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 (e.g., incentive structures, norms) levels. 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 = 479) were randomly assigned to one of three video conditions: (a) individual (focusing on researchers’ practices), (b) systemic (focusing on incentive structures), or (c) control (general research practices). Participants then reported trust, motivation, and optimism. Results Participants perceived the teaching manipulation as intended, confirming that they 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.