Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/438743
research+insights Null Results Aren't Necessarily Void IT'S CLEAR TO SEE a study's impact when its results are significant or repre- sent a clear departure from conventional wisdom. But what if researchers find nothing instead? Often, those results are discarded. When faculty don't publish studies with null or insignificant results, it's bad for scholarship, say three researchers from Stanford University in California. They include Neil Malhotra, professor of political economy at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, as well as lead author Annie Franco and Gabor Simonovits, both of Stanford University's department of political science. The group analyzed 249 studies conducted between 2002 and 2012 as part of the Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences (TESS) pro- gram. They disqualified incomplete studies and those that had appeared as book chapters. The remaining 221 studies were placed into three catego- ries: strong, with supported hypotheses; null, with little or no support; and mixed. Sixty percent of "strong " studies and 50 percent of "mixed" studies were published, compared to only 20 percent of "null" studies. The researchers see three problems with this outcome. First, if studies with null results aren't published, many other scholars waste time repeat- ing unsuccessful experiments. Second, if other researchers conduct the same studies but have statistically significant results, the discrepancy between their studies and the unsuccessful studies is never known. Finally, without knowledge of null studies, researchers might lose objectivity and push for results that aren't there. The authors call for the creation of more "high-status publication outlets" for studies with null results and a requirement for researchers to pre-register studies. They argue that academia needs to do more to con- vince scholars "not to bury insignificant results in file drawers." "Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer" was published in the September 19, 2014, issue of Science. 12 BizEd JANUARY | FEBRUARY 2015 Small Rewards Is justice served when a criminal is punished? Maybe, maybe not. If criminals are given even token punishments, many people view that as "justice served"—and, so, are less likely to com- pensate victims for their suffering, say Gabrielle Adams, assistant professor of organizational behavior at London Business School in the U.K.; and Elizabeth Mullen, associate professor of management at George Washington University School of Business in Washington, D.C. Adams and Mullen asked 29 participants how much they wanted to punish a perpetrator before they asked them about how much they wanted to compensate the victim. They asked a second group of 29 the same two questions, in reverse order. The pair found that those in the first group gave less compensation to the victim than those in the second. Next, they presented simulated court verdicts to 191 participants. Some verdicts punished perpetrators heavily; others, lightly. Participants then were asked to decide how much to fine criminals and award victims. When criminals received token punishments, partici- pants awarded less money to victims. But they fined perpetrators the same, regardless of the level of punishment. The authors point out that in many coun- tries, criminal cases must be decided before victims can pursue monetary compensation in civil cases. But this system could provide more advantage to criminals than victims, who might not be given the help they need to move on, says Adams. "Punishment and compensation, it seems, are not mutually substitutable," she says. "This is one reason why victims of crime often do not receive the attention they deserve after a crime has been com- mitted." "Punishing the Per- petrator Decreases Com- pensation for Victims" was published online by Social Psychological and Personality Science on July 11, 2014.