Why researchers cut corners: motivations, pressures, and personality in questionable research practices

BACKGROUND: Some questionable research practices (QRPs) are regarded as core contributors to problems of reproducibility and replication, while others compromise the integrity and credibility of research by obscuring responsibility and incentives. However, evidence on the individual-level drivers of QRP engagement is fragmented. This study examines theory-informed associations between social and psychological factors and self-reported QRP engagement. METHODS: Using data from a cross-sectional survey of researchers across disciplinary fields (18,376 invited; N = 3,050 respondents), this study examines associations between social and psychological factors and self-reported QRP engagement. The sample reflects a self-selected subset of invited respondents. RESULTS: I found that commitment to universalism (β = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.18, -0.10]), communalism (β = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.0]), and organised scepticism (β = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.2, -0.1]) - as well as higher conscientiousness (β = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.11, -0.03]), agreeableness (β = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.00]), emotional stability (opposite to neuroticism) (β = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.11, -0.04]), and openness (β = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, -0.04]) - were negatively associated with average self-reported QRP engagement. Publication pressure was associated with greater average self-reported QRP engagement (β = 0.12, 95% CI [0.08, 0.16]), but this association was weaker among respondents with higher scores on a factor interpreted as endorsement of universalism (β = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.00]). Funding pressure was not statistically associated with self-reported average QRP engagement. Motivations to falsify theories and findings (β = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.11, -0.01]), and to improve impact and quality of results (β = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, -0.06]), were negatively associated with self-reported QRP engagement. Conversely, ego and esteem-related motivation (e.g., fame, achieving social and political goals) was found to have a direct association with mean self-reported QRP engagement (β = 0.11, 95% CI [0.07, 0.15]), whereas career-growth motivations showed no clear direct association (β = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.01]). However, both were indirectly associated with QRP engagement through scientific achievement and impact/quality motivations. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight specific social and psychological factors that are associated with self-reported QRP engagement, offering potential leverage points for efforts to promote research integrity and reduce questionable practices. However, because the analytic sample reflects a self-selected subset of invited researchers and is drawn largely from Europe and the United States, the findings may not fully generalise to the broader global research community.