Individual vs Systemic: How Teaching Approaches to Improving Research Practices Impact Students’ Trust, Motivation, and Optimism About the Future?

Background: The replication crisis and open science movement have raised questions about how to communicate these issues to psychology students. Early discussions framed solutions at both the individual (e.g., preregistration, open data) and systemic levels (e.g., incentive structures, norms).Objective: This study examined whether teaching the replication crisis with an individual versus systemic framing influences students’ trust in psychology, trust in researchers, motivation to improve the field, and optimism about its future.Methods: Undergraduate psychology students (N = 476) were randomly assigned to one of three video conditions: (1) individual (focusing on researchers’ practices), (2) systemic (focusing on incentive structures), or (3) control (general research practices). Participants then reported trust, motivation, and optimism.Results: The teaching manipulation was perceived as intended, confirming that participants distinguished between framings. However, predicted differences in trust, motivation, and optimism across conditions were not supported.Conclusions: Teaching about the replication crisis, whether framed individually or systemically, does not reliably undermine or enhance students’ trust, motivation, or optimism.Teaching Implications: Instructors can discuss the replication crisis openly without fear of undermining student engagement in reform. Both individual and systemic framing appear equally viable, allowing flexibility in teaching while modeling the self-corrective nature of science.