Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBouwmeester, S
dc.contributor.authorVerkoeijen, PPJL
dc.contributor.authorAczel, B
dc.contributor.authorBarbosa, F
dc.contributor.authorBègue, L
dc.contributor.authorBrañas-Garza, P
dc.contributor.authorChmura, TGH
dc.contributor.authorCornelissen, G
dc.contributor.authorDøssing, FS
dc.contributor.authorEspín, AM
dc.contributor.authorEvans, AM
dc.contributor.authorFerreira-Santos, F
dc.contributor.authorFiedler, S
dc.contributor.authorFlegr, J
dc.contributor.authorGhaffari, M
dc.contributor.authorGlöckner, A
dc.contributor.authorGoeschl, T
dc.contributor.authorGuo, L
dc.contributor.authorHauser, OP
dc.contributor.authorHernan-Gonzalez, R
dc.contributor.authorHerrero, A
dc.contributor.authorHorne, Z
dc.contributor.authorHoudek, P
dc.contributor.authorJohannesson, M
dc.contributor.authorKoppel, L
dc.contributor.authorKujal, P
dc.contributor.authorLaine, T
dc.contributor.authorLohse, J
dc.contributor.authorMartins, EC
dc.contributor.authorMauro, C
dc.contributor.authorMischkowski, D
dc.contributor.authorMukherjee, S
dc.contributor.authorMyrseth, KOR
dc.contributor.authorNavarro-Martínez, D
dc.contributor.authorNeal, TMS
dc.contributor.authorNovakova, J
dc.contributor.authorPagà, R
dc.contributor.authorPaiva, TO
dc.contributor.authorPalfi, B
dc.contributor.authorPiovesan, M
dc.contributor.authorRahal, R-M
dc.contributor.authorSalomon, E
dc.contributor.authorSrinivasan, N
dc.contributor.authorSrivastava, A
dc.contributor.authorSzaszi, B
dc.contributor.authorSzollosi, A
dc.contributor.authorThor, KØ
dc.contributor.authorTinghög, G
dc.contributor.authorTrueblood, JS
dc.contributor.authorVan Bavel, JJ
dc.contributor.authorvan ‘t Veer, AE
dc.contributor.authorVästfjäll, D
dc.contributor.authorWarner, M
dc.contributor.authorWengström, E
dc.contributor.authorWills, J
dc.contributor.authorWollbrant, CE
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-30T08:53:36Z
dc.date.issued2017-03-01
dc.description.abstractIn an anonymous 4-person economic game, participants contributed more money to a common project (i.e., cooperated) when required to decide quickly than when forced to delay their decision (Rand, Greene & Nowak, 2012), a pattern consistent with the social heuristics hypothesis proposed by Rand and colleagues. The results of studies using time pressure have been mixed, with some replication attempts observing similar patterns (e.g., Rand et al., 2014) and others observing null effects (e.g., Tinghög et al., 2013; Verkoeijen & Bouwmeester, 2014). This Registered Replication Report (RRR) assessed the size and variability of the effect of time pressure on cooperative decisions by combining 21 separate, preregistered replications of the critical conditions from Study 7 of the original article (Rand et al., 2012). The primary planned analysis used data from all participants who were randomly assigned to conditions and who met the protocol inclusion criteria (an intent-to-treat approach that included the 65.9% of participants in the time-pressure condition and 7.5% in the forced-delay condition who did not adhere to the time constraints), and we observed a difference in contributions of −0.37 percentage points compared with an 8.6 percentage point difference calculated from the original data. Analyzing the data as the original article did, including data only for participants who complied with the time constraints, the RRR observed a 10.37 percentage point difference in contributions compared with a 15.31 percentage point difference in the original study. In combination, the results of the intent-to-treat analysis and the compliant-only analysis are consistent with the presence of selection biases and the absence of a causal effect of time pressure on cooperation.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThanks to the American Psychological Society (APS) and the Arnold Foundation who provided funding to participating laboratories to defray the costs of running the study.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 12, pp. 527 - 542en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/1745691617693624
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/33576
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherSAGE Publications / Association for Psychological Scienceen_GB
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2017. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).en_GB
dc.subjectcooperationen_GB
dc.subjectsocial heuristic hypothesisen_GB
dc.subjectdecision makingen_GB
dc.subjecteconomic gamesen_GB
dc.subjectsocial psychologyen_GB
dc.subjectreplicationen_GB
dc.titleRegistered Replication Report: Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012)en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2018-07-30T08:53:36Z
dc.identifier.issn1745-6916
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from SAGE Publicarions via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalPerspectives on Psychological Scienceen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record