Kruger, Wirtz, van Boven, and Altermatt (2004) described the effort heuristic as the tendency to evaluate the quality and the monetary value of an object as higher if the production of that object was perceived as involving more effort. We attempted two preregistered replications (total N = 1405; U.S. American participants from MTurk and Prolific) of their Experiments 1 and 2. Our first replication using an MTurk sample found support for the original’s findings regarding Experiment 2, yet failed to find support for the original’s findings in Experiment 1. Our second revised attempt of Experiment 1 on Prolific was mixed, with more nuanced findings, showing support for an effort heuristic effect for liking/quality and no support for an effort heuristic on monetary value. We discuss possible reasons for this discrepancy, theoretical implications and future research directions for the psychology of value and the effort heuristic. All materials, data, and code were made available on https://osf.io/qxf5c/.
Kruger, Wirtz, van Boven和Altermatt(2004)将努力启发式描述为，如果一个物体的生产被认为需要更多的努力，那么它的质量和货币价值就会更高。我们尝试了两次预注册重复(总N = 1405;来自MTurk和多产的美国参与者的实验1和2。我们使用MTurk样本进行的第一次复制发现支持了原始实验2的发现，但未能找到原始实验1的发现的支持。我们对实验1的第二次修正尝试是混合的，有更细微的发现，显示了对喜欢/质量的努力启发式效应的支持，而不支持对货币价值的努力启发式效应。本文讨论了价值心理学和努力启发式的可能原因、理论意义和未来的研究方向。所有材料、数据和代码均可在https://osf.io/qxf5c/上获得。
{"title":"“The Effort Heuristic” Revisited: Mixed Results for Replications of Kruger et al. (2004)’s Experiments 1 and 2","authors":"Ignazio Ziano, Siu Kit Yeung, Cheong Shing Lee, Jiaxin Shi, Gilad Feldman","doi":"10.1525/collabra.87489","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.87489","url":null,"abstract":"Kruger, Wirtz, van Boven, and Altermatt (2004) described the effort heuristic as the tendency to evaluate the quality and the monetary value of an object as higher if the production of that object was perceived as involving more effort. We attempted two preregistered replications (total N = 1405; U.S. American participants from MTurk and Prolific) of their Experiments 1 and 2. Our first replication using an MTurk sample found support for the original’s findings regarding Experiment 2, yet failed to find support for the original’s findings in Experiment 1. Our second revised attempt of Experiment 1 on Prolific was mixed, with more nuanced findings, showing support for an effort heuristic effect for liking/quality and no support for an effort heuristic on monetary value. We discuss possible reasons for this discrepancy, theoretical implications and future research directions for the psychology of value and the effort heuristic. All materials, data, and code were made available on https://osf.io/qxf5c/.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135503161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In conversations, interlocutors concurrently perform two related processes: speech comprehension and speech planning. We investigated effects of speech planning on comprehension using EEG. Dutch speakers listened to sentences that ended with expected or unexpected target words. In addition, a picture was presented two seconds after target onset (Experiment 1) or 50 ms before target onset (Experiment 2). Participants’ task was to name the picture or to stay quiet depending on the picture category. In Experiment 1, we found a strong N400 effect in response to unexpected compared to expected target words. Importantly, this N400 effect was reduced in Experiment 2 compared to Experiment 1. Unexpectedly, the N400 effect was not smaller in the naming compared to categorization condition. This indicates that conceptual preparation or the decision whether to speak (taking place in both task conditions of Experiment 2) rather than processes specific to word planning interfere with comprehension.
{"title":"Effects of Picture Naming and Categorization on Concurrent Comprehension: Evidence From the N400","authors":"Cecília Hustá, Mante Nieuwland, Antje Meyer","doi":"10.1525/collabra.88129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.88129","url":null,"abstract":"In conversations, interlocutors concurrently perform two related processes: speech comprehension and speech planning. We investigated effects of speech planning on comprehension using EEG. Dutch speakers listened to sentences that ended with expected or unexpected target words. In addition, a picture was presented two seconds after target onset (Experiment 1) or 50 ms before target onset (Experiment 2). Participants’ task was to name the picture or to stay quiet depending on the picture category. In Experiment 1, we found a strong N400 effect in response to unexpected compared to expected target words. Importantly, this N400 effect was reduced in Experiment 2 compared to Experiment 1. Unexpectedly, the N400 effect was not smaller in the naming compared to categorization condition. This indicates that conceptual preparation or the decision whether to speak (taking place in both task conditions of Experiment 2) rather than processes specific to word planning interfere with comprehension.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136304175","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gambling fallacies are irrational beliefs about how gambling works, which are common among disordered gamblers, and measured by questionnaires such as the Gambling Fallacies Measure (GFM). Less is known about the potentially rational cognitions of some skilled gamblers, such as professional poker players. The present research experimentally manipulated item 5 from the GFM, “A positive attitude or doing good deeds increases your likelihood of winning money when gambling”, by comparing two new versions focusing only on a “positive attitude” or “doing good deeds” to the original version (control). Item 5 is scored so that “disagree” is the non-fallacious correct answer, but it was hypothesized that the words “a positive attitude” might increase rates of poker players selecting “agree” in a non-fallacious manner. Online experiments were conducted on samples of professional poker players (N = 379), and a broad sample of poker players with no inclusion criteria (N = 1,510). Participants’ responses to item 5 were associated with the rest of their GFM scores (GFM-9). Participants in both samples were more likely to disagree with the good deeds version, and less likely to disagree with the positive attitude version, compared to control. In comparison to the other conditions, good deeds responses were most strongly associated with GFM-9 scores among professionals, while positive attitude responses were least strongly associated with GFM-9 scores among the broad sample. The good deeds version of item 5 has advantageous measurement properties among professional poker players. New approaches are needed to better understand the potentially rational cognitions of skilled gamblers.
{"title":"Having a Positive Attitude or Doing Good Deeds? An Experimental Investigation of Poker Players’ Responses to the Gambling Fallacies Measure","authors":"Philip Newall, Jamie Torrance","doi":"10.1525/collabra.89007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.89007","url":null,"abstract":"Gambling fallacies are irrational beliefs about how gambling works, which are common among disordered gamblers, and measured by questionnaires such as the Gambling Fallacies Measure (GFM). Less is known about the potentially rational cognitions of some skilled gamblers, such as professional poker players. The present research experimentally manipulated item 5 from the GFM, “A positive attitude or doing good deeds increases your likelihood of winning money when gambling”, by comparing two new versions focusing only on a “positive attitude” or “doing good deeds” to the original version (control). Item 5 is scored so that “disagree” is the non-fallacious correct answer, but it was hypothesized that the words “a positive attitude” might increase rates of poker players selecting “agree” in a non-fallacious manner. Online experiments were conducted on samples of professional poker players (N = 379), and a broad sample of poker players with no inclusion criteria (N = 1,510). Participants’ responses to item 5 were associated with the rest of their GFM scores (GFM-9). Participants in both samples were more likely to disagree with the good deeds version, and less likely to disagree with the positive attitude version, compared to control. In comparison to the other conditions, good deeds responses were most strongly associated with GFM-9 scores among professionals, while positive attitude responses were least strongly associated with GFM-9 scores among the broad sample. The good deeds version of item 5 has advantageous measurement properties among professional poker players. New approaches are needed to better understand the potentially rational cognitions of skilled gamblers.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135010328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Using physiologically validated questionnaires in which the peak of circadian arousal is determined through morningness-eveningness preferences, individuals can be categorized into morning or evening chronotypes. Typically, individuals with such chronotypes are assumed to show better cognitive performance at their subjective peak of circadian arousal than at off peak. Although this so-called synchrony effect is accepted as common knowledge, empirical evidence is rather mixed. This may be explained by two methodical challenges. First, most studies are underpowered. Second, they include one task, but tasks differ across studies. Here, we tested the synchrony effect by focusing on two cognitive constructs that are assumed to underlie a wide variety of behaviors, that is: short-term maintenance and attentional control. Short-term maintenance refers to our ability to maintain information temporarily. Attentional control refers to our ability to avoid being distracted by irrelevant information. We addressed the methodical challenges by asking 446 young adults to perform eight tasks at on- and off-peak times. Four tasks were used to assess temporary maintenance of information (i.e., short-term memory). Four tasks were used to assess temporary maintenance and manipulation of information (i.e., working memory). Using structural equation modeling, we modeled attentional control as the goal-directed nature of the working-memory tasks without their maintenance aspects. At the individual-task level, there was some evidence for a synchrony effect. However, the evidence was weak and limited to two tasks. Moreover, at the latent-variable level, the results showed no evidence for a robust and general synchrony effect. These results were observed for the full sample (N = 446) and the subsample including participants with moderate to definite morning or evening chronotypes (N = 191). We conclude that the synchrony effect is most likely a methodical artefact and discuss the impact of our research on psychological science and scientific research more widely.
{"title":"The Interplay of Time-of-day and Chronotype Results in No General and Robust Cognitive Boost","authors":"Alodie Rey-Mermet, Nicolas Rothen","doi":"10.1525/collabra.88337","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.88337","url":null,"abstract":"Using physiologically validated questionnaires in which the peak of circadian arousal is determined through morningness-eveningness preferences, individuals can be categorized into morning or evening chronotypes. Typically, individuals with such chronotypes are assumed to show better cognitive performance at their subjective peak of circadian arousal than at off peak. Although this so-called synchrony effect is accepted as common knowledge, empirical evidence is rather mixed. This may be explained by two methodical challenges. First, most studies are underpowered. Second, they include one task, but tasks differ across studies. Here, we tested the synchrony effect by focusing on two cognitive constructs that are assumed to underlie a wide variety of behaviors, that is: short-term maintenance and attentional control. Short-term maintenance refers to our ability to maintain information temporarily. Attentional control refers to our ability to avoid being distracted by irrelevant information. We addressed the methodical challenges by asking 446 young adults to perform eight tasks at on- and off-peak times. Four tasks were used to assess temporary maintenance of information (i.e., short-term memory). Four tasks were used to assess temporary maintenance and manipulation of information (i.e., working memory). Using structural equation modeling, we modeled attentional control as the goal-directed nature of the working-memory tasks without their maintenance aspects. At the individual-task level, there was some evidence for a synchrony effect. However, the evidence was weak and limited to two tasks. Moreover, at the latent-variable level, the results showed no evidence for a robust and general synchrony effect. These results were observed for the full sample (N = 446) and the subsample including participants with moderate to definite morning or evening chronotypes (N = 191). We conclude that the synchrony effect is most likely a methodical artefact and discuss the impact of our research on psychological science and scientific research more widely.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135156480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
2 × 2 games (such as the Prisoner’s Dilemma) are economic games for studying cooperation and social decision-making. Linearly-additive decomposed games are variants of 2 × 2 games that can change the framing of the game and thereby provide researchers with additional flexibility for measuring preferences and social cognition that would not be possible with standard (matrix-form) 2 × 2 games. In this paper, we provide a systematic overview of linearly-additive decomposed 2 × 2 games. We show which 2 × 2 games can be decomposed in a linearly-additive way and how to calculate possible decompositions for a given game. We close by suggesting for which experiments decomposed games might be more conducive than matrix games.
{"title":"Linearly-Additive Decomposed 2 × 2 Games: A Primer for Research","authors":"Benjamin James Kuper-Smith, Christoph W. Korn","doi":"10.1525/collabra.84916","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.84916","url":null,"abstract":"2 × 2 games (such as the Prisoner’s Dilemma) are economic games for studying cooperation and social decision-making. Linearly-additive decomposed games are variants of 2 × 2 games that can change the framing of the game and thereby provide researchers with additional flexibility for measuring preferences and social cognition that would not be possible with standard (matrix-form) 2 × 2 games. In this paper, we provide a systematic overview of linearly-additive decomposed 2 × 2 games. We show which 2 × 2 games can be decomposed in a linearly-additive way and how to calculate possible decompositions for a given game. We close by suggesting for which experiments decomposed games might be more conducive than matrix games.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135440171","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Traci A. Giuliano, William I. Hebl, Jennifer L. Howell
Despite extensive research on the benefits of faculty-undergraduate collaborative research, little is known about the outcomes of such collaborations, such as coauthored publication in peer-reviewed journals. To address this gap, we analyzed faculty curricula vitae from 60 top U.S. institutions (20 primarily undergraduate, 20 masters-granting, and 20 research-intensive) to obtain estimates of the prevalence of faculty-undergraduate coauthored publication in psychology. We sent email requests to 8 randomly-selected faculty members from each psychology department in this top 60 (or to the whole department if they had fewer than 8 members). In total, 157 of 459 faculty contacted (34.2%) responded with their full vita. Our results revealed that a substantial majority of faculty (83.4%) had coauthored at least one paper with an undergraduate, with an average of 7.5 coauthored publications (approximately 2 of which were first authored by an undergraduate). Moreover, these publications involved an average of 12.6 undergraduate coauthors (typically in the 2nd or 3rd author position) and accounted for almost 20% of faculty members’ total publications. We also found that, even controlling for overall productivity, faculty of higher rank and those at primarily undergraduate institutions generally coauthored more undergraduate publications compared to faculty of lower rank and/or at masters-granting and especially research-intensive universities. Finally, an analysis of publication trends over time showed that undergraduate publication is becoming increasingly common in psychology, and that faculty are publishing with undergraduates earlier in their careers. We hope our findings inspire more faculty to publish with their undergraduate students.
{"title":"How Common Is Undergraduate Publication in Psychology? An Examination of Faculty Vitae From Top Colleges and Universities","authors":"Traci A. Giuliano, William I. Hebl, Jennifer L. Howell","doi":"10.1525/collabra.84521","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.84521","url":null,"abstract":"Despite extensive research on the benefits of faculty-undergraduate collaborative research, little is known about the outcomes of such collaborations, such as coauthored publication in peer-reviewed journals. To address this gap, we analyzed faculty curricula vitae from 60 top U.S. institutions (20 primarily undergraduate, 20 masters-granting, and 20 research-intensive) to obtain estimates of the prevalence of faculty-undergraduate coauthored publication in psychology. We sent email requests to 8 randomly-selected faculty members from each psychology department in this top 60 (or to the whole department if they had fewer than 8 members). In total, 157 of 459 faculty contacted (34.2%) responded with their full vita. Our results revealed that a substantial majority of faculty (83.4%) had coauthored at least one paper with an undergraduate, with an average of 7.5 coauthored publications (approximately 2 of which were first authored by an undergraduate). Moreover, these publications involved an average of 12.6 undergraduate coauthors (typically in the 2nd or 3rd author position) and accounted for almost 20% of faculty members’ total publications. We also found that, even controlling for overall productivity, faculty of higher rank and those at primarily undergraduate institutions generally coauthored more undergraduate publications compared to faculty of lower rank and/or at masters-granting and especially research-intensive universities. Finally, an analysis of publication trends over time showed that undergraduate publication is becoming increasingly common in psychology, and that faculty are publishing with undergraduates earlier in their careers. We hope our findings inspire more faculty to publish with their undergraduate students.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135502393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marjan Alizadeh Asfestani, Juliane Nagel, Sina Beer, Ghazaleh Nikpourian, Jan Born, Gordon B. Feld
Re-exposure to the context that information was learned in facilitates its memory retrieval. However, the influence of context changes on the ability to learn new information is less well understood, which the present work investigated in two experiments with healthy participants (n = 40 per experiment; 20 female). In experiment 1, participants learned a list of word-pairs (A-B) in the morning, after which their memory for the word-pairs was immediately tested. In the evening, they learned and were tested on a second non-overlapping list (C-D), either in the same context or in a different context than the first list (between-subjects). We found that new learning is enhanced in the same context, and that new learning in the other context was decreased compared to baseline. In experiment 2, participants were exposed to both contexts in the morning, but only learned word-pairs in one of them. In the second learning session in the evening, this familiarization with the other context abolished differences between the same and other context group. These data point to context novelty interfering with new learning rather than context familiarity enhancing it. Importantly, the reduction of new learning in the other context in the first experiment, where the context was unfamiliar in both learning sessions, suggests mechanisms beyond attention processes that are bound by the novelty of the other context. Rather, the old context impairs the processing of the new context, possibly by biasing pattern completion and pattern separation trade-offs within the hippocampus.
{"title":"Unfamiliar Contexts Compared to Familiar Contexts Impair Learning in Humans","authors":"Marjan Alizadeh Asfestani, Juliane Nagel, Sina Beer, Ghazaleh Nikpourian, Jan Born, Gordon B. Feld","doi":"10.1525/collabra.71316","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.71316","url":null,"abstract":"Re-exposure to the context that information was learned in facilitates its memory retrieval. However, the influence of context changes on the ability to learn new information is less well understood, which the present work investigated in two experiments with healthy participants (n = 40 per experiment; 20 female). In experiment 1, participants learned a list of word-pairs (A-B) in the morning, after which their memory for the word-pairs was immediately tested. In the evening, they learned and were tested on a second non-overlapping list (C-D), either in the same context or in a different context than the first list (between-subjects). We found that new learning is enhanced in the same context, and that new learning in the other context was decreased compared to baseline. In experiment 2, participants were exposed to both contexts in the morning, but only learned word-pairs in one of them. In the second learning session in the evening, this familiarization with the other context abolished differences between the same and other context group. These data point to context novelty interfering with new learning rather than context familiarity enhancing it. Importantly, the reduction of new learning in the other context in the first experiment, where the context was unfamiliar in both learning sessions, suggests mechanisms beyond attention processes that are bound by the novelty of the other context. Rather, the old context impairs the processing of the new context, possibly by biasing pattern completion and pattern separation trade-offs within the hippocampus.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135584282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nadine N. Koch, Julia F. Huber, Johannes Lohmann, Krzysztof Cipora, Martin V. Butz, Hans-Christoph Nuerk
The Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes (SNARC) effect – i.e., faster responses to small numbers with the left compared to the right side and to large numbers with the right compared to the left side – suggests that numbers are associated with space. However, it remains unclear whether the SNARC effect evolves from a number’s magnitude or the ordinal position of a number in working memory. One problem is that, in different paradigms, the task demands influence the role of ordinality and magnitude. While single-task setups in which participants judge the parity of a displayed number indicate the importance of magnitude for the SNARC effect, evidence for ordinal influences usually comes from experiments where ordinal sequences have to be memorized or setups in which participants possess pre-existing knowledge of the ordinality of stimuli. Therefore, in this preregistered study, we employed a SNARC task without secondary ordinal sequence memorization. We dissociate ordinal and magnitude accounts by carefully manipulating experimental stimulus sets. The results indicate that even though the magnitude model better accounts for the observed data, the ordinal position seems to matter as well. Hence, numbers are associated with space in both a magnitude- and an order-respective manner, yielding a mixture of both compatibility effects. Moreover, a multiple coding framework may most accurately explain the roots of the SNARC effect.
{"title":"Mental Number Representations Are Spatially Mapped Both by Their Magnitudes and Ordinal Positions","authors":"Nadine N. Koch, Julia F. Huber, Johannes Lohmann, Krzysztof Cipora, Martin V. Butz, Hans-Christoph Nuerk","doi":"10.1525/collabra.67908","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.67908","url":null,"abstract":"The Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes (SNARC) effect – i.e., faster responses to small numbers with the left compared to the right side and to large numbers with the right compared to the left side – suggests that numbers are associated with space. However, it remains unclear whether the SNARC effect evolves from a number’s magnitude or the ordinal position of a number in working memory. One problem is that, in different paradigms, the task demands influence the role of ordinality and magnitude. While single-task setups in which participants judge the parity of a displayed number indicate the importance of magnitude for the SNARC effect, evidence for ordinal influences usually comes from experiments where ordinal sequences have to be memorized or setups in which participants possess pre-existing knowledge of the ordinality of stimuli. Therefore, in this preregistered study, we employed a SNARC task without secondary ordinal sequence memorization. We dissociate ordinal and magnitude accounts by carefully manipulating experimental stimulus sets. The results indicate that even though the magnitude model better accounts for the observed data, the ordinal position seems to matter as well. Hence, numbers are associated with space in both a magnitude- and an order-respective manner, yielding a mixture of both compatibility effects. Moreover, a multiple coding framework may most accurately explain the roots of the SNARC effect.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136298133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent years have seen a growing interest among academics and the public in ways to curb the spread of misinformation on social media. A recent experiment demonstrated that explanation prompts—simply asking people to explain why they think information is true or false—can reduce intentions to share false, but not true, political headlines on social media (Fazio, 2020). However, there is currently only one experiment demonstrating the benefits of this intervention, and this experiment manipulated the treatment between-subjects, raising concerns about differential attrition across the treatment and control groups over the course of the experiment. Thus, the present experiment (N = 499 US MTurkers) replicates Fazio (2020) in a within-subjects design, with all participants taking part in both the treatment and control conditions in two successive blocks. We replicate the effect of the intervention—explaining why headlines were true or false selectively reduced intentions to share false headlines. Our results also reveal that the longevity of the impact of these prompts is limited—encountering the explanation prompts did not reduce subsequent intentions to share false information when the explanation prompts were removed. Overall, our results suggest that encouraging people to pause and think about the truth of information can improve the quality of user-shared information on social media.
{"title":"Explaining Why Headlines Are True or False Reduces Intentions to Share False Information","authors":"Raunak M. Pillai, Lisa K. Fazio","doi":"10.1525/collabra.87617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.87617","url":null,"abstract":"Recent years have seen a growing interest among academics and the public in ways to curb the spread of misinformation on social media. A recent experiment demonstrated that explanation prompts—simply asking people to explain why they think information is true or false—can reduce intentions to share false, but not true, political headlines on social media (Fazio, 2020). However, there is currently only one experiment demonstrating the benefits of this intervention, and this experiment manipulated the treatment between-subjects, raising concerns about differential attrition across the treatment and control groups over the course of the experiment. Thus, the present experiment (N = 499 US MTurkers) replicates Fazio (2020) in a within-subjects design, with all participants taking part in both the treatment and control conditions in two successive blocks. We replicate the effect of the intervention—explaining why headlines were true or false selectively reduced intentions to share false headlines. Our results also reveal that the longevity of the impact of these prompts is limited—encountering the explanation prompts did not reduce subsequent intentions to share false information when the explanation prompts were removed. Overall, our results suggest that encouraging people to pause and think about the truth of information can improve the quality of user-shared information on social media.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135403667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Longitudinal designs are frequently used in psychological research. An intuitive analytic approach is to adjust for previous measurements to bolster the validity of causal conclusions when estimating the effect of a focal predictor (i.e., treatment) on an outcome. This approach is routinely applied but rarely substantiated in practice. What are the implications of adjusting for previous measurements? Does it necessarily improve causal inferences? In this paper, we demonstrate that answers to these questions are far from straightforward. We explain how adjusting for previous measurements can reduce or induce bias in common longitudinal scenarios. We further demonstrate, in scenarios with less stringent causal assumptions, adjusting or not adjusting for previous measurements can induce bias one way or the other. Put differently, adjusting or not adjusting for a previous measurement can simultaneously strengthen and undermine causal inferences from longitudinal research, even in the simplest scenarios. We urge researchers to overcome the unwarranted complacency brought on by using longitudinal designs to test causality. Practical recommendations for strengthening causal conclusions in psychology research are provided.
{"title":"The Unfulfilled Promise of Longitudinal Designs for Causal Inference","authors":"Wen Wei Loh, Dongning Ren","doi":"10.1525/collabra.89142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.89142","url":null,"abstract":"Longitudinal designs are frequently used in psychological research. An intuitive analytic approach is to adjust for previous measurements to bolster the validity of causal conclusions when estimating the effect of a focal predictor (i.e., treatment) on an outcome. This approach is routinely applied but rarely substantiated in practice. What are the implications of adjusting for previous measurements? Does it necessarily improve causal inferences? In this paper, we demonstrate that answers to these questions are far from straightforward. We explain how adjusting for previous measurements can reduce or induce bias in common longitudinal scenarios. We further demonstrate, in scenarios with less stringent causal assumptions, adjusting or not adjusting for previous measurements can induce bias one way or the other. Put differently, adjusting or not adjusting for a previous measurement can simultaneously strengthen and undermine causal inferences from longitudinal research, even in the simplest scenarios. We urge researchers to overcome the unwarranted complacency brought on by using longitudinal designs to test causality. Practical recommendations for strengthening causal conclusions in psychology research are provided.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135502277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：