Some individuals may be at greater risk for encountering stressors in daily life than others, especially those with minority identities. Initial evidence shows that the disparities between cisgender heterosexual (CH) individuals and sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals on stress-related experiences may be exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the daily stressors experienced by undergraduate students during the COVID-19 pandemic (stressor exposure), the association between the experience of daily stress and same-day negative mood (stressor reactivity), and whether these varied between undergraduate students with SGM identities and their CH counterparts using a 14-day daily diary design. We did not find significant differences between SGM and CH groups on stressor exposure or stressor reactivity. One common feature of daily diary data is right censoring, which is when some individuals do not experience specific events during the study duration. We used multilevel survival analysis, which accounts for right censored data, to examine group differences in the risks of stressor exposure. We discuss the statistical issues involved when right-censored cases are not taken into consideration in studies of stressor exposure and propose multilevel survival analysis as one solution to move the field towards more accurately understanding whether, when, and why SGM individuals are at greater risk for stressors.
{"title":"The Hazards of Daily Stressors: Comparing the Experiences of Sexual and Gender Minority Young Adults to Cisgender Heterosexual Young Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"Jessica P. Lougheed, Gizem Keskin, Sean Morgan","doi":"10.1525/collabra.73649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.73649","url":null,"abstract":"Some individuals may be at greater risk for encountering stressors in daily life than others, especially those with minority identities. Initial evidence shows that the disparities between cisgender heterosexual (CH) individuals and sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals on stress-related experiences may be exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the daily stressors experienced by undergraduate students during the COVID-19 pandemic (stressor exposure), the association between the experience of daily stress and same-day negative mood (stressor reactivity), and whether these varied between undergraduate students with SGM identities and their CH counterparts using a 14-day daily diary design. We did not find significant differences between SGM and CH groups on stressor exposure or stressor reactivity. One common feature of daily diary data is right censoring, which is when some individuals do not experience specific events during the study duration. We used multilevel survival analysis, which accounts for right censored data, to examine group differences in the risks of stressor exposure. We discuss the statistical issues involved when right-censored cases are not taken into consideration in studies of stressor exposure and propose multilevel survival analysis as one solution to move the field towards more accurately understanding whether, when, and why SGM individuals are at greater risk for stressors.","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":"135585530","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}
Nicholas S. Holtzman, Stephen W. Carden, Stacy W. Smallwood, Janice N. Steirn, S. Mason Garrison, Amanda N. Gesselman
Which individual differences accurately predict one’s decision to get tested for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and do individuals who have regular short-term sex get tested at higher rates? Two studies—one lab study (total valid N = 69, with n = 20 who were tested) and one involving a student health center (valid N = 250, n = 4 who were tested)—involved participants (total valid N = 319, with n = 24 who got tested) taking a number of personality and individual difference measures, including the dark triad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy). Then, in both studies, participants had the opportunity to actually get tested for HIV. After analyzing data from Study 1, for Study 2 we preregistered the prediction that narcissistic participants would tend to (a) show disinclination to get tested for HIV, and (b) show proclivity for unrestricted short-term sexual behavior, manifesting in (c) a significant difference between these two correlations. As predicted, such a difference in correlations was evident for narcissism as well as psychopathy (the latter, however, was not predicted), suggesting that such individuals are not likely to seek HIV diagnostic information, but are taking more sexual risks. A research synthesis was consistent with these ideas (although controlling for demographic factors diminished the effects). Narcissistic and psychopathic individuals may be undetected hubs in the network of sexually active individuals with HIV. These results are silent on whether the typical HIV patient is narcissistic or psychopathic; the results merely implicate narcissistic and psychopathic traits in the spread of the virus.
{"title":"Individual Difference Correlates of Being Sexually Unrestricted Yet Declining an HIV Test","authors":"Nicholas S. Holtzman, Stephen W. Carden, Stacy W. Smallwood, Janice N. Steirn, S. Mason Garrison, Amanda N. Gesselman","doi":"10.1525/collabra.87458","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.87458","url":null,"abstract":"Which individual differences accurately predict one’s decision to get tested for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and do individuals who have regular short-term sex get tested at higher rates? Two studies—one lab study (total valid N = 69, with n = 20 who were tested) and one involving a student health center (valid N = 250, n = 4 who were tested)—involved participants (total valid N = 319, with n = 24 who got tested) taking a number of personality and individual difference measures, including the dark triad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy). Then, in both studies, participants had the opportunity to actually get tested for HIV. After analyzing data from Study 1, for Study 2 we preregistered the prediction that narcissistic participants would tend to (a) show disinclination to get tested for HIV, and (b) show proclivity for unrestricted short-term sexual behavior, manifesting in (c) a significant difference between these two correlations. As predicted, such a difference in correlations was evident for narcissism as well as psychopathy (the latter, however, was not predicted), suggesting that such individuals are not likely to seek HIV diagnostic information, but are taking more sexual risks. A research synthesis was consistent with these ideas (although controlling for demographic factors diminished the effects). Narcissistic and psychopathic individuals may be undetected hubs in the network of sexually active individuals with HIV. These results are silent on whether the typical HIV patient is narcissistic or psychopathic; the results merely implicate narcissistic and psychopathic traits in the spread of the virus.","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":"135403415","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}
The product-moment correlation is a central statistic in psychological research including meta-analysis. Unfortunately, it has a rather complex sampling distribution which leads to sample correlations that are biased indicators of the respective population correlations. Moreover, there seems to be some uncertainty on how to properly calculate the standard error of these correlations. Because no simple analytical solution exists, several approximations have been previously introduced. This note aims to briefly summarize 10 different ways to calculate the standard error of the Pearson correlation. Moreover, a simulation study on the accuracy of these estimators compared their relative percentage biases for different population correlations and sample sizes. The results showed that all estimators were largely unbiased for sample sizes of at least 40. For smaller samples, a simple approximation by Bonett (2008) led to the least biased results. Based on these results, it is recommended to use the expression (1−r2)/N−3 for the calculation of the standard error of the Pearson correlation.
{"title":"A Brief Note on the Standard Error of the Pearson Correlation","authors":"Timo Gnambs","doi":"10.1525/collabra.87615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.87615","url":null,"abstract":"The product-moment correlation is a central statistic in psychological research including meta-analysis. Unfortunately, it has a rather complex sampling distribution which leads to sample correlations that are biased indicators of the respective population correlations. Moreover, there seems to be some uncertainty on how to properly calculate the standard error of these correlations. Because no simple analytical solution exists, several approximations have been previously introduced. This note aims to briefly summarize 10 different ways to calculate the standard error of the Pearson correlation. Moreover, a simulation study on the accuracy of these estimators compared their relative percentage biases for different population correlations and sample sizes. The results showed that all estimators were largely unbiased for sample sizes of at least 40. For smaller samples, a simple approximation by Bonett (2008) led to the least biased results. Based on these results, it is recommended to use the expression (1−r2)/N−3 for the calculation of the standard error of the Pearson correlation.","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":"135403938","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}
Claudia Gianelli, Katharina Kühne, Alex Miklashevsky, Melinda Jeglinski-Mende, Nicola Canessa, Anna M. Borghi
The outbreak of COVID-19 and efforts to contain it have likely impacted our daily lives, including how we interact with objects. This online study aimed to develop and test a task to measure how different contexts affect our perception of objects, particularly those that were regarded as potentially dangerous. Two pre-registered experiments conducted in Italy and Germany showed how linguistically processed affordances (e.g., nouns) referring to objects perceived as dangerous (such as a door handle during the pandemic) were processed differently than those referring to neutral objects (like a toothbrush) in a sensibility judgement task. This effect was observed across different contexts and in both experiments. Further research is needed to determine if this effect is similar to the processing of negative words, and if it differs between objects with immanent negative properties (like a broken glass or a fire) versus those with potentially negative properties that only emerge in certain contexts. Replications of the study may clarify if the effect was temporary or produced more permanent changes in behaviour.
{"title":"COVID-19 and the Perceived Dangerousness of Everyday Objects: A Behavioural Online Study in Italy and Germany","authors":"Claudia Gianelli, Katharina Kühne, Alex Miklashevsky, Melinda Jeglinski-Mende, Nicola Canessa, Anna M. Borghi","doi":"10.1525/collabra.89171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.89171","url":null,"abstract":"The outbreak of COVID-19 and efforts to contain it have likely impacted our daily lives, including how we interact with objects. This online study aimed to develop and test a task to measure how different contexts affect our perception of objects, particularly those that were regarded as potentially dangerous. Two pre-registered experiments conducted in Italy and Germany showed how linguistically processed affordances (e.g., nouns) referring to objects perceived as dangerous (such as a door handle during the pandemic) were processed differently than those referring to neutral objects (like a toothbrush) in a sensibility judgement task. This effect was observed across different contexts and in both experiments. Further research is needed to determine if this effect is similar to the processing of negative words, and if it differs between objects with immanent negative properties (like a broken glass or a fire) versus those with potentially negative properties that only emerge in certain contexts. Replications of the study may clarify if the effect was temporary or produced more permanent changes in behaviour.","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":"135561899","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}
Jens Mazei, Nils Backhaus, Anne Marit Wöhrmann, Corinna Brauner-Sommer, Joachim Hüffmeier
Gender inequities can be partly traced back to gender differences in working time arrangements. In fact, it is established knowledge that women as compared to men are more (less) likely to work part-time (overtime). Based on social role theory, however, we also expect gender differences among part-time and overtime workers, such that women and men differ in why they work part-time or overtime. In a preregistered and highly powered study conducted in Germany (N = 3,844–17,361, depending on the analysis), we observed that, on average, women were more likely than men to work part-time (i.e., fewer than 35 hours per week) because of personal or family obligations. Moreover, in comparison to men, women were less likely to work overtime (i.e., at least two hours per week) to attain additional income, but more likely to work overtime to step in for colleagues. Altogether, people had “gendered” reasons to work certain hours. Furthermore, as people’s paid working time arrangements are intertwined with their lives outside of the workplace, we examined women’s and men’s work–life interface and observed that women (as compared to men) deemed it less acceptable to be available for work-related issues during leisure time. We discuss implications for future theorizing and for practitioners who aim to design work schedules that consider the different lived experiences of women and men.
{"title":"Similar, but Different: Gender Differences in Working Time Arrangements and the Work–Life Interface","authors":"Jens Mazei, Nils Backhaus, Anne Marit Wöhrmann, Corinna Brauner-Sommer, Joachim Hüffmeier","doi":"10.1525/collabra.87546","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.87546","url":null,"abstract":"Gender inequities can be partly traced back to gender differences in working time arrangements. In fact, it is established knowledge that women as compared to men are more (less) likely to work part-time (overtime). Based on social role theory, however, we also expect gender differences among part-time and overtime workers, such that women and men differ in why they work part-time or overtime. In a preregistered and highly powered study conducted in Germany (N = 3,844–17,361, depending on the analysis), we observed that, on average, women were more likely than men to work part-time (i.e., fewer than 35 hours per week) because of personal or family obligations. Moreover, in comparison to men, women were less likely to work overtime (i.e., at least two hours per week) to attain additional income, but more likely to work overtime to step in for colleagues. Altogether, people had “gendered” reasons to work certain hours. Furthermore, as people’s paid working time arrangements are intertwined with their lives outside of the workplace, we examined women’s and men’s work–life interface and observed that women (as compared to men) deemed it less acceptable to be available for work-related issues during leisure time. We discuss implications for future theorizing and for practitioners who aim to design work schedules that consider the different lived experiences of women and men.","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":"135700978","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}
Emily M. Britton, Kristin Laurin, Igor Grossmann, Anna Dorfman, Harrison Oakes, Abigail A. Scholer
People often face conflicts where they must choose between their long-term goals and tempting alternatives. Using an open-ended daily diary design, we investigated the characteristics of self-control conflicts in daily life, both replicating and extending past work. Specifically, we examined the factors that affected self-control conflict success, as well as how the nature and resolution of the conflict affected general perceptions of self-regulatory effectiveness. Self-control conflicts varied considerably within-persons including the domain of the conflict, the use of strategies, and whether they were successfully resolved. There was also variability in people’s subjective perceptions of how pulled they felt towards the temptation and the opposing goal, as well as how difficult and important the overall decision was. Furthermore, these factors predicted whether a conflict was resolved successfully (i.e., in favor of the goal), with pull towards the temptation emerging as the strongest predictor. People were also more successful in resolving self-control conflicts when they reported using any type of self-regulatory strategy; no specific strategy emerged as most effective. On days when participants successfully resolved conflicts, they also felt more confident in their general ability to self-regulate. Overall, our findings largely conceptually replicate past work using an open-ended diary format, and suggest that factors influencing self-control conflict resolution are also linked to general feelings of self-regulatory effectiveness.
{"title":"The Dynamics of Self-Control Conflicts in Daily Life in Predicting Self-Control Success and Perceived Self-Regulatory Effectiveness","authors":"Emily M. Britton, Kristin Laurin, Igor Grossmann, Anna Dorfman, Harrison Oakes, Abigail A. Scholer","doi":"10.1525/collabra.88158","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.88158","url":null,"abstract":"People often face conflicts where they must choose between their long-term goals and tempting alternatives. Using an open-ended daily diary design, we investigated the characteristics of self-control conflicts in daily life, both replicating and extending past work. Specifically, we examined the factors that affected self-control conflict success, as well as how the nature and resolution of the conflict affected general perceptions of self-regulatory effectiveness. Self-control conflicts varied considerably within-persons including the domain of the conflict, the use of strategies, and whether they were successfully resolved. There was also variability in people’s subjective perceptions of how pulled they felt towards the temptation and the opposing goal, as well as how difficult and important the overall decision was. Furthermore, these factors predicted whether a conflict was resolved successfully (i.e., in favor of the goal), with pull towards the temptation emerging as the strongest predictor. People were also more successful in resolving self-control conflicts when they reported using any type of self-regulatory strategy; no specific strategy emerged as most effective. On days when participants successfully resolved conflicts, they also felt more confident in their general ability to self-regulate. Overall, our findings largely conceptually replicate past work using an open-ended diary format, and suggest that factors influencing self-control conflict resolution are also linked to general feelings of self-regulatory effectiveness.","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":"136373450","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}
The relationship between heaviness of use and the approach bias (i.e., stronger approach than avoidance tendencies) toward tobacco remains ambiguous at both theoretical and empirical levels. Indeed, some models of addition would formulate opposite predictions (i.e., positive vs. negative relationship) and, as it turns out, current evidence is mixed. In three studies, we investigated this relationship among smokers (relying on a continuous measure of heaviness) and compared approach/avoidance tendencies of light smokers and non-smokers (relying on group comparison). To measure approach/avoidance tendencies, we used the Visual Approach/Avoidance by the Self Task (VAAST) that visually simulates whole body movements. This task was used as irrelevant-feature version (i.e., instructions about another dimension). Heaviness of use was assessed continuously with daily cigarette use. Data were analyzed in two Integrative Data Analyses (IDAs; a kind of meta-analysis considering jointly the raw data of the three studies), thus taking into account both significant and non-significant effects (total N = 173). In our first integrative analysis (Studies 1-3), we observed an increase in the approach bias toward tobacco as a function of heaviness of use, as well as an avoidance bias among light smokers. In our second integrative analysis (Studies 2 and 3), we found that light smokers have a stronger avoidance bias than non-smokers. While the positive relationship between heaviness of use and approach tendencies toward tobacco is consistent with most addiction models, our finding on light smokers’ avoidance bias stands in sharp contrast. These findings, however, can be incorporated into general motivational models or single-process propositional models that consider the role of goal-oriented or propositional processes, respectively.
{"title":"The Association Between Smokers’ Approach Bias and Heaviness of Use: A Focus on Light Smokers","authors":"Marine Rougier, Dominique Muller, Annique Smeding, Reinout W. Wiers, Lison Neyroud","doi":"10.1525/collabra.88926","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.88926","url":null,"abstract":"The relationship between heaviness of use and the approach bias (i.e., stronger approach than avoidance tendencies) toward tobacco remains ambiguous at both theoretical and empirical levels. Indeed, some models of addition would formulate opposite predictions (i.e., positive vs. negative relationship) and, as it turns out, current evidence is mixed. In three studies, we investigated this relationship among smokers (relying on a continuous measure of heaviness) and compared approach/avoidance tendencies of light smokers and non-smokers (relying on group comparison). To measure approach/avoidance tendencies, we used the Visual Approach/Avoidance by the Self Task (VAAST) that visually simulates whole body movements. This task was used as irrelevant-feature version (i.e., instructions about another dimension). Heaviness of use was assessed continuously with daily cigarette use. Data were analyzed in two Integrative Data Analyses (IDAs; a kind of meta-analysis considering jointly the raw data of the three studies), thus taking into account both significant and non-significant effects (total N = 173). In our first integrative analysis (Studies 1-3), we observed an increase in the approach bias toward tobacco as a function of heaviness of use, as well as an avoidance bias among light smokers. In our second integrative analysis (Studies 2 and 3), we found that light smokers have a stronger avoidance bias than non-smokers. While the positive relationship between heaviness of use and approach tendencies toward tobacco is consistent with most addiction models, our finding on light smokers’ avoidance bias stands in sharp contrast. These findings, however, can be incorporated into general motivational models or single-process propositional models that consider the role of goal-oriented or propositional processes, respectively.","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":"135102466","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}
Jan De Houwer, Marco Perugini, Yannick Boddez, Florin Sava
In this introduction to the special collection of papers on the relation between learning and personality research, we provide a functional-cognitive framework that can guide interactions between learning and personality researchers. It highlights that learning researchers can treat personality variables as potential (first or second order) moderators of learning effects. They can also examine whether the effects of personality on learning itself depend on other moderators. Personality researchers can benefit from looking for stable individual differences in known learning effects. Together with learning researchers, they can analyze personality as learned and thus malleable behavior. We end by summarizing the papers of the special collection and by situating them within our framework.
{"title":"A Roadmap for Future Interactions Between Research on Personality and Learning","authors":"Jan De Houwer, Marco Perugini, Yannick Boddez, Florin Sava","doi":"10.1525/collabra.88334","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.88334","url":null,"abstract":"In this introduction to the special collection of papers on the relation between learning and personality research, we provide a functional-cognitive framework that can guide interactions between learning and personality researchers. It highlights that learning researchers can treat personality variables as potential (first or second order) moderators of learning effects. They can also examine whether the effects of personality on learning itself depend on other moderators. Personality researchers can benefit from looking for stable individual differences in known learning effects. Together with learning researchers, they can analyze personality as learned and thus malleable behavior. We end by summarizing the papers of the special collection and by situating them within our framework.","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":"136053446","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}
Negotiation impasses can have severe negative consequences, but only little research attention has been devoted to investigating their causes. Studies on distributive concession making (i.e., high demands and low concessions) as a cause of impasses were inconclusive due to low sample sizes and methodological choices. Moreover, distributive concession making entails two hitherto fully entangled properties: reduction of conceded value and violation of the reciprocity norm. In our experiment, participants negotiated with a confederate who administered different concession patterns that allowed us to disentangle these properties. We found unambiguous evidence that distributive concession making increases the likelihood of impasses. This effect was driven by the reduction of conceded value rather than the violation of the reciprocity norm. Confrontation with distributive concession making led participants to develop negative internal attributions and anger, which mediated the effect of distributive concession making on the impasse rate. Our study contributes to a better understanding of the causes and underlying mechanisms of negotiation impasses.
{"title":"A Deep Dive Into Distributive Concession Making and the Likelihood of Impasses in Negotiations","authors":"Marc Mertes, Dana Kunz, Joachim Hüffmeier","doi":"10.1525/collabra.88929","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.88929","url":null,"abstract":"Negotiation impasses can have severe negative consequences, but only little research attention has been devoted to investigating their causes. Studies on distributive concession making (i.e., high demands and low concessions) as a cause of impasses were inconclusive due to low sample sizes and methodological choices. Moreover, distributive concession making entails two hitherto fully entangled properties: reduction of conceded value and violation of the reciprocity norm. In our experiment, participants negotiated with a confederate who administered different concession patterns that allowed us to disentangle these properties. We found unambiguous evidence that distributive concession making increases the likelihood of impasses. This effect was driven by the reduction of conceded value rather than the violation of the reciprocity norm. Confrontation with distributive concession making led participants to develop negative internal attributions and anger, which mediated the effect of distributive concession making on the impasse rate. Our study contributes to a better understanding of the causes and underlying mechanisms of negotiation impasses.","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":"135503150","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}
A recent global health crisis demanded the wholesale configuration of both teaching and research from in-person to on-line formats. This allowed for an environmental sweep regarding the replicability of some classic and contemporary findings in Cognitive Psychology in the context of an undergraduate course, in which eight portable experimental packages were written for mobile phone. Running across three semesters (average n per study = 585), data consistently produced evidence either for (Faces, Search, Object, RPS, Rotate) or against (Doodle, Trivia) the original findings, with the exception of one study (House) that produced ambiguous findings. The scheme not only allows students exposure to and discussion of the replication crisis within empirical science, but also provides a framework for the future implementation of experiential learning during remote and asynchronous teaching. With continued evaluation made possible via Open Science Framework, a central question is whether on-line data collection violates an essential auxiliary assumption for the replication of in-person data.
{"title":"Assessing the Replicability of Cognitive Psychology During Remote Experiential Learning via Mobile Phone Technology","authors":"Benjamin Dyson","doi":"10.1525/collabra.88320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.88320","url":null,"abstract":"A recent global health crisis demanded the wholesale configuration of both teaching and research from in-person to on-line formats. This allowed for an environmental sweep regarding the replicability of some classic and contemporary findings in Cognitive Psychology in the context of an undergraduate course, in which eight portable experimental packages were written for mobile phone. Running across three semesters (average n per study = 585), data consistently produced evidence either for (Faces, Search, Object, RPS, Rotate) or against (Doodle, Trivia) the original findings, with the exception of one study (House) that produced ambiguous findings. The scheme not only allows students exposure to and discussion of the replication crisis within empirical science, but also provides a framework for the future implementation of experiential learning during remote and asynchronous teaching. With continued evaluation made possible via Open Science Framework, a central question is whether on-line data collection violates an essential auxiliary assumption for the replication of in-person data.","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":"136207222","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：