Self-interest Is Overestimated: Two Successful Pre-registered Replications and Extensions of Miller and Ratner (1998)

Brick, Cameron; Fillon, Adrien; Yeung, Siu Kit; Mei-ying, Wang; Lyu, Hongye; Ho, Jing Yee Jane; Wong, Sze Chai; Feldman, Gilad

doi:10.1525/collabra.23443

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our,Brick et al (2021),Chandrashekar et al (2022),Imada et al (2022), and others MTurk and Prolific samples, at times using different geographic locations (US versus UK) and different designs, showed very similar results. InChandrashekar et al (2021) and, we had very similar results comparing online samples in the US to Hong Kong undergraduate samples.…”

supporting

confidence: 73%

Replicating the "lure of choice" phenomenon

Savage

2024

PCI Registered Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their useful suggestions and below we provide a detailed response as well as a tally of all the changes that were made in the manuscript. For an easier overview of all the changes made, we also provide a summary of changes.Please note that the editor's and reviewers' comments are in bold with our reply underneath in normal script.A track-changes comparison of the previous submission and the revised submission can be found on: https://draftable.com/compare/IXoidprUBHpL A track-changes manuscript is provided with the file: "PCIRR-S1-RNR-Bown-etal-2003-replication-extension-Registered-Report-main-manuscri pt-track-changes.docx" (https://osf.io/uk8dn) Summary of changesBelow we provide a table with a summary of the main changes to the manuscript and our response to the editor and reviewers: SectionActions taken in the current manuscript R1: We clarified Figures 1-3 were summaries of the designs of Bown et al. (2003) and our replication.Methods R1: We removed the bullet points in Table 9. DiscussionEd & R1: We added a planned discussion for Stage 2 about the validity of using an online survey.Ed & R2: We added a planned discussion for Stage 2 about the generalizability of the results to populations in non-Western cultures.Note. Ed = Editor, R1/R2 = Reviewer 1/2We note that we are not familiar with the titles and ranks of the reviewers, and looking for that information proves tricky. To try and err on the side of caution, we refer to all reviewers with the rank Dr./Prof. We apologise for any possible misalignments and are happy to amend that in future correspondence. Reply toEditor: Dr./Prof. Patrick Savage This Stage 1 protocol has now been reviewed by two experts with experience in PCI-RR and open science. Both reviewers are enthusiastic about the study and recommend only relatively minor changes. I agree, and am optimistic that I could recommend In Principle Acceptance without further peer review to an appropriately revised version that addresses their concerns. In particular, please ensure that you:Thank you for the reviews, feedback, and the invitation to revise and resubmit. The feedback was valuable, and we addressed each point in detail below. 1) are explicit about the limitations on generalizability from your proposed online recruitment, andResponse: Thank you for your comment. We recognise that the transition to an online survey introduces certain variations from the target article. However, we have made concerted efforts to minimize the potential impacts on the results. For example, we implemented attention checks and randomize the order of the studies within our online survey. We also agree that these variations could be considered as a limitation on the generalizability of our replication.Action: Based on Dr./Prof. Gakuto Chiba's comments, we added a planned discussion for Stage 2 about the validity of using an online survey. Also, based on Dr./Prof. Hu Chuan Peng's comments, we added a planned discussion for Stage 2 about the generalizability of re...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 73%

Replicating the "lure of choice" phenomenon

Savage

2024

PCI Registered Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This project, which involves students conducting collaborative studies with hands-on support, has resulted in 20 peer-reviewed publications (e.g. see [82][83][84]). This project also has positive student evaluations [85].…”

Section: Students' Understanding Of Open Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.

show abstract

“…This project, which involves students conducting collaborative studies with hands-on support, has resulted in 20 peer-reviewed publications (e.g. see Brick et al, 2021;Chandrashekar et al, 2021;Ziano et al, 2021). In student evaluations of this project (Feldman, 2021), a student wrote "I learned a lot about designs of experiments, adding extensions to them, as well as the impact of replications.…”

Section: Students' Understanding Of Open Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching Open and Reproducible Scholarship: A Critical Review of the Evidence Base for Current Pedagogical Methods and their Outcomes

Pownall¹,

König²,

Slack³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness, and reproducibility of research, characterized by higher standards of scientific evidence, increased interest in open practices, and promotion of transparency. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Currently, the impact of integrating an open and reproducible approach into the curriculum on student outcomes is not well articulated in the literature. Therefore, in this paper, we provide the first comprehensivereview of how integrating open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning may impact students, using a large-scale, collaborative, team-science approach. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship may impact: (1) students’ scientific literacies (i.e., students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science, and the development of transferable skills); (2) student engagement (i.e., motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration, and engagement in open research), and (3) students’attitudes towards science (i.e., trust in science and confidence in research findings). Our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship in this area.

show abstract

Self-interest Is Overestimated: Two Successful Pre-registered Replications and Extensions of Miller and Ratner (1998)

Cited by 5 publications

References 29 publications

Replicating the "lure of choice" phenomenon

Replicating the "lure of choice" phenomenon

Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

Teaching Open and Reproducible Scholarship: A Critical Review of the Evidence Base for Current Pedagogical Methods and their Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About