Adversarial collaboration: An undervalued approach in behavioral science.

Abstract

Open Science initiatives such as preregistration, publicly available procedures and data, and power analyses have rightly been lauded for increasing the reliability of findings. However, a potentially equally important initiative-aimed at increasing the validity of science-has largely been ignored. Adversarial collaborations (ACs) refer to team science in which members are chosen to represent diverse (and even contradictory) perspectives and hypotheses, with or without a neutral team member to referee disputes. Here, we provide background about ACs and argue that they are effective, essential, and underutilized. We explain how and why ACs can enhance both the reliability and validity of science and why their benefit extends beyond the realm of team science to include venues such as fact-checking, wisdom of crowds, journal reviewing, and sequential editing. Improving scientific validity would increase the efficacy of policy and interventions stemming from behavioral science research, and over time, it could help salvage the reputation of our discipline because its products would be perceived as resulting from a serious, open-minded consideration of diverse views. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).