Search

High-quality research requires appropriate employment and working conditions for researchers. However, many academic systems rely on short-term employment contracts, biased selection procedures and misaligned incentives, which hinder research quality and progress. We discuss ways to redesign academic systems, emphasizing the role of permanent employment.Across disciplines, research quality benefits from transparency and openness, as well as efforts to replicate and reproduce. In recent years there has been a surge in open scholarship thanks to efforts towards promoting robust research grounded in the principles of good research practice, sparked primarily by individuals and grassroots approaches. Yet this movement is up against an academic structure with a high proportion of short-term contracts, precarious working conditions, misaligned incentives and unpaid labour, all of which pose barriers to high-quality research.

Across disciplines, researchers increasingly recognize that open science and reproducible research practices may accelerate scientific progress by allowing others to reuse research outputs and by promoting rigorous research that is more likely to yield trustworthy results. While initiatives, training programs, and funder policies encourage researchers to adopt reproducible research and open science practices, these practices are uncommon in many fields. Researchers need training to integrate these practices into their daily work. We organized a virtual brainstorming event, in collaboration with the German Reproducibility Network, to discuss strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions. Here, we outline eleven strategies, concentrated in three areas: (1) offering training, (2) adapting research assessment criteria and program requirements, and (3) building communities. We provide a brief overview of each strategy, offer tips for implementation, and provide links to resources. Our goal is to encourage members of the research community to think creatively about the many ways they can contribute and collaborate to build communities, and make reproducible research and open science training the norm. Researchers may act in their roles as scientists, supervisors, mentors, instructors, and members of curriculum, hiring or evaluation committees. Institutional leadership and research administration and support staff can accelerate progress by implementing change across their institutions.

One piece of the puzzle to prosocial behavior is understanding its underlying cognitive and affective processes. We discuss how modeling behavior in social dilemmas can be expanded by integrating cognitive theories and attention-based models of decision processes, and models of affective influences on prosocial decision-making. We review theories speaking to the interconnections of cognition and affect, identifying the need for further theory development regarding modeling moment-by-moment decision-making processes. We discuss how these theoretical perspectives are mirrored in empirical evidence, drawn from classical outcome-oriented as well as contemporary process-tracing research. Finally, we develop perspectives for future research trajectories aiming to further elucidate the processes by which prosocial decisions are formed, by linking process measures to usually unobservable cognitive and affective reactions.

In this paper, we present a review of how the various aspects of any study using an eye tracker (such as the instrument, methodology, environment, participant, etc.) affect the quality of the recorded eye-tracking data and the obtained eye-movement and gaze measures. We take this review to represent the empirical foundation for reporting guidelines of any study involving an eye tracker. We compare this empirical foundation to five existing reporting guidelines and to a database of 207 published eye-tracking studies. We find that reporting guidelines vary substantially and do not match with actual reporting practices. We end by deriving a minimal, flexible reporting guideline based on empirical research (Section “An empirically based minimal reporting guideline”).

Prudently choosing who to interact with and who to avoid is an important ability to ensure that we benefit from a cooperative interaction. While the role of others' preferences, attributes, and values in partner choice have been established (Rossetti, Hilbe & Hauser, 2022), much less is known about whether the manner in which a potential partner plans and implements a decision provides helpful cues for partner choice. We used a partner choice paradigm in which participants chose who to partner with in economic games (either prisoners’ dilemma or stag-hunt). Before making their choice between two partners, participants were presented with information about the potential partners’ decision-related actions in another round of that same game. They received either information about the potential partners’ planning during decision making (Experiment 1, N = 144) or action execution during decision implementation (Experiment 2, N = 144). Across both games, participants preferred to interact with those whose action planning or action execution indicated they were making and implementing prosocial decisions (i.e., cooperate or stag) with certainty. This demonstrates that action cues present in either the planning or implementation of economic decisions influence partner choice, by revealing the strength of the social preferences of potential partners. We discuss implications of this finding for human decision-making and perception-action coupling in action understanding.

The study of moral judgements often centres on moral dilemmas in which options consistent with deontological perspectives (that is, emphasizing rules, individual rights and duties) are in conflict with options consistent with utilitarian judgements (that is, following the greater good based on consequences). Greene et al. (2009) showed that psychological and situational factors (for example, the intent of the agent or the presence of physical contact between the agent and the victim) can play an important role in moral dilemma judgements (for example, the trolley problem). Our knowledge is limited concerning both the universality of these effects outside the United States and the impact of culture on the situational and psychological factors affecting moral judgements. Thus, we empirically tested the universality of the effects of intent and personal force on moral dilemma judgements by replicating the experiments of Greene et al. in 45 countries from all inhabited continents. We found that personal force and its interaction with intention exert influence on moral judgements in the US and Western cultural clusters, replicating and expanding the original findings. Moreover, the personal force effect was present in all cultural clusters, suggesting it is culturally universal. The evidence for the cultural universality of the interaction effect was inconclusive in the Eastern and Southern cultural clusters (depending on exclusion criteria). We found no strong association between collectivism/individualism and moral dilemma judgements. Including participants from 45 countries, Bago et al. find that the situational factors that affect moral reasoning are shared across countries, with diminished observed cultural variation., Comunidad de Madrid [2016-T1/SOC-1395, 2020-5A/SOC-19723]; AEI [PSI2017-85159-P]; UE/FEDER; National Science Centre, Poland [2017/01/X/HS6/01332, 2015/19/D/HS6/00641, 2019/35/B/HS6/00528]; Aarhus University Research Foundation (AUFF) [AUFF-E-2019-9-4]; ANR [ANR-17-EURE-0010]; ANR Labex IAST; Australian Research Council [DP180102384]; CAPES [88887.364180/2019-00]; Carlsberg Foundation [CF16-0444]; Independent Research Fund Denmark [7024-00057B]; Germany's Excellence Strategy [EXC 2126/1-390838866]; FONDECYT, CONICYT [11190980]; German Research Foundation [FOR-2150, LA 3566/1-2]; JSPS [18K03010]; JSPS KAKENHI [16H03079, 17H00875, 18K12015, 20H04581, 17H06342, 20K03479, 20KK0054, 20J21976]; Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [31530032]; Key Technological Projects of Guangdong Province [2018B030335001]; National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1839285]; Polish National Science Center; DFG Beethoven [2016/23/G/HS6/01775]; Portuguese National Foundation for Science and Technology [SFRH/BD/126304/2016, UID/PSI/03125/2019]; PRIN 2017 (Italian Ministry of Education and Research) [20178293XT]; PSA 006 BRA 008 Data Collection in Support of PSADM 001 Measurement Invariance Project; Foundation for Polish Science (START); National Science Centre [2020/36/T/HS6/00256, 2019/33/N/HS6/00054]; Slovak Research and Development Agency [APVV-18-0140, APVV-17-0418, PRIMUS/20/HUM/009, APVV-17-0596]; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [950-224884]; Swedish Research Council [2016-06793]; Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province [2020SJA0017], M.A. Vadillo was supported by 2016-T1/SOC-1395 and 2020-5A/SOC-19723 from Comunidad de Madrid, PSI2017-85159-P from AEI and UE/FEDER. M.P.-C. was supported by 2017/01/X/HS6/01332 from the National Science Centre, Poland. P.M. was supported by Aarhus University Research Foundation (AUFF), starting grant: AUFF-E-2019-9-4. B. Bago was supported by ANR grant ANR-17-EURE-0010 (Investissements d'Avenir programme) and ANR Labex IAST. R.M.R. was supported by the Australian Research Council (DP180102384). N.B.D. was supported by CAPES grant no. 88887.364180/2019-00. C.S., K.A.. and I. Zettler were supported by the Carlsberg Foundation (CF16-0444) and the Independent Research Fund Denmark (7024-00057B). J.L. was supported by EXC 2126/1-390838866 under Germany's Excellence Strategy. K.B. was supported by the following grants from the National Science Centre, Poland: (1) while working on the data collection, no. 2015/19/D/HS6/00641, (2) while working on the final version of the paper, no. 2019/35/B/HS6/00528. A.W. was supported by FONDECYT 11190980, CONICYT. A. Fleischmann was supported by the German Research Foundation (research unit grant FOR-2150, LA 3566/1-2). H.Y. was supported by JSPS grant 18K03010. Y.Y. was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (16H03079, 17H00875, 18K12015 and 20H04581). K.Q. was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (17H06342, 20K03479 and 20KK0054). A. Ikeda was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (20J21976). K.M.K. was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) grant no. 31530032 and Key Technological Projects of Guangdong Province grant no. 2018B030335001. J.B.C. was supported by National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship grant no. DGE-1839285. M. Parzuchowski, K. Rybus and N.M.S. were supported by Polish National Science Center and DFG Beethoven grant 2016/23/G/HS6/01775. A.C.S. was supported by Portuguese National Foundation for Science and Technology grant no. SFRH/BD/126304/2016. L. Boncinelli was supported by PRIN 2017 grant no. 20178293XT (Italian Ministry of Education and Research). M.F.F.R. was supported by PSA 006 BRA 008 Data Collection in Support of PSADM 001 Measurement Invariance Project. M. Misiak was supported by a scholarship from the Foundation for Polish Science (START) and by a scholarship from the National Science Centre (2020/36/T/HS6/00256). P.B. was supported by Slovak Research and Development Agency project no. APVV-18-0140. M.A. was supported by Slovak Research and Development Agency project no. APVV-17-0418 and project PRIMUS/20/HUM/009. A. Findor and M.H. were supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under contract no. APVV-17-0596. T.G. was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (no. 950-224884). P.P. was supported by the Swedish Research Council (2016-06793). Y.L. was supported by The Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province (grant no. 2020SJA0017). M. Kowal was supported by a scholarship from the National Science Centre (2019/33/N/HS6/00054). P.A. was supported by UID/PSI/03125/2019 from the Portuguese National Foundation for Science and Technology. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Norm violations (e.g., unfair transgressions) are often met with punishment even by people who are not directly affected. However, punishing a transgressor is not the only option for a bystander to restore justice. Empathic concerns may dictate instead to give a helping hand to a victim. Using a pre‐registered, fully incentivized eye‐tracking study (N = 47), we investigated the cognitive mechanism linking bystanders’ empathic concern and justice‐restoring intervention behaviour. The results show that not only the decision to intervene (i.e., either costly compensating the victim or punishing the transgressor) but also the attention directed towards a victim’s payoffs (i.e., measured by the proportion of fixations) during the decision‐making period systematically varied with the individual level of empathic concern. Exploring this link further, we additionally instructed participants to focus on specific components of the norm violation, namely the (un)fair conduct of the offender or the victim's feelings. Surprisingly, highly empathic bystanders were more likely to punish the offender when the norm violation was highlighted. However, we did not observe the modulation of the instructed focus on the link between gaze‐based measures and empathic concern. Overall, these results provide initial evidence about the interacting impact of empathic concern as well as the focus on specific components of the norm violation when bystanders respond to unfair transgressions.

The Hagen Cumulative Science Project is a large-scale replication project based on students’ thesis work. In the project, we aim to (a) teach students to conduct the entire research process for conducting a replication according to open science standards and (b) contribute to cumulative science by increasing the number of direct replications. We describe the procedural steps of the project from choosing suitable replication studies to guiding students through the process of conducting a replication, and processing results in a meta-analysis. Based on the experience of more than 80 replications, we summarize how such a project can be implemented. We present practical solutions that have been shown to be successful as well as discuss typical obstacles and how they can be solved. We argue that replication projects are beneficial for all groups involved: Students benefit by being guided through a highly structured protocol and making actual contributions to science. Instructors benefit by using time resources effectively for cumulative science and fulfilling teaching obligations in a meaningful way. The scientific community benefits from the resulting greater number of replications and teaching state-of-the-art methodology. We encourage the use of student thesis-based replication projects for thesis work in academic bachelor and master curricula.

Significance Cooperation is key to well-functioning groups and societies. Rather than addressing high-cost cooperation involving giving money or time and effort, we examine social mindfulness—a form of interpersonal benevolence that requires basic perspective-taking and is aimed at leaving choice for others. Do societies differ in social mindfulness, and if so, does it matter? Here, we find not only considerable variation across 31 nations and regions but also an association between social mindfulness and countries’ performance on environmental protection. We conclude that something as small and concrete as interpersonal benevolence can be entwined with current and future issues of global importance., Humans are social animals, but not everyone will be mindful of others to the same extent. Individual differences have been found, but would social mindfulness also be shaped by one’s location in the world? Expecting cross-national differences to exist, we examined if and how social mindfulness differs across countries. At little to no material cost, social mindfulness typically entails small acts of attention or kindness. Even though fairly common, such low-cost cooperation has received little empirical attention. Measuring social mindfulness across 31 samples from industrialized countries and regions (n = 8,354), we found considerable variation. Among selected country-level variables, greater social mindfulness was most strongly associated with countries’ better general performance on environmental protection. Together, our findings contribute to the literature on prosociality by targeting the kind of everyday cooperation that is more focused on communicating benevolence than on providing material benefits.

Across various contexts, older adults demonstrate a positivity effect – an age-related increase in a relative bias toward positive emotional stimuli as compared to negative stimuli. Previous research has demonstrated how this effect can influence decision making processes, specifically information search and choice satisfaction. However, the potential impact of the positivity effect and resulting age differences in information acquisition on decision quality has not been conclusively determined. We conducted an online decision making study comprising choices among charitable organisations with 152 younger and 152 older adults to investigate this relationship. We did not observe the positivity effect defined as higher positivity bias in older compared to younger adults. On the contrary, younger adults showed a slightly higher positivity bias. We also did not observe a link between a bias in information search toward positive or negative stimuli and decision quality. The results replicate the link between positivity bias and decision satisfaction. Older and younger adults did not differ in their decision quality. Finally, the findings did not support a potential influence of loss prevention orientation. Further research is required to address the factors that could influence the positivity effect in decision making.

Over the past decade, the world has faced an unprecedented refugee crisis. The large number of incoming refugees represents a challenge for host societies and its citizens triggering reactions from a supportive welcome to brusque rejection and hostile behavior toward refugees. In a pre-registered study, we investigated factors that could promote altruistic behavior in fully incentivized one-shot Dictator Game toward various receiver groups including refugees. We find that host citizens behave more altruistically toward refugees and other receiver groups if they (a) share a local identity with them (i.e., live in the same city), and (b) perceive them to be close (to the self) and warm-hearted. Moreover, citizens that are (c) generally more prosocial and hold a more left-wing political orientation are more willing to give. Unexpectedly, from a theoretical point of view, altruistic giving toward refugees was not influenced in the predicted direction by a shared student identity, competition and perceived income differences (although the latter effect was significant when considering all receiver groups). For shared student identity we even observe a reduction of altruistic behavior, while the opposite effect was predicted. We discuss implications for public policies for successful refugee helping and integration.

Correction to: Nature Human Behaviour https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01319-5, published online 14 April 2022.

We develop a reporting guideline for eye-tracking research in the behavioral sciences. To this end, we coded 215 articles on behavioral decision-making published between 2009 and 2017 and extracted a list of reported items. The coded articles were from a broad range of disciplines linked to judgement and decision making, such as cognitive science, marketing, economics, developmental research, vision research, and human–computer interaction. We then had a panel of eye-tracking experts rate the necessity of each item for reproducing a reported study. From these two sources, we generated a guideline containing 31 items that are judged as 'necessary' by the majority of experts for reproducing an eye-tracking study. None of the 215 coded articles report all identified items and approximately 70 percent of the articles report less than 50 percent of the 'necessary' items. We provide the data and list of recommendations as a hands-on shiny app to allow for an easy adoption of the proposed reporting guideline to improve transparency and reproducibility in eye-tracking research.

Ingroup favoritism and discrimination against outgroups are pervasive in social interactions. To uncover the cognitive processes underlying generosity towards in- and outgroup members, we employ eye-tracking in two pre registered studies. We replicate the well-established ingroup favoritism effect and uncover that ingroup compared to outgroup decision settings are characterized by systematic differences in information search effort (i.e., increased response times and number of fixations, more inspected information) and attention distribution. Surprisingly, these results showed a stronger dependency on the in- vs. out-group setting for more individualistic compared to prosocial participants: Whereas individualistic decision makers invested relatively less effort into information search when decisions involved out-group members, prosocial decision makers’ effort differed less between in- and outgroup decisions. Therein, choice and processing findings showed differences, indicating that inferences about the decision process from choices alone can be misleading. Implications for intergroup research and the regulation of intergroup conflict are discussed.

Recent studies suggest the involvement of episodic memory in value-based decisions as a source of information about subjective values of choice options. We therefore tested the link between age-related memory decline and inconsistencies in value-based decisions in 30 cognitively healthy older adults. Within the pre-registered experiment, the inconsistencies were measured in two ways: i) the consistency between stated preferences and revealed choices; ii) the amount of intransitivities in choice triplets, revealed in a forced paired choice task including all possible pairings of 20 food products. Although no significant association of memory functions to number of intransitive triplets was observed, participants with lower memory scores were more likely to choose the item for which they stated a lower preference. The results suggest a higher noise in the underlying preference signal in participants with lower memory. We discuss the results in the context of the unique needs of elderly consumers.

Norm enforcement may be important for resolving conflicts and promoting cooperation. However, little is known about how preferred responses to norm violations vary across cultures and across domains. In a preregistered study of 57 countries (using convenience samples of 22,863 students and non-students), we measured perceptions of the appropriateness of various responses to a violation of a cooperative norm and to atypical social behaviors. Our findings highlight both cultural universals and cultural variation. We find a universal negative relation between appropriateness ratings of norm violations and appropriateness ratings of responses in the form of confrontation, social ostracism and gossip. Moreover, we find the country variation in the appropriateness of sanctions to be consistent across different norm violations but not across different sanctions. Specifically, in those countries where use of physical confrontation and social ostracism is rated as less appropriate, gossip is rated as more appropriate.

This chapter provides a list of reporting standards meant to increase reproducibility of eye-tracking research in judgment and decision making. It addresses a wide set of reporting criteria across the typical sections in research papers: introduction, methods, data preprocessing, and discussion of the results. The list of reporting criteria specifies the minimum information needed for successfully reproducing a study. Thus, by simply reporting the model, producer, and type of eye tracker, other researchers have the chance to consult online documentation of the specific eye-tracking devices and appraise the eye tracker’s quality and it’s fit to the respective research design. Reporting on data quality in eye-tracking studies can refer to several measures most of which are common to all eye-tracking studies. The Minimal Reporting Standards is thought of as a tool not only for researchers, but also for reviewers, editors, and funders.

Much research on moral judgment is centered on moral dilemmas in which deontological perspectives (i.e., emphasizing rules, individual rights and duties) are in conflict with utilitarian judgements (i.e., following the greater good defined through consequences). A central finding of this field Greene et al. showed that psychological and situational factors (e.g., the intent of the agent, or physical contact between the agent and the victim) play an important role in people’s use of deontological versus utilitarian considerations when making moral decisions. As their study was conducted with US samples, our knowledge is limited concerning the universality of this effect, in general, and the impact of culture on the situational and psychological factors of moral judgments, in particular. Here, we empirically test the universality of deontological and utilitarian judgments by replicating Greene et al.’s experiments on a large (N = X,XXX) and diverse (WEIRD and non-WEIRD) sample across the world to explore the influence of culture on moral judgment. The relevance of this exploration to a broad range of policy-making problems is discussed.

In 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.

Source at https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918797607. Concerns about the veracity of psychological research have been growing. Many findings in psychological science are based on studies with insufficient statistical power and nonrepresentative samples, or may otherwise be limited to specific, ungeneralizable settings or populations. Crowdsourced research, a type of large-scale collaboration in which one or more research projects are conducted across multiple lab sites, offers a pragmatic solution to these and other current methodological challenges. The Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) is a distributed network of laboratories designed to enable and support crowdsourced research projects. These projects can focus on novel research questions or replicate prior research in large, diverse samples. The PSA’s mission is to accelerate the accumulation of reliable and generalizable evidence in psychological science. Here, we describe the background, structure, principles, procedures, benefits, and challenges of the PSA. In contrast to other crowdsourced research networks, the PSA is ongoing (as opposed to time limited), efficient (in that structures and principles are reused for different projects), decentralized, diverse (in both subjects and researchers), and inclusive (of proposals, contributions, and other relevant input from anyone inside or outside the network). The PSA and other approaches to crowdsourced psychological science will advance understanding of mental processes and behaviors by enabling rigorous research and systematic examination of its generalizability.

Social psychological research is increasingly interested in the cognitive and affective processes underlying human behavior in social environments. To match this emerging interest, social psychology is embracing new methodological approaches. We identify eye-tracking as an unobtrusive, direct and fine-grained process tracing technique with promising implications for these new developments. In particular, eye-tracking helps researchers avoid relying on self-report measures alone and otherwise necessary interruptions of the processes they aim to observe and understand. In order to enable social psychologists to effectively use eye-tracking, we provide a systematic review of commonly used measures. Following an introduction of the basic principles and assumptions underlying the use of eye-tracking generally, we review eye-tracking measures addressing concepts of interest for many core theories of social psychology. Specifically, we introduce options to measure processing depth and decision effort, information weighting, search strategies, cognitive load and arousal. We showcase potential uses in exemplary research questions, providing a starting point for how to select appropriate measures and tailor designs to future applications of eye-tracking to social psychology. Further, we critically discuss the limitations and auxiliary assumptions on which the introduced measures are based. Finally, we illustrate the use of eye-tracking with examples from contemporary psychological research with relevance for social psychology, and conclude with an outlook for potential benefits of the use of eye-tracking methods in core topics of social psychology.

According to self-maintenance theory, people notice their dishonest acts and thus experience ethical dissonance between their misconduct and their positive moral self. In this view, dishonesty is facilitated by justifications that redefine moral boundaries. By contrast, the bounded ethicality approach suggests that biased perception prevents people from becoming aware of their dishonesty. We tested the key process assumptions behind these accounts using pupillary responses and fixation data and found physiological evidence for both kinds of mechanisms. In particular, physiological arousal increased at the initial stage of cheating responses. This suggests that people are on some level aware of their wrongdoings. At the same time, however, we found attentional biases that can reduce the likelihood for detecting potentially disadvantageous information. We suggest that dishonest acts come at the internal cost of increased tension, which people aim to avoid by pre-emptive biased processing as well as post hoc justifications. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Zusammenfassung. Die Replikationskrise innerhalb der Psychologie hat eine Diskussion über gängige Praktiken im Forschungsprozess und die beteiligten Institutionen ausgelöst. Wir stellen Maßnahmen vor, die dazu beitragen können, Forschung effizienter und Forschungsergebnisse belastbarer zu machen, indem sie eine strategische Ausrichtung und stärkere Verzahnung von Forschungsprozessen in Gang setzen. Die notwendigen Veränderungen setzen dabei auf der Ebene des Individuums sowie der Institutionen an und betreffen die Inhaltsbereiche Theorie, Empirie und Evidenzakkumulation. Über die bekannten eher spezifischen Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Reproduzierbarkeit hinaus, zielen unsere Vorschläge darauf ab, die Voraussetzungen für effizientes wissenschaftliches Arbeiten zu verbessern, indem u. a. (i) die exakte Spezifikation und die kritische Testung und Revision von Theorien wieder stärker in den Mittelpunkt der Forschung gerückt werden, (ii) eine Kultur der Transparenz, akzeptierten Fehlbarkeit und Offenheit für Empirie- aber insbesondere auch Theorierevision etabliert wird, (iii) diese Kultur und die damit verbundene Methodik als integrale Bestandteile durchgängig in der Lehre verankert werden und (iv) Evidenz und Theorien in fortlaufend dezentral aktualisierten und miteinander verknüpften Theorie- und Empirie-Datenbanken zusammengeführt werden.

Framing influences choice. However, little is known about the underlying mechanisms behind framing effects. We study gain-loss framing in binary modified dictator games. Subjects choose the selfish option more often in the loss frame compared to the gain frame. Recording visual fixations with eye-tracking, we find that dictators focus more on their own outcomes when facing losses. This suggests that losses to the own outcome are weighted more than losses to another player.

Moral judgments and decisions are accompanied by specific patterns of attention, which can be indicative for the underlying cognitive processes. In this opinion paper we address methodological, theoretical and empirical issues concerning the relation between attention and morality. First, we discuss potential advantages of using measures of attention based on eye-tracking to investigate processes of judgment and choice in general and concerning morality in particular. Second, we review empirical studies and identify regularities concerning attention patterns in moral judgments. Third, taking into account these findings we provide suggestions for the development and testing of more detailed and better formalized cognitive process models for moral behavior based on interactive activation and parallel constraint satisfaction mechanisms. Previous article in issue

Replicability of findings is at the heart of any empirical science. The aim of this article is to move the current replicability debate in psychology towards concrete recommendations for improvement. We focus on research practices but also offer guidelines for reviewers, editors, journal management, teachers, granting institutions, and university promotion committees, highlighting some of the emerging and existing practical solutions that can facilitate implementation of these recommendations. The challenges for improving replicability in psychological science are systemic. Improvement can occur only if changes are made at many levels of practice, evaluation, and reward. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Psychologists must change the way they conduct and report their research—this notion has been the topic of much debate in recent years. One article recently published in Psychological Science proposing six requirements for researchers concerning data collection and reporting practices as well as four guidelines for reviewers aimed at improving the publication process has recently received much attention (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011). We surveyed 1,292 psychologists to address two questions: Do psychologists support these concrete changes to data collection, reporting, and publication practices, and if not, what are their reasons? Respondents also indicated the percentage of print and online journal space that should be dedicated to novel studies and direct replications as well as the percentage of published psychological research that they believed would be confirmed if direct replications were conducted. We found that psychologists are generally open to change. Five requirements for researchers and three guidelines for reviewers were supported as standards of good practice, whereas one requirement was even supported as a publication condition. Psychologists appear to be less in favor of mandatory conditions of publication than standards of good practice. We conclude that the proposal made by Simmons, Nelson & Simonsohn (2011) is a starting point for such standards.

Beginning January 2014, Psychological Science gave authors the opportunity to signal open data and materials if they qualified for badges that accompanied published articles. Before badges, less than 3% of Psychological Science articles reported open data. After badges, 23% reported open data, with an accelerating trend; 39% reported open data in the first half of 2015, an increase of more than an order of magnitude from baseline. There was no change over time in the low rates of data sharing among comparison journals. Moreover, reporting openness does not guarantee openness. When badges were earned, reportedly available data were more likely to be actually available, correct, usable, and complete than when badges were not earned. Open materials also increased to a weaker degree, and there was more variability among comparison journals. Badges are simple, effective signals to promote open practices and improve preservation of data and materials by using independent repositories., Badges that acknowledge open practices significantly increase sharing of reported data and materials, as well as subsequent accessibility, correctness, usability, and completeness., Author Summary Openness is a core value of scientific practice. The sharing of research materials and data facilitates critique, extension, and application within the scientific community, yet current norms provide few incentives for researchers to share evidence underlying scientific claims. In January 2014, the journal Psychological Science adopted such an incentive by offering “badges” to acknowledge and signal open practices in publications. In this study, we evaluated the effect that two types of badges—Open Data badges and Open Materials badges—have had on reported data and material sharing, as well as on the actual availability, correctness, usability, and completeness of those data and materials both in Psychological Science and in four comparison journals. We report an increase in reported data sharing of more than an order of magnitude from baseline in Psychological Science, as well as an increase in reported materials sharing, although to a weaker degree. Moreover, we show that reportedly available data and materials were more accessible, correct, usable, and complete when badges were earned. We demonstrate that badges are effective incentives that improve the openness, accessibility, and persistence of data and materials that underlie scientific research.

Previous literature has suggested that risky choice patterns in general—and probability weighting in particular—are strikingly different in experience-based as compared with description-based formats. In 2 reanalyses and 3 new experiments, we investigate differences between experience-based and description-based decisions using a parametric approach based on cumulative prospect theory (CPT). Once controlling for sampling biases, we consistently find a reversal of the typical description–experience gap, that is, a reduced sensitivity to probabilities and increased overweighting of small probabilities in decisions from experience as compared with decisions from descriptions. This finding supports the hypothesis that regression to the mean effects in probability estimation are a crucial source of differences between both presentation formats. Further analyses identified task specific information asymmetry prevalent in gambles involving certainty as a third source of differences. We present a novel conceptualization of multiple independent sources of bias that contribute to the description–experience gap, namely sampling biases and task specific information asymmetry on the one hand, and regression to the mean effects in probability estimation on the other hand. (APA PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)