wop_research_projects_2016-2017

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
wop_research_projects_2016-2017 [2016/09/07 11:15]
filination
wop_research_projects_2016-2017 [2017/01/29 13:59] (current)
filination [Mere ownership effect]
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== WOP Research projects 2016-2017 ======+====== ​ASP/WOP/HDS Research projects 2016-2017 ======
  
  
Line 19: Line 19:
 In the last few years psychology has been facing new challenges with failed replications for classic findings (sometimes referred to as the “replication crisis”) raising the need for both more replication work and meta-analytic summaries of the existing literature and data. In a meta-analytic review, we examine all the literature on a specific topic, in this case of a specific bias or effect, and call other researchers to share their unpublished findings to then run a statistical method to compute the combined effect-size of all findings. Since different papers show different effect-sizes,​ we also look for moderators to explain these differences (sample size, publication bias, etc. and other theoretically meaningful moderators). ​ In the last few years psychology has been facing new challenges with failed replications for classic findings (sometimes referred to as the “replication crisis”) raising the need for both more replication work and meta-analytic summaries of the existing literature and data. In a meta-analytic review, we examine all the literature on a specific topic, in this case of a specific bias or effect, and call other researchers to share their unpublished findings to then run a statistical method to compute the combined effect-size of all findings. Since different papers show different effect-sizes,​ we also look for moderators to explain these differences (sample size, publication bias, etc. and other theoretically meaningful moderators). ​
  
-Please note that in these projects there will be no participant data collection since we will NOT conduct experiments or surveys, there will be only a quantitative review of the literature. ​ Whatever we find, even if we find no effects, is interesting and important to communicate,​ and meta-analyses typically enjoy higher rates of acceptance for publication and higher impact. This means that, as students, conducting a meta-analysis offers the benefits of higher data availability,​ lower risk of failure, and higher chances for publication and impact, with the added advantages of becoming an expert in the topic of interest, and connecting with other scholars working on the topic. Importantly,​ my expectations are that the end goal of this project will be a high-quality meta-analytic summary of a specific bias written up as top-tier journal submission. ​+The project ​will be mainly ​a quantitative review of the literature. ​ Whatever we find, even if we find no effects, is interesting and important to communicate,​ and meta-analyses typically enjoy higher rates of acceptance for publication and higher impact. This means that, as students, conducting a meta-analysis offers the benefits of higher data availability,​ lower risk of failure, and higher chances for publication and impact, with the added advantages of becoming an expert in the topic of interest, and connecting with other scholars working on the topic. Importantly,​ my expectations are that the end goal of this project will be a high-quality meta-analytic summary of a specific bias written up as top-tier journal submission. ​
  
 For examples of published meta-analyses and what we will be aiming for, please browse the Psychological Bulletin journal articles at (years 2015 or earlier will have available full-text when on campus or using a VPN) : http://​browzine.com/​libraries/​1006/​journals/​21076/​issues/​7974273 ​ For examples of published meta-analyses and what we will be aiming for, please browse the Psychological Bulletin journal articles at (years 2015 or earlier will have available full-text when on campus or using a VPN) : http://​browzine.com/​libraries/​1006/​journals/​21076/​issues/​7974273 ​
 +
 +If you want a specific example, see "​[[http://​research.clps.brown.edu/​soccogsci/​Publications/​Pubs/​Malle_(2006)_ActObs_meta.pdf|The Actor–Observer Asymmetry in Attribution:​ A(Surprising) Meta-Analysis]]"​ by (Malle, 2006, PsycBull)
 +
 +Regarding data collection, [[https://​www.askpsy.nl/​internships|FPN research guidelines]] indicate special instructions for metas:
 +<​blockquote>​Students preferably test (real) participants;​ this is also to the student’s advantage, as he/ she will be able to get in touch with the future work field. In case this is not possible, the data must be at least originating from participants (such as in research with databases, questionnaire research, existing image and sound material). In case this is not possible (e.g., in case of a meta–analysis),​ more **emphasis must be put on one or more other parts of the empirical cycle (e.g., more advanced statistics, and/ or more background/ introduction to the topic, leading to the research question)**.
 +</​blockquote>​
 +
 +This means that we will aim to supplement the meta with a pretest participant data collection using Amazon Mechanical Turk online labour market. You can read more about it in my [[http://​mgto.org/​running-experiments-with-amazon-mechanical-turk/​|blog post]]. This will be a [[http://​www.psychologicalscience.org/​index.php/​replication|well-powered pre-registered replication]] of the chosen effect. ​
  
 ===== Working with me ===== ===== Working with me =====
Line 32: Line 40:
   - Indicate that you understand and accept to the goal of turning the thesis to a high-quality top-tier journal article submission.   - Indicate that you understand and accept to the goal of turning the thesis to a high-quality top-tier journal article submission.
  
 +
 +===== Specific topics =====
 +
 +==== Action/​inaction and harm/​responsibility====
 +
 +  * Omission bias: People prefer harm through omission (inaction) than harm through commission (action). ​
 +  * The action principle: People judge harm caused by action as morally worse than equivalent harm caused by omission (inaction).
 +
 +
 +Readings:
 +  * [[https://​www.sas.upenn.edu/​~baron/​papers/​obias.pdf|Omission bias, individual differences,​ and normality]] ​ (this article shows that this topic and the findings so far are controversial. So this is great for a replication+meta).
 +  * [[https://​www.sas.upenn.edu/​~baron/​papers/​indirect.pdf|The Preference for Indirect Harm]]
 +  * [[https://​www.researchgate.net/​profile/​Robert_Kurzban/​publication/​228426883_The_Omission_Effect_in_Moral_Cognition_Toward_a_Functional_Explanation/​links/​00b49533ace86bc44b000000.pdf|The omission effect in moral cognition: toward a functional explanation]]
 +  * [[http://​pdescioli.com/​papers/​descioli.etal.omission.ps11.pdf|The Omission Strategy]]
 +  * [[https://​pdfs.semanticscholar.org/​276a/​63954d90f49187b8644406c85168da2179a8.pdf|Testing Three Principles of Harm]]
 +  * [[http://​journals.sagepub.com/​doi/​abs/​10.1177/​1948550610389338|Active Transgressions and Moral Elusions: Action Framing Influences Moral Behavior]] (SPPS)
 +  * [[http://​www.kevinreuter.com/​ewExternalFiles/​Is_there_really_an_omission_effect.pdf|Is there really an omission effect?​]] ​
 +  * [[http://​scholarship.law.cornell.edu/​cgi/​viewcontent.cgi?​article=2916&​context=clr|A NORMALITY BIAS IN LEGALDECISION MAKING]] - although this is a law paper, it has a very extensive introduction you can use for your lit-review ​
 +  * Another good review - [[http://​www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/​science/​article/​pii/​S0065260108603226|COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING ​ AND SOCIAL PERCEPTION: THINKING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN]] ​ (focus especially on IIb)
 +  * [[http://​www.tandfonline.com.sci-hub.cc/​doi/​abs/​10.1080/​02699930903512168|The effects of action, normality, and decision carefulnesson ​ anticipated ​ regret: ​ Evidence ​ for  a  broad  mediatingrole ​ of  decision ​ justifiability]] (2010) - they generally oppose Baron & Ritov
 +
 +==== Status quo bias ====
 +
 +Description:​ People generally prefer the status quo over change. ​
 +
 +Readings:
 +  * [[http://​pubs.aeaweb.org/​doi/​pdfplus/​10.1257/​jep.5.1.193|Kahneman,​ Knetsch, & Thaler]] (page 197)
 +  * good review - [[http://​sci-hub.cc/​doi/​10.1521/​soco.2010.28.2.191|Loss Aversion and Status Quo Label Bias]]
 +  * [[https://​wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/​courses/​PSYC-309-clwilkins/​week3/​Eidelman%20Crandall%202012.pdf|Bias in Favor of the Status Quo]] (SPPC, 2012)
 +  * [[https://​www.researchgate.net/​profile/​J_Inman/​publication/​24099122_Regret_in_Repeat_Purchase_versus_Switching_Decisions_The_Attenuating_Role_of_Decision_Justifiability/​links/​0046351d1b33758b7c000000.pdf|Regret in Repeat Purchase versus Switching Decisions: The Attenuating Role of Decision Justifiability]] (JCR, 2002)
 +  * [[https://​www.hks.harvard.edu/​fs/​rzeckhau/​SQBDM.pdf|Status quo bias in decision making]]
 +  * [[https://​pdfs.semanticscholar.org/​069f/​8e0c981d32244ebe480a17019bc9360e725c.pdf|The Psychology of Doing Nothing]] (PsycBull, 2003)
 +  * [[http://​scholarship.law.cornell.edu/​cgi/​viewcontent.cgi?​article=2916&​context=clr|A NORMALITY BIAS IN LEGALDECISION MAKING]] - although this is a law paper, it has a very extensive introduction you can use for your lit-review ​
 +
 +==== Mere ownership effect ====
 +
 +Description:​ Simply thinking you own something makes you value it more. 
 +
 +Also can look up: The endowment effect (but stay away from articles in Economics or Organizational Behavior)
 +
 +Readings: ​
 +  - Good recent review http://​www.sciencedirect.com/​science/​article/​pii/​S1364661315000789 (see section about Psychological ownership)
 +  - [[https://​www.researchgate.net/​profile/​Graham_Brown6/​publication/​254409337_Blind_in_one_eye_How_psychological_ownership_of_ideas_affects_the_types_of_suggestions_people_adopt/​links/​00b4953bc6bfa18f8d000000.pdf|Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the typesof suggestions people adopt]]
 +  - [[http://​journals.sagepub.com/​doi/​pdf/​10.1177/​0146167209333046|When Do Objects Become More Attractive? The Individual and Interactive Effects of Choice and Ownership on Object Evaluation]]
 +  - [[http://​www2.psych.ubc.ca/​~heine/​docs/​endowmenteffect.pdf|For Whom Is Parting With Possessions More Painful? Cultural Differences in the Endowment Effect]]
 +  - [[http://​journal.sjdm.org/​11/​11915a/​jdm11915a.html|Focusing on what you own: Biased information uptake due to ownership]]
 +  - [[http://​s3.amazonaws.com/​academia.edu.documents/​39466654/​Explaining_the_Endowment_Effect_through_20151027-4068-1y7ruew.pdf|Explaining the Endowment Effect throughOwnership:​ The Role of Identity, Gender,and Self-Threat]]
 +  - [[https://​kuscholarworks.ku.edu/​bitstream/​handle/​1808/​14032/​Chatterjee_et_at_2013.pdf|The Endowment Effect as Self-Enhancement in Response to Threat]]
 +  - [[https://​static1.squarespace.com/​static/​586fd7e2ff7c5060b1f0f079/​t/​58715c1fbf629afa513fefa8/​1483824159577/​Morewedge--Endowment+Effect.pdf|ENDOWMENT EFFECT CAREY MOREWEDGE Theory map]]
 +
 +==== Decoy effect / Asymmetric dominance / attraction effect ====
 +
 +Description:​ Introducing an irrelevant bad option to a choice between two options shifts preferences from one option to the other. ​
 +
 +Readings:
 +  * Example of a meta-analysis from 1995: http://​bit.ly/​2iZcreM and we’ll do the decoy effect meta on an updated literature and from a different angle (factors).
 +  * I strongly suggest reading Ariely'​s experiments in predictability irrational. Quite entertaining. (see Ariely'​s book in the Dropbox) (see [[https://​www.ted.com/​talks/​dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions?​utm_source=tedcomshare&​utm_medium=referral&​utm_campaign=tedspread|Dan'​s TED video]], start from 11:00 for the Decoy Effect)
 +  * The classic experiment - [[http://​www.dtic.mil/​get-tr-doc/​pdf?​AD=ADA101132|Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives:​ Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis]] (Huber, Payne, & Puto, 1982) - This one is a bit hard to read/follow
 +  * [[http://​web.mit.edu/​ariely/​www/​MIT/​Papers/​ade.pdf|Seeking Subjective Dominance in Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect]] (Ariely & Wallsten, 1995) - much clearer
 +  * [[http://​journals.ama.org.sci-hub.cc/​doi/​abs/​10.1509/​jmr.14.0020|More evidence challenging the robustness and usefulness of the attraction effect]] - good paper about the problems with findings - see their experiments in the [[http://​journals.ama.org/​doi/​suppl/​10.1509/​jmr.14.0020/​suppl_file/​jmr.14.0020-web-appendix.pdf|supplementary materials]]
 +  * [[http://​repositorio.uchile.cl/​bitstream/​handle/​2250/​128655/​Regret%20salience.pdf?​sequence=1|Regret salience and accountability in the decoy effect]] (2013) - links decoy effect with the other students'​ biases
 +  * [[https://​kuscholarworks.ku.edu/​bitstream/​handle/​1808/​17776/​MishraS_JMR_30(3)331.pdf?​sequence=1|Antecedents of the attraction effect: An information-processing approach]] ​
 +  * It also works in frogs - [[https://​www.researchgate.net/​profile/​Michael_Ryan22/​publication/​281337999_SEXUAL_SELECTION_Irrationality_in_mate_choice_revealed_by_tungara_frogs/​links/​55e4c57008aede0b57358026.pdf|Irrationality in mate choice revealedby túngara frogs]] (Science, 2015) (but we won't try and replicate that one)
 +
 +
 +==== Norm theory ====
 +
 +How social norms and past behavior affects judgments or feelings of regret. ​
 +I suggest we focus on normality of action-inaction and regret
 +
 +Readings:
 +  * See my preprint paper under review - https://​osf.io/​6jvh8/?​view_only=4d181e034b974b59890650ed0f45d58b  ​
 +  * [[http://​scholarship.law.cornell.edu/​cgi/​viewcontent.cgi?​article=2916&​context=clr|A NORMALITY BIAS IN LEGALDECISION MAKING]] - although this is a law paper, it has a very extensive introduction you can use for your lit-review ​
 +  * Another good review - [[http://​www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/​science/​article/​pii/​S0065260108603226|COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING ​ AND SOCIAL PERCEPTION: THINKING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN]] ​ (focus especially on IIa2, IIIa, Va and Vb)
 +  * [[http://​www.tandfonline.com.sci-hub.cc/​doi/​abs/​10.1080/​02699930903512168|The effects of action, normality, and decision carefulnesson ​ anticipated ​ regret: ​ Evidence ​ for  a  broad  mediatingrole ​ of  decision ​ justifiability]] (2010) - good experimental design, but no effects for normality
 +  * [[https://​www.researchgate.net/​profile/​Gary_Wells3/​publication/​222901869_Counterfactual_processing_of_normal_and_exceptional_events/​links/​54dbb7db0cf2a7769d928d93.pdf|Counterfactual Processing of Normal and Exceptional Events]] (1989) - simple design, easy to follow
 +  * [[https://​pure.uvt.nl/​portal/​files/​475310/​zeelenberg-2002_JPSP.pdf|The inaction effect in the psychology of regret]] (2002) - I replicated their study.
 +  * [[https://​www.researchgate.net/​profile/​Gary_Wells3/​publication/​232472793_The_Undoing_of_Scenarios/​links/​55ba736608aed621de0ad0fb.pdf|The Undoing of Scenarios]] (JPSP, 1987) - this one is a bit complicated,​ only if you feel like it
 +
 +
 +==== Inaction inertia (not chosen) ====
 +
 +People who pass once (inaction) tend to pass again in the future (inertia).
 +
 +Readings:
 +  * http://​www.tandfonline.com/​doi/​abs/​10.1080/​10463283.2013.841481 ​
 +
 +==== Counterfactuals/​mutabilty with blame attributions (not chosen) ​ ====
 +
 +people attribute more blame when it’s easier to think of alternatives (the outcome is mutable).
 +
 +Readings:
 +  * http://​bit.ly/​2jgi5bT (see section “Moral Judgments”)
  
  • wop_research_projects_2016-2017.1473268541.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2016/09/07 11:15
  • by filination