Search

This paper presents a generalized registration form for systematic reviews that can be used when currently available forms are not adequate. The form is designed to be applicable across disciplines (i.e., psychology, economics, law, physics, or any other field) and across review types (i.e., scoping review, review of qualitative studies, meta-analysis, or any other type of review). That means that the reviewed records may include research reports as well as archive documents, case law, books, poems, etc. Items were selected and formulated to optimize broad applicability instead of specificity, forgoing some benefits afforded by a tighter focus. This PRISMA 2020 compliant form is a fallback for more specialized forms and can be used if no specialized form or registration platform is available. When accessing this form on the Open Science Framework website, users will therefore first be guided to specialized forms when they exist. In addition to this use case, the form can also serve as a starting point for creating registration forms that cater to specific fields or review types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Omission bias is people's tendency to evaluate harm done through omission as less morally wrong and less blameworthy than commission when there is harm. However, findings are inconsistent. We conducted a preregistered meta-analysis, with 21 samples (13 articles, 49 effects) on omission-commission asymmetries in judgments and decisions. We found an overall effect of g = 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.14, 0.77], with stronger effects for morality and blame than for decisions. Publication bias tests produced mixed results with some indication for publication bias, though effects persisted even after most publication bias adjustments. The small sample of studies included limited our ability to draw definite conclusions regarding moderators, with inconclusive findings when applying different models. After compensating for low power, we found indication for moderation by role responsibility, perspective (self vs. others), outcome type, and study design. We hope this meta-analysis will inspire research on this phenomenon and applications to real-life, especially given the raging pandemic. Materials, data, and code are available on https://osf.io/9fcqm/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose This paper aims to compare the learning outcomes of gaming simulation and guided inquiry in sustainability education on plastic waste management. The current study targets the identification of success factors in these teaching approaches.Design/methodology/approach This study used a quasi-experimental design with undergraduate participants who were randomly assigned to an eight-hour sustainability education class using either gaming simulation or guided inquiry. Pre- and post-tests on students’ knowledge, attitudes and intended behavior were conducted, followed by individual interviews to provide more detailed reflections on the teaching approach to which they were assigned.Findings In terms of knowledge acquisition and behavioral changes, the quantitative results suggested that the pre-/post-test in-group differences were significant in both groups. More importantly, a significant positive attitudinal change was observed in the gaming simulation group only. In the interviews, participants attributed effective knowledge acquisition to active learning element in class, while the characterization of cognitive dissonance triggered in the gaming simulation induced subsequent affective changes.Practical implications Activities in this program can be applied or modified to accommodate differences in other similar programs. The findings can also provide indicators to designs of similar programs in the future.Originality/value This paper explores plausible factors (ideology and implementation) that contribute to successful sustainability education programs. Through comparison between gaming simulation and guided inquiry, elements for effective education for sustainable development learning in the pedagogical designs are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]