| 1. |
- Tierney, W., et al.
(författare)
-
A creative destruction approach to replication : Implicit work and sex morality across cultures
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0022-1031 .- 1096-0465. ; 93
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- How can we maximize what is learned from a replication study? In the creative destruction approach to replication, the original hypothesis is compared not only to the null hypothesis, but also to predictions derived from multiple alternative theoretical accounts of the phenomenon. To this end, new populations and measures are included in the design in addition to the original ones, to help determine which theory best accounts for the results across multiple key outcomes and contexts. The present pre-registered empirical project compared the Implicit Puritanism account of intuitive work and sex morality to theories positing regional, religious, and social class differences; explicit rather than implicit cultural differences in values; self-expression vs. survival values as a key cultural fault line; the general moralization of work; and false positive effects. Contradicting Implicit Puritanism's core theoretical claim of a distinct American work morality, a number of targeted findings replicated across multiple comparison cultures, whereas several failed to replicate in all samples and were identified as likely false positives. No support emerged for theories predicting regional variability and specific individual-differences moderators (religious affiliation, religiosity, and education level). Overall, the results provide evidence that work is intuitively moralized across cultures.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kugler, T., et al.
(författare)
-
Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science. - : Wiley. - 1939-5078. ; 3:4, s. 471-482
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Many decisions are interactive; the outcome of one party depends not only on its decisions or on acts of nature but also on the decisions of others. Standard game theory assumes that individuals are rational, self-interested decision makersthat is, decision makers are selfish, perfect calculators, and flawless executors of their strategies. A myriad of studies shows that these assumptions are problematic, at least when examining decisions made by individuals. In this article, we review the literature of the last 25 years on decision making by groups. Researchers have compared the strategic behavior of groups and individuals in many games: prisoner's dilemma, dictator, ultimatum, trust, centipede and principalagent games, among others. Our review suggests that results are quite consistent in revealing that group decisions are closer to the game-theoretic assumption of rationality than individual decisions. Given that many real-world decisions are made by groups, it is possible to argue that standard game theory is a better descriptive model than previously believed by experimental researchers. We conclude by discussing future research avenues in this area. WIREs Cogn Sci 2012, 3:471482. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1184 For further resources related to this article, please visit the .
|
|
