Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- Asian Americans (1)
- conomics (1)
- ethnic identity (1)
- family ethnic socialization (1)
- open science (1)
- political science (1)
- psychological well-being (1)
- replication (1)
- reproduction (1)
- research transparency (1)
Institute
The present study examined the mediating role of ethnic identity in the relation between family ethnic socialization and psychological well-being among Asian American college students. In addition, it explored the moderating role of gender in the pathways among 3 variables. Participants were 970 Asian American college students who were part of the Multi-Site University Study of Identity and Culture (MUSIC). Results from a multigroup structural equation model indicated that family ethnic socialization was positively and significantly related to ethnic identity and psychological well-being, whereas ethnic identity was also positively and significantly related to psychological well-being. Furthermore, family ethnic socialization was related to psychological well-being through different pathways for Asian American women versus men. Ethnic identity significantly mediated the association between family ethnic socialization and psychological well-being for women, but not for men. In contrast, family ethnic socialization was more strongly related to psychological well-being for men than for women. The practical implications for mental health professionals working with Asian American families are also discussed, particularly with regard to the role of family ethnic socialization in Asian American families.
This study pushes our understanding of research reliability by reproducing and replicating claims from 110 papers in leading economic and political science journals. The analysis involves computational reproducibility checks and robustness assessments. It reveals several patterns. First, we uncover a high rate of fully computationally reproducible results (over 85%). Second, excluding minor issues like missing packages or broken pathways, we uncover coding errors for about 25% of studies, with some studies containing multiple errors. Third, we test the robustness of the results to 5,511 re-analyses. We find a robustness reproducibility of about 70%. Robustness reproducibility rates are relatively higher for re-analyses that introduce new data and lower for re-analyses that change the sample or the definition of the dependent variable. Fourth, 52% of re-analysis effect size estimates are smaller than the original published estimates and the average statistical significance of a re-analysis is 77% of the original. Lastly, we rely on six teams of researchers working independently to answer eight additional research questions on the determinants of robustness reproducibility. Most teams find a negative relationship between replicators' experience and reproducibility, while finding no relationship between reproducibility and the provision of intermediate or even raw data combined with the necessary cleaning codes.