Advantages and disadvantages of Web and lab research are reviewed. Via the World Wide Web, one can efficiently recruit large, heterogeneous samples quickly, recruit specialized samples (people with rare characteristics), and standardize procedures, making studies easy to replicate. Alternative programming techniques (procedures for data collection) are compared, including client-side as opposed to server-side programming. Web studies have methodological problems; for example, higher rates of drop out and of repeated participation. Web studies must be thoroughly analyzed and tested before launching on-line. Many studies compared data obtained in Web versus lab. These two methods usually reach the same conclusions; however, there are significant differences between college students tested in the lab and people recruited and tested via the Internet. Reasons that Web researchers are enthusiastic about the potential of the new methods are discussed.

No abstract

During the last 25 years, prospect theory and its successor, cumulative prospect theory, replaced expected utility as the dominant descriptive theories of risky decision making. Although these models account for the original Allais paradoxes, 11 new paradoxes show where prospect theories lead to self-contradiction or systematic false predictions. The new findings are consistent with and, in several cases, were predicted in advance by simple "configural weight" models in which probability-consequence branches are weighted by a function that depends on branch probability and ranks of consequences on discrete branches. Although they have some similarities to later models called "rank-dependent utility," configural weight models do not satisfy coalescing, the assumption that branches leading to the same consequence can be combined by adding their probabilities. Nor do they satisfy cancellation, the "independence" assumption that branches common to both alternatives can be removed. The transfer of attention exchange model, with parameters estimated from previous data, correctly predicts results with all 11 new paradoxes. Apparently, people do not frame choices as prospects but, instead, as trees with branches.

Ratings of the hkableness of persons described by 2 adjectives showed consistent violations of additive and constant-weight averaging models The effect of either adjective varied directly with the Hkableness of the other adjective Monotonic rescaling could remove the interactions, raising the theoretical question of whether interactions were due to nonlineanty in the rating scale or to nonadditive integration of the information Four experiments illustrate new methods for distinguishing these interpretations The fit of the subtractive model for ratings of differences in hkableness between 2 adjectives supported the validity of the response scale, in addition, ratings of homogeneous combinations were linearly related to subtractive model scale values Judgments of differences in hkableness between pairs of hypothetical persons, each person described by 2 adjectives, were ordmally inconsistent with additive models, confirming the interpretation that the interactions are "real" and should not be scaled away Theoretical and methodological implications are discussed This research is concerned with how impressions of personality are formed. This topic, introduced by Asch (1946), has 1 This article is based on a dissertation submitted

No abstract