The scientific quality of social and personality psychology has been debated at great length in recent years. Despite research on the prevalence of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) and the replicability of particular findings, the impact of the current discussion on research practices is unknown. The current studies examine whether and how practices have changed, if at all, over the last 10 years. In Study 1, we surveyed 1,166 social and personality psychologists about how the current debate has affected their perceptions of their own and the field's research practices. In Study 2, we coded the research practices and critical test statistics from social and personality psychology articles published in 2003-2004 and 2013-2014. Together, these studies suggest that (a) perceptions of the current state of the field are more pessimistic than optimistic; (b) the discussion has increased researchers' intentions to avoid QRPs and adopt proposed best practices, (c) the estimated replicability of research published in 2003-2004 may not be as bad as many feared, and (d) research published in 2013-2014 shows some improvement over research published in 2003-2004, a result that suggests the field is evolving in a positive direction. (PsycINFO Database Record

The relationships between subjective status and perceived legitimacy are important for understanding the extent to which people with low status are complicit in their oppression. We use novel data from 66 samples and 30 countries ( N = 12,788) and find that people with higher status see the social system as more legitimate than those with lower status, but there is variation across people and countries. The association between subjective status and perceived legitimacy was never negative at any levels of eight moderator variables, although the positive association was sometimes reduced. Although not always consistent with hypotheses, group identification, self‐esteem, and beliefs in social mobility were all associated with perceived legitimacy among people who have low subjective status. These findings enrich our understanding of the relationship between social status and legitimacy.

Purpose:To determine the computed tomographic (CT) detector confi guration, patient size, and image noise limitations that will result in acceptable image quality of 80-kV images obtained at abdominal dual-energy CT. Materials and Methods:The Institutional Review Board approved this HIPAAcompliant retrospective study from archival material from patients consenting to the use of medical records for research purposes. A retrospective review of contrast material-enhanced abdominal dual-energy CT scans in 116 consecutive patients was performed. Three gastrointestinal radiologists noted detector confi guration and graded image quality and artifacts at specifi ed levels-midliver, midpancreas, midkidneys, and terminal ileum-by using two fi ve-point scales. In addition, an organ-specifi c enhancementto-noise ratio and background noise were measured in each patient. Patient size was measured by using the longest linear dimension at the level of interest, weight, lean body weight, body mass index, and body surface area. Detector confi guration, patient sizes, and image noise levels that resulted in unacceptable image quality and artifact rankings (score of 4 or higher) were determined by using multivariate logistic regression. Results:A 14 3 1.2-mm detector confi guration resulted in fewer images with unacceptable quality than did the 64 3 0.6-mm confi guration at all anatomic levels ( P = .004, .01, and .02 for liver, pancreas, and kidneys, respectively). Image acceptability for the kidneys and ileum was signifi cantly greater than that for the liver for all readers and detector confi gurations ( P , .001). For the 14 3 1.2-mm detector confi guration, patient longest linear dimensions yielding acceptable image quality across readers ranged from 34.9 to 35.8 cm at the four anatomic levels. Conclusion:An 80-kV abdominal CT can be performed with appropriate diagnostic quality in a substantial percentage of the population, but it is not recommended beyond the described patient size for each anatomic level. The 14 3 1.2-mm detector confi guration should be preferred.q RSNA, 2010

In response to the replication crisis, many psychologists recommended that the field adopt several proposed reforms to research practices, such as preregistration, to make research more replicable. However, how researchers have received these proposals is not well known because, to our knowledge, no systematic investigation into use of these reforms has been conducted. We wanted to learn about the rationales researchers have for not adopting the proposed reforms. We analyzed survey data of 1,035 researchers in social and personality psychology who were asked to indicate whether they thought it was acceptable to not follow four specific proposed reforms and to explain their reasoning when they thought it was acceptable to not adopt these reforms. The four reforms were preregistering hypotheses and methods, making data publicly available online, conducting formal power analyses, and reporting effect sizes. Our results suggest that (a) researchers have adopted some of the proposed reforms (e.g., reporting effect sizes) more than others (e.g., preregistering studies) and (b) rationales for not adopting them reflect a need for more discussion and education about their utility and feasibility.

We propose that political extremists use more negative language than moderates. Previous research found that conservatives report feeling happier than liberals and yet liberals “display greater happiness” in their language than do conservatives. However, some of the previous studies relied on questionable measures of political orientation and affective language, and no studies have examined whether political orientation and affective language are nonlinearly related. Revisiting the same contexts (Twitter, U.S. Congress), and adding three new ones (political organizations, news media, crowdsourced Americans), we found that the language of liberal and conservative extremists was more negative and angry in its emotional tone than that of moderates. Contrary to previous research, we found that liberal extremists’ language was more negative than that of conservative extremists. Additional analyses supported the explanation that extremists feel threatened by the activities of political rivals, and their angry, negative language represents efforts to communicate as much to others.