Lack of Replication or Generalization? Cultural Values Explain a Question Wording Effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the context of the current “replication crisis” across the sciences, failures to reproduce a finding are often viewed as discrediting it. This paper shows how such a conclusion can be incorrect. In 1981, Schuman and Presser showed that including the word “freedom” in a survey question significantly increased approval of allowing a speech against religion in the USA. New experiments in probability sample surveys (n = 23,370) in the USA and 10 other countries showed that the wording effect replicated in the USA and appeared in four other countries (Canada, Germany, Taiwan, and the Netherlands) but not in the remaining countries. The effect appeared only in countries in which the value of freedom is especially salient and endorsed. Thus, public support for a proposition was enhanced by portraying it as embodying a salient principle of a nation’s culture. Instead of questioning initial findings, inconsistent results across countries signal limits on generalizability and identify an important moderator.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.332 | 0.697 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".