Study preregistration promotes transparency in scientific research by making a clear distinction between a priori and post hoc procedures or analyses. Management and applied psychology have not embraced preregistration in the way other closely related social science fields have. There may be concerns that preregistration does not add value and prevents exploratory data analyses. Using a mixed-method approach, in Study 1, we compared published preregistered samples against published non-preregistered samples. We found that preregistration effectively facilitated more transparent reporting based on criteria (i.e., confirmed hypotheses and a priori analysis plans). Moreover, consistent with concerns that the published literature contains elevated type I error rates, preregistered samples had fewer statistically significant results (48%) than non-preregistered samples (66%). To learn about the perceived advantages, disadvantages, and misconceptions of study preregistration, in Study 2, we surveyed authors of preregistered studies and authors who had never preregistered a study. Participants in both samples had positive inclinations towards preregistration yet expressed concerns about the process. We conclude with a review of best practices for management and applied psychology stakeholders.

研究预注册通过明确区分先验和事后程序或分析来提高科学研究的透明度。管理学和应用心理学并没有像其他密切相关的社会科学领域那样接受预注册。可能有人担心预注册不会增加价值并阻止探索性数据分析。在研究 1 中，我们使用混合方法将已发布的预注册样本与已发布的非预注册样本进行了比较。我们发现预注册有效地促进了基于标准（即确认的假设和先验分析计划）的更透明的报告。此外，与已发表的文献中包含升高的 I 型错误率的担忧一致，预注册样本的统计显着性结果 (48%) 少于非预注册样本 (66%)。为了了解预注册研究的优势、劣势和误解，在研究 2 中，我们调查了预注册研究的作者和从未预注册研究的作者。两个样本的参与者都对预注册持积极态度，但对该过程表示担忧。最后，我们回顾了管理和应用心理学利益相关者的最佳实践。两个样本的参与者都对预注册持积极态度，但对该过程表示担忧。最后，我们回顾了管理和应用心理学利益相关者的最佳实践。两个样本的参与者都对预注册持积极态度，但对该过程表示担忧。最后，我们回顾了管理和应用心理学利益相关者的最佳实践。