Search

Your search keyword '"Ding, Isabel L."' showing total 9 results
Start Over Author "Ding, Isabel L."
9 results on '"Ding, Isabel L."'

3. Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results.

Author

Landy, Justin F, Jia, Miaolei Liam, Ding, Isabel L, Viganola, Domenico, Tierney, Warren, Dreber, Anna, Johannesson, Magnus, Pfeiffer, Thomas, Ebersole, Charles R, Gronau, Quentin F, Ly, Alexander, van den Bergh, Don, Marsman, Maarten, Derks, Koen, Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Proctor, Andrew, Bartels, Daniel M, Bauman, Christopher W, Brady, William J, Cheung, Felix, Cimpian, Andrei, Dohle, Simone, Donnellan, M Brent, Hahn, Adam, Hall, Michael P, Jiménez-Leal, William, Johnson, David J, Lucas, Richard E, Monin, Benoît, Montealegre, Andres, Mullen, Elizabeth, Pang, Jun, Ray, Jennifer, Reinero, Diego A, Reynolds, Jesse, Sowden, Walter, Storage, Daniel, Su, Runkun, Tworek, Christina M, Van Bavel, Jay J, Walco, Daniel, Wills, Julian, Xu, Xiaobing, Yam, Kai Chi, Yang, Xiaoyu, Cunningham, William A, Schweinsberg, Martin, Urwitz, Molly, The Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests Collaboration, and Uhlmann, Eric L

Subjects
conceptual replications, crowdsourcing, forecasting, research robustness, scientific transparency, Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests Collaboration, Crowdsourcing, stimulus sampling, replication, Psychology, Cognitive Sciences, Marketing, Social Psychology
Abstract

To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from 2 separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete 1 version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: Materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for 4 of 5 hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to + 0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for 2 hypotheses and a lack of support for 3 hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, whereas considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Published
2020

5. Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results.

Author

Landy, Justin F., Jia, Miaolei (Liam), Ding, Isabel L., Viganola, Domenico, Tierney, Warren, Dreber, Anna, Johannesson, Magnus, Pfeiffer, Thomas, Ebersole, Charles R., Gronau, Quentin F., Ly, Alexander, van den Bergh, Don, Marsman, Maarten, Derks, Koen, Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Proctor, Andrew, Bartels, Daniel M., Bauman, Christopher W., Brady, William J., Cheung, Felix, Cimpian, Andrei, Dohle, Simone, Donnellan, M. Brent, Hahn, Adam, Hall, Michael P., Jiménez-Leal, William, Johnson, David J., Lucas, Richard E., Monin, Benoît, Montealegre, Andres, Mullen, Elizabeth, Pang, Jun, Ray, Jennifer, Reinero, Diego A., Reynolds, Jesse, Sowden, Walter, Storage, Daniel, Su, Runkun, Tworek, Christina M., Van Bavel, Jay J., Walco, Daniel, Wills, Julian, Xu, Xiaobing, Yam, Kai Chi, Yang, Xiaoyu, Cunningham, William A., Schweinsberg, Martin, Urwitz, Molly, The Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests Collaboration, Uhlmann, Eric L., Landy, Justin F., Jia, Miaolei (Liam), Ding, Isabel L., Viganola, Domenico, Tierney, Warren, Dreber, Anna, Johannesson, Magnus, Pfeiffer, Thomas, Ebersole, Charles R., Gronau, Quentin F., Ly, Alexander, van den Bergh, Don, Marsman, Maarten, Derks, Koen, Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Proctor, Andrew, Bartels, Daniel M., Bauman, Christopher W., Brady, William J., Cheung, Felix, Cimpian, Andrei, Dohle, Simone, Donnellan, M. Brent, Hahn, Adam, Hall, Michael P., Jiménez-Leal, William, Johnson, David J., Lucas, Richard E., Monin, Benoît, Montealegre, Andres, Mullen, Elizabeth, Pang, Jun, Ray, Jennifer, Reinero, Diego A., Reynolds, Jesse, Sowden, Walter, Storage, Daniel, Su, Runkun, Tworek, Christina M., Van Bavel, Jay J., Walco, Daniel, Wills, Julian, Xu, Xiaobing, Yam, Kai Chi, Yang, Xiaoyu, Cunningham, William A., Schweinsberg, Martin, Urwitz, Molly, The Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests Collaboration, and Uhlmann, Eric L.

Published
2020

6. Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results

Author

Landy, J, Jia, M, Ding, I, Viganola, D, Tierney, W, Dreber, A, Johannesson, M, Pfeiffer, T, Ebersole, C, Gronau, Q, Ly, A, van den Bergh, D, Marsman, M, Derks, K, Wagenmakers, E, Proctor, A, Bartels, D, Bauman, C, Brady, W, Cheung, F, Cimpian, A, Dohle, S, Donnellan, M, Hahn, A, Hall, M, Jiménez-Leal, W, Johnson, D, Lucas, R, Monin, B, Montealegre, A, Mullen, E, Pang, J, Ray, J, Reinero, D, Reynolds, J, Sowden, W, Storage, D, Su, R, Tworek, C, Van Bavel, J, Walco, D, Wills, J, Xu, X, Yam, K, Yang, X, Cunningham, W, Schweinsberg, M, Urwitz, M, The Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests, C, Uhlmann, E, Mari, S, Landy, Justin F, Jia, Miaolei Liam, Ding, Isabel L, Viganola, Domenico, Tierney, Warren, Dreber, Anna, Johannesson, Magnus, Pfeiffer, Thomas, Ebersole, Charles R, Gronau, Quentin F, Ly, Alexander, van den Bergh, Don, Marsman, Maarten, Derks, Koen, Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Proctor, Andrew, Bartels, Daniel M, Bauman, Christopher W, Brady, William J, Cheung, Felix, Cimpian, Andrei, Dohle, Simone, Donnellan, M Brent, Hahn, Adam, Hall, Michael P, Jiménez-Leal, William, Johnson, David J, Lucas, Richard E, Monin, Benoît, Montealegre, Andres, Mullen, Elizabeth, Pang, Jun, Ray, Jennifer, Reinero, Diego A, Reynolds, Jesse, Sowden, Walter, Storage, Daniel, Su, Runkun, Tworek, Christina M, Van Bavel, Jay J, Walco, Daniel, Wills, Julian, Xu, Xiaobing, Yam, Kai Chi, Yang, Xiaoyu, Cunningham, William A, Schweinsberg, Martin, Urwitz, Molly, The Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests Collaboration, Uhlmann, Eric L, Landy, J, Jia, M, Ding, I, Viganola, D, Tierney, W, Dreber, A, Johannesson, M, Pfeiffer, T, Ebersole, C, Gronau, Q, Ly, A, van den Bergh, D, Marsman, M, Derks, K, Wagenmakers, E, Proctor, A, Bartels, D, Bauman, C, Brady, W, Cheung, F, Cimpian, A, Dohle, S, Donnellan, M, Hahn, A, Hall, M, Jiménez-Leal, W, Johnson, D, Lucas, R, Monin, B, Montealegre, A, Mullen, E, Pang, J, Ray, J, Reinero, D, Reynolds, J, Sowden, W, Storage, D, Su, R, Tworek, C, Van Bavel, J, Walco, D, Wills, J, Xu, X, Yam, K, Yang, X, Cunningham, W, Schweinsberg, M, Urwitz, M, The Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests, C, Uhlmann, E, Mari, S, Landy, Justin F, Jia, Miaolei Liam, Ding, Isabel L, Viganola, Domenico, Tierney, Warren, Dreber, Anna, Johannesson, Magnus, Pfeiffer, Thomas, Ebersole, Charles R, Gronau, Quentin F, Ly, Alexander, van den Bergh, Don, Marsman, Maarten, Derks, Koen, Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Proctor, Andrew, Bartels, Daniel M, Bauman, Christopher W, Brady, William J, Cheung, Felix, Cimpian, Andrei, Dohle, Simone, Donnellan, M Brent, Hahn, Adam, Hall, Michael P, Jiménez-Leal, William, Johnson, David J, Lucas, Richard E, Monin, Benoît, Montealegre, Andres, Mullen, Elizabeth, Pang, Jun, Ray, Jennifer, Reinero, Diego A, Reynolds, Jesse, Sowden, Walter, Storage, Daniel, Su, Runkun, Tworek, Christina M, Van Bavel, Jay J, Walco, Daniel, Wills, Julian, Xu, Xiaobing, Yam, Kai Chi, Yang, Xiaoyu, Cunningham, William A, Schweinsberg, Martin, Urwitz, Molly, The Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests Collaboration, and Uhlmann, Eric L

Abstract

To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from 2 separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete 1 version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: Materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for 4 of 5 hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to + 0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for 2 hypotheses and a lack of support for 3 hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, whereas considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim.

Published
2020

7. Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: making transparent how design choices shape research results

Author

Landy, Justin F., Jia, Miaolei (Liam), Ding, Isabel L., Viganola, Domenico, Tierney, Warren, Dreber, Anna, Johannesson, Magnus, Pfeiffer, Thomas, Ebersole, Charles R., Gronau, Quentin F., Ly, Alexander, van den Bergh, Don, Marsman, Maaten, Derks, Koen, Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Proctor, Andrew, Bartels, Daniel M., Bauman, Christopher W., Brady, William J., Cheung, Felix, Cimpian, Andrei, Dohle, Simone, Donnellan, Brent M., Hahn, Adam, Hall, Michael P., Jiménez-Leal, William, Johnson, David J., Lucas, Richard E., Monin, Benoit, Montealegre, Andres, Mullen, Elizabeth, Pang, Jun, Ray, Jennifer, Reinero, Diego A., Reynolds, Jesse, Sowden, Walter, Storage, Daniel, Su, Runkun, Tworek, Christina M., Van Bavel, Jay J., Walco, Daniel, Wills, Julian, Xu, Xiaobing, Yam, Chi Kai, Yang, Xiaoyu, Cunningham, William A., Schweinsberg, Martin, Urwitz, Molly, Uhlmann, Eric Luis, Landy, Justin F., Jia, Miaolei (Liam), Ding, Isabel L., Viganola, Domenico, Tierney, Warren, Dreber, Anna, Johannesson, Magnus, Pfeiffer, Thomas, Ebersole, Charles R., Gronau, Quentin F., Ly, Alexander, van den Bergh, Don, Marsman, Maaten, Derks, Koen, Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Proctor, Andrew, Bartels, Daniel M., Bauman, Christopher W., Brady, William J., Cheung, Felix, Cimpian, Andrei, Dohle, Simone, Donnellan, Brent M., Hahn, Adam, Hall, Michael P., Jiménez-Leal, William, Johnson, David J., Lucas, Richard E., Monin, Benoit, Montealegre, Andres, Mullen, Elizabeth, Pang, Jun, Ray, Jennifer, Reinero, Diego A., Reynolds, Jesse, Sowden, Walter, Storage, Daniel, Su, Runkun, Tworek, Christina M., Van Bavel, Jay J., Walco, Daniel, Wills, Julian, Xu, Xiaobing, Yam, Chi Kai, Yang, Xiaoyu, Cunningham, William A., Schweinsberg, Martin, Urwitz, Molly, and Uhlmann, Eric Luis

Abstract

peer-reviewed, To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from two separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete one version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for four out of five hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to +0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for two hypotheses, and a lack of support for three hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, while considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim.

8. Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: making transparent how design choices shape research results

Author

Landy, Justin F., Jia, Miaolei (Liam), Ding, Isabel L., Viganola, Domenico, Tierney, Warren, Dreber, Anna, Johannesson, Magnus, Pfeiffer, Thomas, Ebersole, Charles R., Gronau, Quentin F., Ly, Alexander, van den Bergh, Don, Marsman, Maaten, Derks, Koen, Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Proctor, Andrew, Bartels, Daniel M., Bauman, Christopher W., Brady, William J., Cheung, Felix, Cimpian, Andrei, Dohle, Simone, Donnellan, Brent M., Hahn, Adam, Hall, Michael P., Jiménez-Leal, William, Johnson, David J., Lucas, Richard E., Monin, Benoit, Montealegre, Andres, Mullen, Elizabeth, Pang, Jun, Ray, Jennifer, Reinero, Diego A., Reynolds, Jesse, Sowden, Walter, Storage, Daniel, Su, Runkun, Tworek, Christina M., Van Bavel, Jay J., Walco, Daniel, Wills, Julian, Xu, Xiaobing, Yam, Chi Kai, Yang, Xiaoyu, Cunningham, William A., Schweinsberg, Martin, Urwitz, Molly, Uhlmann, Eric Luis, Landy, Justin F., Jia, Miaolei (Liam), Ding, Isabel L., Viganola, Domenico, Tierney, Warren, Dreber, Anna, Johannesson, Magnus, Pfeiffer, Thomas, Ebersole, Charles R., Gronau, Quentin F., Ly, Alexander, van den Bergh, Don, Marsman, Maaten, Derks, Koen, Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Proctor, Andrew, Bartels, Daniel M., Bauman, Christopher W., Brady, William J., Cheung, Felix, Cimpian, Andrei, Dohle, Simone, Donnellan, Brent M., Hahn, Adam, Hall, Michael P., Jiménez-Leal, William, Johnson, David J., Lucas, Richard E., Monin, Benoit, Montealegre, Andres, Mullen, Elizabeth, Pang, Jun, Ray, Jennifer, Reinero, Diego A., Reynolds, Jesse, Sowden, Walter, Storage, Daniel, Su, Runkun, Tworek, Christina M., Van Bavel, Jay J., Walco, Daniel, Wills, Julian, Xu, Xiaobing, Yam, Chi Kai, Yang, Xiaoyu, Cunningham, William A., Schweinsberg, Martin, Urwitz, Molly, and Uhlmann, Eric Luis

Abstract

peer-reviewed, To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from two separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete one version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for four out of five hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to +0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for two hypotheses, and a lack of support for three hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, while considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim.

9. Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: making transparent how design choices shape research results

Author

Landy, Justin F., Jia, Miaolei (Liam), Ding, Isabel L., Viganola, Domenico, Tierney, Warren, Dreber, Anna, Johannesson, Magnus, Pfeiffer, Thomas, Ebersole, Charles R., Gronau, Quentin F., Ly, Alexander, van den Bergh, Don, Marsman, Maaten, Derks, Koen, Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Proctor, Andrew, Bartels, Daniel M., Bauman, Christopher W., Brady, William J., Cheung, Felix, Cimpian, Andrei, Dohle, Simone, Donnellan, Brent M., Hahn, Adam, Hall, Michael P., Jiménez-Leal, William, Johnson, David J., Lucas, Richard E., Monin, Benoit, Montealegre, Andres, Mullen, Elizabeth, Pang, Jun, Ray, Jennifer, Reinero, Diego A., Reynolds, Jesse, Sowden, Walter, Storage, Daniel, Su, Runkun, Tworek, Christina M., Van Bavel, Jay J., Walco, Daniel, Wills, Julian, Xu, Xiaobing, Yam, Chi Kai, Yang, Xiaoyu, Cunningham, William A., Schweinsberg, Martin, Urwitz, Molly, Uhlmann, Eric Luis, Landy, Justin F., Jia, Miaolei (Liam), Ding, Isabel L., Viganola, Domenico, Tierney, Warren, Dreber, Anna, Johannesson, Magnus, Pfeiffer, Thomas, Ebersole, Charles R., Gronau, Quentin F., Ly, Alexander, van den Bergh, Don, Marsman, Maaten, Derks, Koen, Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Proctor, Andrew, Bartels, Daniel M., Bauman, Christopher W., Brady, William J., Cheung, Felix, Cimpian, Andrei, Dohle, Simone, Donnellan, Brent M., Hahn, Adam, Hall, Michael P., Jiménez-Leal, William, Johnson, David J., Lucas, Richard E., Monin, Benoit, Montealegre, Andres, Mullen, Elizabeth, Pang, Jun, Ray, Jennifer, Reinero, Diego A., Reynolds, Jesse, Sowden, Walter, Storage, Daniel, Su, Runkun, Tworek, Christina M., Van Bavel, Jay J., Walco, Daniel, Wills, Julian, Xu, Xiaobing, Yam, Chi Kai, Yang, Xiaoyu, Cunningham, William A., Schweinsberg, Martin, Urwitz, Molly, and Uhlmann, Eric Luis

Abstract

peer-reviewed, To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from two separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete one version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for four out of five hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to +0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for two hypotheses, and a lack of support for three hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, while considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim.

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results