Reply to Wojtek Przepiorka: Testing goal-framing and hedonic hypocrisy

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY Rationality and Society Pub Date : 2019-08-07 DOI:10.1177/1043463119869080
S. Lindenberg, L. Steg, M. Milovanovic, A. Schipper
{"title":"Reply to Wojtek Przepiorka: Testing goal-framing and hedonic hypocrisy","authors":"S. Lindenberg, L. Steg, M. Milovanovic, A. Schipper","doi":"10.1177/1043463119869080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is always an honor when, after one publishes a study, somebody takes the time and effort to figure out how it could have been done better (Lindenberg et al., 2018; Przepiorka, 2019). It is a public service, and we are grateful for the effort. Although we are and remain quite proud of our studies and their results, there is, as in any study, always room for improvement and it is certainly important to test hypotheses also via other designs. However, we feel there are a number of misinterpretations, omissions, and confusions in Dr. Przepiorka’s comments, each of which we would like to discuss.","PeriodicalId":47079,"journal":{"name":"Rationality and Society","volume":"31 1","pages":"361 - 368"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1043463119869080","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rationality and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463119869080","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is always an honor when, after one publishes a study, somebody takes the time and effort to figure out how it could have been done better (Lindenberg et al., 2018; Przepiorka, 2019). It is a public service, and we are grateful for the effort. Although we are and remain quite proud of our studies and their results, there is, as in any study, always room for improvement and it is certainly important to test hypotheses also via other designs. However, we feel there are a number of misinterpretations, omissions, and confusions in Dr. Przepiorka’s comments, each of which we would like to discuss.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
回复Wojtek Przepiorka:测试目标框架和享乐虚伪
当一个人发表一项研究后,有人花时间和精力找出如何做得更好时,这总是一种荣誉(Lindenberg et al.,2018;Przepiorka,2019)。这是一项公共服务,我们对此表示感谢。尽管我们现在和现在都为我们的研究及其结果感到骄傲,但与任何研究一样,总有改进的空间,通过其他设计来检验假设当然也很重要。然而,我们觉得普热皮奥尔卡博士的评论中有许多误解、遗漏和混淆,我们想讨论每一个。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Rationality & Society focuses on the growing contributions of rational-action based theory, and the questions and controversies surrounding this growth. Why Choose Rationality and Society? The trend toward ever-greater specialization in many areas of intellectual life has lead to fragmentation that deprives scholars of the ability to communicate even in closely adjoining fields. The emergence of the rational action paradigm as the inter-lingua of the social sciences is a remarkable exception to this trend. It is the one paradigm that offers the promise of bringing greater theoretical unity across disciplines such as economics, sociology, political science, cognitive psychology, moral philosophy and law.
期刊最新文献
Does improved upward social mobility foster frustration and conflict? A large-scale online experiment testing Boudon’s model Effectiveness of technology for braille literacy education for children: a systematic review. Refined tastes, coarse tastes: Solving the stratification-of-goods enigma Explaining mobilization for revolts by private interests and kinship relations Graduated sanctioning, endogenous institutions and sustainable cooperation in common-pool resources: An experimental test
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1