it can also be a beneficial tool for writing one and preparing for a grad school application or post-graduate position. Your research interest statement is one of the key components of your application to get into grad school.In a few cases, admissions committees have used it instead of an interview, so it is important to ...
The purpose of a research topic is to identify a specific area of inquiry that the researcher wants to explore and investigate. A research topic is typically a broad area of interest that requires further exploration and refinement through the research process. It provides a clear focus and direction for the research project, and helps to ...
Identify Your Research Interests. As an undergraduate student, you are not expected to know exactly what your area of focus will be. Most likely, you are still discovering and developing your interests and that's okay. However, without having some ideas about what you're interested in, you'll quickly find that searching for opportunities can be ...
Not all writing assignments have a personal dimension, but our interests and concerns are always, at their roots, personal. ... When scoping out possible research topics, it is important to remember to choose a topic which will sustain your interest throughout the research and writing process. The best research topics are those which are ...
Similarly, revealing a personal interest or even passion for a particular research topic (e.g., due to being personally affected) could also overcome the stereotypical perception of scientists as distant "nerds in the ivory tower" [15, 16]: researchers who openly disclose the idiosyncratic relevance of their research topic may appear more ...
66 research ideas Here are 66 research ideas divided into categories to help you generate your next research topic: Health research ideas Here are some research ideas related to health:. Diagnostic testing: You can use this topic to write about a specific type of test, such as x-ray technology, or you could compare several tests. Allergy and asthma: You can study the effects or causes of ...
Interests related to technology including information technology, physical technology and digital media.Personal interests can include hobbies, leisure activities, arts, sports, community activities, volunteer positions, cultural activities, traditional practices, recreation, extracurricular activities, research topics, self-learning and ...
Composing a research paper can be a daunting task for first-time writers. In addition to making sure you're using concise language and your thoughts are organized clearly, you need to find a topic that draws the reader in. CollegeVine is here to help you brainstorm creative topics! Below are 100 interesting research paper topics that will ...
Some examples of common research paper styles include: Argumentative Research Papers. Persuasive Research Papers. Education Research Papers. Analytical Research Papers. Informative Research Papers. Your research essay topic may also need to be related to the specific class you are taking. For example, an economics class may require a business ...
The Big Bang theory, Dwarf galaxies, and Supernova Astronomy are just a few of numerous astronomy research topics. Genetically modified organisms, Neurobiology of sleep, and Rainforest conservation are exciting research biology research topics.
The rooftop where a gunman shot at former President Donald Trump during a campaign rally was identified by the Secret Service as a potential vulnerability in the days before the event, two sources ...