| 1. |
- Eitan, Orly, et al.
(författare)
-
Is research in social psychology politically biased? Systematic empirical tests and a forecasting survey to address the controversy
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. - : Elsevier. - 1096-0465 .- 0022-1031. ; 79, s. 188-199
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The present investigation provides the first systematic empirical tests for the role of politics in academic research. In a large sample of scientific abstracts from the field of social psychology, we find both evaluative differences, such that conservatives are described more negatively than liberals, and explanatory differences, such that conservatism is more likely to be the focus of explanation than liberalism. In light of the ongoing debate about politicized science, a forecasting survey permitted scientists to state a priori empirical predictions about the results, and then change their beliefs in light of the evidence. Participating scientists accurately predicted the direction of both the evaluative and explanatory differences, but at the same time significantly overestimated both effect sizes. Scientists also updated their broader beliefs about political bias in response to the empirical results, providing a model for addressing divisive scientific controversies across fields.
|
|
| 2. |
- Eriksson, Kimmo, et al.
(författare)
-
Costly punishment in the ultimatum game evokes moral concern, in particular when framed as payoff reduction
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0022-1031 .- 1096-0465. ; 69, s. 59-64
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The ultimatum game is a common economic experiment in which some participants reject another's unfair offer of how to split some money, even though it leaves them both worse off. This costly behavior can be seen as enforcement of a fairness norm and has been labeled “altruistic punishment”, suggesting that it is a moral thing to do. But is this behavior viewed as moral by participants? Is it viewed as punishment? And are the payoff consequences of the behavior sufficient to determine the answers to these questions? To investigate this we framed costly punishment in two different ways: either as rejection of an offer (the standard ultimatum game framing) or as reduction of payoff. In a series of paid and hypothetical experiments we found that moral concerns about costly punishment depended on the framing. Specifically, the reduction frame elicited more moral concern about, and less use of, costly punishment than did the rejection frame. Several implications are discussed.
|
|
| 3. |
- Graham, Jesse R., et al.
(författare)
-
The pipeline project: Pre-publication independent replications of a single laboratory's research pipeline
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. - : Elsevier. - 1096-0465 .- 0022-1031. ; 66, s. 55-67
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This crowdsourced project introduces a collaborative approach to improving the reproducibility of scientific research, in which findings are replicated in qualified independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. Our goal is to establish a non-adversarial replication process with highly informative final results. To illustrate the Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) approach, 25 research groups conducted replications of all ten moral judgment effects which the last author and his collaborators had “in the pipeline” as of August 2014. Six findings replicated according to all replication criteria, one finding replicated but with a significantly smaller effect size than the original, one finding replicated consistently in the original culture but not outside of it, and two findings failed to find support. In total, 40% of the original findings failed at least one major replication criterion. Potential ways to implement and incentivize pre-publication independent replication on a large scale are discussed.
|
|
| 4. |
- Wakeman, S., Wiley, et al.
(författare)
-
A counterfeit competence : After threat, cheating boosts one's self-image
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. - : Elsevier. - 1096-0465 .- 0022-1031. ; 82, s. 253-265
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In six studies, we show that after experiencing a threat to their abilities, individuals who misrepresent their performance as better than it actually is boost their feelings of competence. We situate these findings in the literature on self-protection. We show that this “counterfeit competence” effect holds when threat is measured (Study 1), manipulated (Study 2), and when the opportunity to cheat is randomly assigned (Study 3). We extend our findings to a workplace context, and show that threatened individuals who lie on a job application feel more capable than those who report them honestly (Study 4). Finally, consistent with the argument that counterfeit competence is driven by self-protection, we find individuals do not predict they would experience such a boost (Study 5), and that cheating after threat offers benefits similar to those provided by other established methods of self-protection (Study 6). Together, our findings suggest that, after threat, misrepresenting one's performance can function as a mechanism that helps to restore positive self-evaluations about one's capabilities.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
