This article examines the idea that cognitive load interventions can expose lies—because lying is more demanding than truth-telling. I discuss the limitations of that hypothesis by reviewing seven of its justifications. For example, liars must suppress the truth while lying, and this handicap makes lying challenging such that one can exploit the challenge to expose lies. The theoretical fitness of each justification is variable and unknown. Those ambiguities prevent analysts from ascertaining the verisimilitude of the hypothesis. I propose research questions whose answers could assist in specifying the justifications and making cognitive load lie detection amenable to severe testing.
{"title":"A Metatheoretical Review of Cognitive Load Lie Detection","authors":"D. A. Neequaye","doi":"10.1525/collabra.87497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.87497","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the idea that cognitive load interventions can expose lies—because lying is more demanding than truth-telling. I discuss the limitations of that hypothesis by reviewing seven of its justifications. For example, liars must suppress the truth while lying, and this handicap makes lying challenging such that one can exploit the challenge to expose lies. The theoretical fitness of each justification is variable and unknown. Those ambiguities prevent analysts from ascertaining the verisimilitude of the hypothesis. I propose research questions whose answers could assist in specifying the justifications and making cognitive load lie detection amenable to severe testing.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66883634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cyberloafing occurs when employees use technology to loaf instead of work. Despite mounting organizational concern and psychological research on cyberloafing, research provides little actionable guidance to address cyberloafing. Therefore, the present study builds on previous cyberloafing investigations in three primary ways. First, we utilize a person-situation framework to compare personological and situational construct domains. Second, we extend the cyberloafing nomological network by investigating previously unexamined, yet powerful, predictors. Third, we employ a multivariate approach to identify the most important cyberloafing antecedents. From seven cyberloafing constructs, we found that boredom, logical reasoning, and interpersonal conflict were the most important correlates. Our results highlight novel, important predictors of cyberloafing and allow us to provide empirically-based recommendations for developing cyberloafing interventions.
{"title":"Cyberloafing: Investigating the Importance and Implications of New and Known Predictors","authors":"Casey Giordano, Brittany Mercado","doi":"10.1525/collabra.57391","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.57391","url":null,"abstract":"Cyberloafing occurs when employees use technology to loaf instead of work. Despite mounting organizational concern and psychological research on cyberloafing, research provides little actionable guidance to address cyberloafing. Therefore, the present study builds on previous cyberloafing investigations in three primary ways. First, we utilize a person-situation framework to compare personological and situational construct domains. Second, we extend the cyberloafing nomological network by investigating previously unexamined, yet powerful, predictors. Third, we employ a multivariate approach to identify the most important cyberloafing antecedents. From seven cyberloafing constructs, we found that boredom, logical reasoning, and interpersonal conflict were the most important correlates. Our results highlight novel, important predictors of cyberloafing and allow us to provide empirically-based recommendations for developing cyberloafing interventions.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"220 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is considerable debate about whether survey respondents regularly engage in “expressive responding” – professing to believe something that they do not sincerely believe to show support for their in-group or hostility to an out-group. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that one study provides compelling evidence for a consequential level of expressive responding in a particular context. In the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s 2017 presidential inauguration rally there was considerable controversy about whether this inauguration crowd was the largest ever. At this time, a study was conducted which found that Donald Trump voters were more likely than Hillary Clinton voters or non-voters to indicate that an unlabeled photo of Donald Trump’s 2017 presidential inauguration rally showed more people than an unlabeled photo of Barack Obama’s 2009 presidential inauguration rally, despite the latter photo clearly showing more people. However, this study was not pre-registered, suggesting that a replication is needed to establish the robustness of this important result. In the present study, we conducted an extended replication over two years after Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration rally. We found that despite this delay the original result replicated, albeit with a smaller magnitude. In addition, we extended the earlier study by testing several hypotheses about the characteristics of Republicans who selected the incorrect photo.
{"title":"Expressive Responding in Support of Donald Trump: An Extended Replication of Schaffner and Luks (2018)","authors":"R. M. Ross, Neil Levy","doi":"10.1525/collabra.68054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.68054","url":null,"abstract":"There is considerable debate about whether survey respondents regularly engage in “expressive responding” – professing to believe something that they do not sincerely believe to show support for their in-group or hostility to an out-group. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that one study provides compelling evidence for a consequential level of expressive responding in a particular context. In the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s 2017 presidential inauguration rally there was considerable controversy about whether this inauguration crowd was the largest ever. At this time, a study was conducted which found that Donald Trump voters were more likely than Hillary Clinton voters or non-voters to indicate that an unlabeled photo of Donald Trump’s 2017 presidential inauguration rally showed more people than an unlabeled photo of Barack Obama’s 2009 presidential inauguration rally, despite the latter photo clearly showing more people. However, this study was not pre-registered, suggesting that a replication is needed to establish the robustness of this important result. In the present study, we conducted an extended replication over two years after Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration rally. We found that despite this delay the original result replicated, albeit with a smaller magnitude. In addition, we extended the earlier study by testing several hypotheses about the characteristics of Republicans who selected the incorrect photo.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Data collection and research methodology represents a critical part of the research pipeline. On the one hand, it is important that we collect data in a way that maximises the validity of what we are measuring, which may involve the use of long scales with many items. On the other hand, collecting a large number of items across multiple scales results in participant fatigue, and expensive and time consuming data collection. It is therefore important that we use the available resources optimally. In this work, we consider how the representation of a theory as a causal/structural model can help us to streamline data collection and analysis procedures by not wasting time collecting data for variables which are not causally critical for answering the research question. This not only saves time and enables us to redirect resources to attend to other variables which are more important, but also increases research transparency and the reliability of theory testing. To achieve this, we leverage structural models and the Markov conditional independency structures implicit in these models, to identify the substructures which are critical for a particular research question. To demonstrate the benefits of this streamlining we review the relevant concepts and present a number of didactic examples, including a real-world example.
{"title":"Prespecification of Structure for the Optimization of Data Collection and Analysis","authors":"M. Vowels","doi":"10.1525/collabra.71300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.71300","url":null,"abstract":"Data collection and research methodology represents a critical part of the research pipeline. On the one hand, it is important that we collect data in a way that maximises the validity of what we are measuring, which may involve the use of long scales with many items. On the other hand, collecting a large number of items across multiple scales results in participant fatigue, and expensive and time consuming data collection. It is therefore important that we use the available resources optimally. In this work, we consider how the representation of a theory as a causal/structural model can help us to streamline data collection and analysis procedures by not wasting time collecting data for variables which are not causally critical for answering the research question. This not only saves time and enables us to redirect resources to attend to other variables which are more important, but also increases research transparency and the reliability of theory testing. To achieve this, we leverage structural models and the Markov conditional independency structures implicit in these models, to identify the substructures which are critical for a particular research question. To demonstrate the benefits of this streamlining we review the relevant concepts and present a number of didactic examples, including a real-world example.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Erin C. R. Lawn, S. Laham, K. Zhao, Alexander P. Christensen, L. Smillie
Enlightened compassion is a morally significant personality trait describing the tendency to show regard for others in an open-minded (vs. rigid or parochial) manner. We examine this trait through a “bottom-up” lens, asking: where is enlightened compassion located within the Big Five (B5) taxonomy? Across three studies comprising seven samples (total N = 2,522), we measure enlightened compassion as an interstitial facet lying between the Compassion aspect of B5 Agreeableness and the Openness aspect of B5 Openness/Intellect. The Enlightened Compassion Scale (EC Scale) has solid structural and content validity, converging strongly with Compassion and Openness (Study 1). Consistent with the bandwidth-fidelity trade-off in hierarchical models of personality traits, enlightened compassion demonstrates incremental validity over-and-above these B5 aspects when predicting theoretically relevant traits (e.g., moral imagination and moral expansiveness; Study 2) and behaviour (expansive charitable donation; Study 3). By locating enlightened compassion and its correlates within the organising framework of the B5, our work serves to deepen and integrate accumulated knowledge on this morally salient feature of personality.
{"title":"Where the Head Meets the Heart: ‘Enlightened’ Compassion Lies Between Big Five Openness/Intellect and Agreeableness","authors":"Erin C. R. Lawn, S. Laham, K. Zhao, Alexander P. Christensen, L. Smillie","doi":"10.1525/collabra.74468","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.74468","url":null,"abstract":"Enlightened compassion is a morally significant personality trait describing the tendency to show regard for others in an open-minded (vs. rigid or parochial) manner. We examine this trait through a “bottom-up” lens, asking: where is enlightened compassion located within the Big Five (B5) taxonomy? Across three studies comprising seven samples (total N = 2,522), we measure enlightened compassion as an interstitial facet lying between the Compassion aspect of B5 Agreeableness and the Openness aspect of B5 Openness/Intellect. The Enlightened Compassion Scale (EC Scale) has solid structural and content validity, converging strongly with Compassion and Openness (Study 1). Consistent with the bandwidth-fidelity trade-off in hierarchical models of personality traits, enlightened compassion demonstrates incremental validity over-and-above these B5 aspects when predicting theoretically relevant traits (e.g., moral imagination and moral expansiveness; Study 2) and behaviour (expansive charitable donation; Study 3). By locating enlightened compassion and its correlates within the organising framework of the B5, our work serves to deepen and integrate accumulated knowledge on this morally salient feature of personality.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66880922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
K. McAuliffe, Melisa Maya Kumar, Shaina Coogan, Yarrow Dunham
From a young age, children think resources ought to be distributed equally but expect resources to be shared preferentially with ingroup members. These desires for both impartiality and partiality take root in early childhood and likely become further entangled with age due to exposure to existing forms of group-based inequalities. Here, we ask whether children expect fairness or favoritism from an authority figure in the context of a real-world form of group-based inequality—the gender gap in pay. We tested 4- to 11-year-olds’ (N = 157) and adults’ (N = 101) expectations of how girls and boys would be rewarded by a teacher for performing a classroom task. Children were asked whether they expected a boy or girl to receive the larger reward (three versus two of five cookies) after completing a job. We found that 4- and 5-year-old children expected their own gender to be rewarded more favorably, an expectation that aligns with past work showing an own-gender bias in resource allocation. By contrast, and with the exception of 8- and 9-year-old boys, children in the 6- to 11-year-old range expected gender parity in pay, as did adults, a finding that contrasts with own-gender biases and with the real-world gender gap in pay. Our results shed new light on children’s evolving expectations of how rewards will be distributed in a context in which fairness and favoritism are in tension. Moreover, they provide a foray into children’s expectations about gender pay parity, an important and persistent issue in the society in which these children are developing.
{"title":"Do Children Expect Boys and Girls to Be Rewarded Differently for Doing the Same Work?","authors":"K. McAuliffe, Melisa Maya Kumar, Shaina Coogan, Yarrow Dunham","doi":"10.1525/collabra.74790","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.74790","url":null,"abstract":"From a young age, children think resources ought to be distributed equally but expect resources to be shared preferentially with ingroup members. These desires for both impartiality and partiality take root in early childhood and likely become further entangled with age due to exposure to existing forms of group-based inequalities. Here, we ask whether children expect fairness or favoritism from an authority figure in the context of a real-world form of group-based inequality—the gender gap in pay. We tested 4- to 11-year-olds’ (N = 157) and adults’ (N = 101) expectations of how girls and boys would be rewarded by a teacher for performing a classroom task. Children were asked whether they expected a boy or girl to receive the larger reward (three versus two of five cookies) after completing a job. We found that 4- and 5-year-old children expected their own gender to be rewarded more favorably, an expectation that aligns with past work showing an own-gender bias in resource allocation. By contrast, and with the exception of 8- and 9-year-old boys, children in the 6- to 11-year-old range expected gender parity in pay, as did adults, a finding that contrasts with own-gender biases and with the real-world gender gap in pay. Our results shed new light on children’s evolving expectations of how rewards will be distributed in a context in which fairness and favoritism are in tension. Moreover, they provide a foray into children’s expectations about gender pay parity, an important and persistent issue in the society in which these children are developing.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66881372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Yikang Zhang, Fung Chit Cheung, Hei Tung Wong, Lok Yee Yuen, Hui Ching Sin, Hiu Tung Kristy Chow, G. Feldman
Shame and guilt are unpleasant self-conscious emotions associated with negative evaluations of oneself or one’s behavior. Smith et al. (2002) demonstrated that shame and guilt are distinct and are impacted differently by public exposure, that is, the (potential) exposure to disapproving appraisals of one’s misdeeds by others. The impact of public exposure (compared to no exposure) was greater for feelings of shame than for feelings of guilt. We conducted a direct replication (N = 1272) of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1 and found that exposure increased both feelings of shame (ηp2 = .14, 95%, CI [.11, .17]) and guilt (ηp2 = .13, 95% CI [.10, .16]) compared with the private condition. Moreover, people who were in the high moral conditions reported both higher shame (ηp2 = .33, 95% CI [.29, .37]) and guilt (ηp2 = .36, 95% CI [.32, .39]). Shame and guilt both had moderate-to-high correlations with the shame-related and guilt-related reactions and both exposure and moral belief manipulations had effects on shame-related and guilt-related reactions. Our results suggest a failed replication: public exposure and moral belief influence both shame and guilt, so we cannot conclude that shame and guilt can be distinguished from each other solely based on public exposure, which diverges from the target article’s main theory and findings. All materials, data, and code are available at https://osf.io/j3ue4/
{"title":"Revisiting the Role of Public Exposure and Moral Beliefs on Feelings of Shame and Guilt: Replication Registered Report of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1","authors":"Yikang Zhang, Fung Chit Cheung, Hei Tung Wong, Lok Yee Yuen, Hui Ching Sin, Hiu Tung Kristy Chow, G. Feldman","doi":"10.1525/collabra.77610","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.77610","url":null,"abstract":"Shame and guilt are unpleasant self-conscious emotions associated with negative evaluations of oneself or one’s behavior. Smith et al. (2002) demonstrated that shame and guilt are distinct and are impacted differently by public exposure, that is, the (potential) exposure to disapproving appraisals of one’s misdeeds by others. The impact of public exposure (compared to no exposure) was greater for feelings of shame than for feelings of guilt. We conducted a direct replication (N = 1272) of Smith et al. (2002)’s Study 1 and found that exposure increased both feelings of shame (ηp2 = .14, 95%, CI [.11, .17]) and guilt (ηp2 = .13, 95% CI [.10, .16]) compared with the private condition. Moreover, people who were in the high moral conditions reported both higher shame (ηp2 = .33, 95% CI [.29, .37]) and guilt (ηp2 = .36, 95% CI [.32, .39]). Shame and guilt both had moderate-to-high correlations with the shame-related and guilt-related reactions and both exposure and moral belief manipulations had effects on shame-related and guilt-related reactions. Our results suggest a failed replication: public exposure and moral belief influence both shame and guilt, so we cannot conclude that shame and guilt can be distinguished from each other solely based on public exposure, which diverges from the target article’s main theory and findings. All materials, data, and code are available at https://osf.io/j3ue4/","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66881737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alessandro P. Sparacio, Ivan Ropovik, G. Jiga‐Boy, Adar Cem Lağap, H. Ijzerman
In this meta-analysis, the authors investigated whether being in nature and emotional social support are reliable strategies to downregulate stress. We retrieved all the relevant articles that investigated a connection between one of these two strategies and stress. For being in nature we found 54 effects reported in 16 papers (total N = 1,697, MdnN = 52.5), while for emotional social support we found 18 effects reported in 13 papers (total N = 3,787, MdnN = 186). Although we initially found an effect for being in nature and emotional social support on stress (Hedges’ g = -.42; Hedges’ g = -.14, respectively), the effect only held for being in nature after applying our main publication bias correction technique (Hedges’ g = -.60). The emotional social support literature also had a high risk of bias. Although the being-in-nature literature was moderately powered (.72) to detect effects of Cohen’s d = .50 or larger, the risk of bias was considerable, and the reporting contained numerous statistical reporting errors.
{"title":"Stress Regulation via Being in Nature and Social Support in Adults, a Meta-analysis","authors":"Alessandro P. Sparacio, Ivan Ropovik, G. Jiga‐Boy, Adar Cem Lağap, H. Ijzerman","doi":"10.1525/collabra.77343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.77343","url":null,"abstract":"In this meta-analysis, the authors investigated whether being in nature and emotional social support are reliable strategies to downregulate stress. We retrieved all the relevant articles that investigated a connection between one of these two strategies and stress. For being in nature we found 54 effects reported in 16 papers (total N = 1,697, MdnN = 52.5), while for emotional social support we found 18 effects reported in 13 papers (total N = 3,787, MdnN = 186). Although we initially found an effect for being in nature and emotional social support on stress (Hedges’ g = -.42; Hedges’ g = -.14, respectively), the effect only held for being in nature after applying our main publication bias correction technique (Hedges’ g = -.60). The emotional social support literature also had a high risk of bias. Although the being-in-nature literature was moderately powered (.72) to detect effects of Cohen’s d = .50 or larger, the risk of bias was considerable, and the reporting contained numerous statistical reporting errors.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66881950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Andrew J. Vonasch, W. Hung, Wai Yee Leung, Anna Thao Bich Nguyen, Stephanie Chan, Boley Cheng, G. Feldman
We conducted a preregistered close replication and extension of Studies 1, 2, and 4 in Hsee (1998). Hsee found that when evaluating choices jointly, people compare and judge the option higher on desirable attributes as better (“more is better”). However, when people evaluate options separately, they rely on contextual cues and reference points, sometimes resulting in evaluating the option with less as being better (“less is better”). We found support for “less is better” across all studies (N = 403; Study 1 original d = 0.70 [0.24,1.15], replication d = 0.99 [0.72,1.26]; Study 2 original d = 0.74 [0.12,1.35], replication d = 0.32 [0.07,0.56]; Study 4 original d = 0.97 [0.43,1.50], replication d = 0.76 [0.50,1.02]), with weaker support for “more is better” (Study 2 original d = 0.92 [0.42,1.40], replication dz = 0.33 [.23,.43]; Study 4 original d = 0.37 [0.02,0.72], replication dz = 0.09 [-0.05,0.23]). Some results of our exploratory extensions were surprising, leading to open questions. We discuss remaining implications and directions for theory and measurement relating to economic rationality and the evaluability hypothesis. Materials/data/code: https://osf.io/9uwns/
{"title":"“Less Is Better” in Separate Evaluations Versus “More Is Better” in Joint Evaluations: Mostly Successful Close Replication and Extension of Hsee (1998)","authors":"Andrew J. Vonasch, W. Hung, Wai Yee Leung, Anna Thao Bich Nguyen, Stephanie Chan, Boley Cheng, G. Feldman","doi":"10.1525/collabra.77859","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.77859","url":null,"abstract":"We conducted a preregistered close replication and extension of Studies 1, 2, and 4 in Hsee (1998). Hsee found that when evaluating choices jointly, people compare and judge the option higher on desirable attributes as better (“more is better”). However, when people evaluate options separately, they rely on contextual cues and reference points, sometimes resulting in evaluating the option with less as being better (“less is better”). We found support for “less is better” across all studies (N = 403; Study 1 original d = 0.70 [0.24,1.15], replication d = 0.99 [0.72,1.26]; Study 2 original d = 0.74 [0.12,1.35], replication d = 0.32 [0.07,0.56]; Study 4 original d = 0.97 [0.43,1.50], replication d = 0.76 [0.50,1.02]), with weaker support for “more is better” (Study 2 original d = 0.92 [0.42,1.40], replication dz = 0.33 [.23,.43]; Study 4 original d = 0.37 [0.02,0.72], replication dz = 0.09 [-0.05,0.23]). Some results of our exploratory extensions were surprising, leading to open questions. We discuss remaining implications and directions for theory and measurement relating to economic rationality and the evaluability hypothesis. Materials/data/code: https://osf.io/9uwns/","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"93 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66882099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Farid Anvari, Jacqueline Bachmann, J. Sanchez-Burks, I. Schneider
The Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW) is a stimulus set that provides researchers with English language words that have been pre-rated on bipolar scales for valence, dominance, and arousal. Researchers rely on these pre-ratings to ensure that the words they select accurately reflect the affective responses these words elicit. Each word has a valence rating reflecting the degree to which people experience the word as positive or negative, with midpoint ratings on this scale presumably reflecting neutrality. However, neutral words tend to vary substantially in arousal, suggesting that not all neutral words are the same. Some researchers account for this by using the bipolar valence ratings in conjunction with the arousal ratings, selecting low-arousal neutral words when neutrality is what they seek. We argue that the varying levels of arousal in neutral words is due to varying levels of ambivalence. However, the idea that midpoint valence ratings for ANEW stimuli may hide varying levels of ambivalence has not yet been examined. This article provides evidence that words in the ANEW that appear neutral actually vary markedly in the levels of ambivalence they elicit and that this is related to their levels of arousal. These findings are relevant for research, past and present, that use the ANEW because ambivalence has different psychological consequences than neutrality, and therefore complicates the ability to draw clear inferences and maintain experimental control.
英语单词情感规范(英语:Affective norm for English Words，简称:新规范)是一个刺激集，它为研究人员提供了在双相量表上对英语单词的效价、优势和唤醒进行了预先评级。研究人员依靠这些预评分来确保他们选择的词语准确地反映了这些词语引发的情感反应。每个词都有一个效价等级，反映了人们对这个词的积极或消极感受的程度，这个等级的中点大概反映了中性。然而，中性词在唤起性方面往往存在很大差异，这表明并非所有中性词都是相同的。一些研究人员通过使用双相效价评级和唤醒评级来解释这一点，当中立是他们寻求的时候，选择低唤醒的中性词汇。我们认为，中性词的不同程度的唤醒是由于不同程度的矛盾心理。然而，关于新刺激的中点效价评级可能隐藏不同程度的矛盾心理的观点尚未得到检验。这篇文章提供的证据表明，在新语言中，看似中性的词实际上在引发的矛盾心理水平上有显著差异，这与它们的唤起水平有关。这些发现与过去和现在使用新思维的研究相关，因为矛盾心理与中立心理有不同的心理后果，因此使得出明确推论和维持实验控制的能力复杂化。
{"title":"Is “Neutral” Really Neutral? Mid-point Ratings in the Affective Norms English Words (ANEW) May Mask Ambivalence","authors":"Farid Anvari, Jacqueline Bachmann, J. Sanchez-Burks, I. Schneider","doi":"10.1525/collabra.82204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.82204","url":null,"abstract":"The Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW) is a stimulus set that provides researchers with English language words that have been pre-rated on bipolar scales for valence, dominance, and arousal. Researchers rely on these pre-ratings to ensure that the words they select accurately reflect the affective responses these words elicit. Each word has a valence rating reflecting the degree to which people experience the word as positive or negative, with midpoint ratings on this scale presumably reflecting neutrality. However, neutral words tend to vary substantially in arousal, suggesting that not all neutral words are the same. Some researchers account for this by using the bipolar valence ratings in conjunction with the arousal ratings, selecting low-arousal neutral words when neutrality is what they seek. We argue that the varying levels of arousal in neutral words is due to varying levels of ambivalence. However, the idea that midpoint valence ratings for ANEW stimuli may hide varying levels of ambivalence has not yet been examined. This article provides evidence that words in the ANEW that appear neutral actually vary markedly in the levels of ambivalence they elicit and that this is related to their levels of arousal. These findings are relevant for research, past and present, that use the ANEW because ambivalence has different psychological consequences than neutrality, and therefore complicates the ability to draw clear inferences and maintain experimental control.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66882250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：