Self-serving perception of charitable donation request: An effective cognitive strategy to boost benefits and reduce drawbacks

The psychological consequences of prosocial behavior depend on people's perceptions of their own volition. Building on this, we hypothesized that people who donate increase their volition and the benefits of donations by judging donation requests as polite (non-coercive), whereas non-donors reduce their volition and the drawback of refusing to donate by judging the request as less polite (too coercive). Three weeks after providing baseline politeness judgments about a fundraising request, participants re-evaluated the same request as potential donors (experimental group) or observers (control group) and reported how they felt (Ntime1?=?605, Ntime2?=?294). Relative to past perceptions, donors judged the request as more polite than control participants. Non-donors redefined the request as less polite than donors, but not less than control participants. Both donors and non-donors benefited from redefining the request as more polite. We discuss how altering one's perception of a request is a multi-purpose self-serving cognition

The COVID-19 vaccine communication handbook. A practical guide for improving vaccine communication and fighting misinformation

This handbook is for journalists, doctors, nurses, policy makers, researchers, teachers, students, parents – in short, it’s for everyone who wants to know more: About the COVID-19 vaccines; How to talk to others about them; How to challenge misinformation about the vaccines.Published versio

A pre-registered, multi-lab non-replication of the Action-sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE)

The Action-sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE) is a well-known demonstration of the role of motor activity in the comprehension of language. Participants are asked to make sensibility judgments on sentences by producing movements toward the body or away from the body. The ACE is the finding that movements are faster when the direction of the movement (e.g., toward) matches the direction of the action in the to-be-judged sentence (e.g., Art gave you the pen describes action toward you). We report on a pre- registered, multi-lab replication of one version of the ACE. The results show that none of the 18 labs involved in the study observed a reliable ACE, and that the meta-analytic estimate of the size of the ACE was essentially zero

Genome-wide microRNA screening in Nile tilapia reveals pervasive isomiRs’ transcription, sex-biased arm switching and increasing complexity of expression throughout development

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are key regulators of gene expression in multicellular organisms. The elucidation of miRNA function and evolution depends on the identification and characterization of miRNA repertoire of strategic organisms, as the fast-evolving cichlid fishes. Using RNA-seq and comparative genomics we carried out an in-depth report of miRNAs in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), an emergent model organism to investigate evo-devo mechanisms. Five hundred known miRNAs and almost one hundred putative novel vertebrate miRNAs have been identified, many of which seem to be teleost-specific, cichlid-specific or tilapia-specific. Abundant miRNA isoforms (isomiRs) were identified with modifications in both 5p and 3p miRNA transcripts. Changes in arm usage (arm switching) of nine miRNAs were detected in early development, adult stage and even between male and female samples. We found an increasing complexity of miRNA expression during ontogenetic development, revealing a remarkable synchronism between the rate of new miRNAs recruitment and morphological changes. Overall, our results enlarge vertebrate miRNA collection and reveal a notable differential ratio of miRNA arms and isoforms influenced by sex and developmental life stage, providing a better picture of the evolutionary and spatiotemporal dynamics of miRNAs

A pre-registered, multi-lab non-replication of the Action-sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE)

The Action-sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE) is a well-known demonstration of the role of motor activity in the comprehension of language. Participants are asked to make sensibility judgments on sentences by producing movements toward the body or away from the body. The ACE is the finding that movements are faster when the direction of the movement (e.g., toward) matches the direction of the action in the to-be-judged sentence (e.g., Art gave you the pen describes action toward you). We report on a pre-registered, multi-lab replication of one version of the ACE. The results show that none of the 18 labs involved in the study observed a reliable ACE, and that the meta-analytic estimate of the size of the ACE was essentially zero.Fil: Morey, Richard. Cardiff University; Reino UnidoFil: Kaschak, Michael. Florida State University; Estados UnidosFil: Díez Álamo, Antonio. Universidad de Salamanca; España. Arizona State University; Estados UnidosFil: Glenberg, Arthur. Arizona State University; Estados Unidos. Universidad de Salamanca; EspañaFil: Zwaan, Rolf A.. Erasmus University Rotterdam; Países BajosFil: Lakens, Daniël. Eindhoven University of Technology; Países BajosFil: Ibáñez, Santiago Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de San Andrés; Argentina. University of San Francisco; Estados Unidos. Universidad Adolfo Ibañez; Chile. Trinity College Dublin; IrlandaFil: García, Adolfo Martín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de San Andrés; Argentina. University of San Francisco; Estados Unidos. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Educación Elemental y Especial; Argentina. Universidad de Santiago de Chile; ChileFil: Gianelli, Claudia. Universitat Potsdam; Alemania. Scuola Universitaria Superiore; ItaliaFil: Jones, John L.. Florida State University; Estados UnidosFil: Madden, Julie. University of Tennessee; Estados UnidosFil: Alifano Ferrero, Florencia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Bergen, Benjamin. University of California at San Diego; Estados UnidosFil: Bloxsom, Nicholas G.. Ashland University; Estados UnidosFil: Bub, Daniel N.. University of Victoria; CanadáFil: Cai, Zhenguang G.. The Chinese University; Hong KongFil: Chartier, Christopher R.. Ashland University; Estados UnidosFil: Chatterjee, Anjan. University of Pennsylvania; Estados UnidosFil: Conwell, Erin. North Dakota State University; Estados UnidosFil: Wagner Cook, Susan. University of Iowa; Estados UnidosFil: Davis, Joshua D.. University of California at San Diego; Estados UnidosFil: Evers, Ellen R. K.. University of California at Berkeley; Estados UnidosFil: Girard, Sandrine. University of Carnegie Mellon; Estados UnidosFil: Harter, Derek. Texas A&m University Commerce; Estados UnidosFil: Hartung, Franziska. University of Pennsylvania; Estados UnidosFil: Herrera, Eduar. Universidad ICESI; ColombiaFil: Huettig, Falk. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics; Países BajosFil: Humphries, Stacey. University of Pennsylvania; Estados UnidosFil: Juanchich, Marie. University of Essex; Reino UnidoFil: Kühne, Katharina. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Lu, Shulan. Texas A&m University Commerce; Estados UnidosFil: Lynes, Tom. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Masson, Michael E. J.. University of Victoria; CanadáFil: Ostarek, Markus. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics; Países BajosFil: Pessers, Sebastiaan. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; BélgicaFil: Reglin, Rebecca. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Steegen, Sara. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; BélgicaFil: Thiessen, Erik D.. University of Carnegie Mellon; Estados UnidosFil: Thomas, Laura E.. North Dakota State University; Estados UnidosFil: Trott, Sean. University of California at San Diego; Estados UnidosFil: Vandekerckhove, Joachim. University of California at Irvine; Estados UnidosFil: Vanpaeme, Wolf. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; BélgicaFil: Vlachou, Maria. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; BélgicaFil: Williams, Kristina. Texas A&m University Commerce; Estados UnidosFil: Ziv Crispel, Noam. BehavioralSight; Estados Unido

Effect of response format on cognitive reflection: Validating a two- and four-option multiple choice question version of the Cognitive Reflection Test

The Cognitive Reflection Test, measuring intuition inhibition and cognitive reflection, has become extremely popular since it reliably predicts reasoning performance, decision-making and beliefs. Across studies, the response format of CRT items sometimes differs, assuming construct equivalence of the tests with open-ended vs. multiple choice items (the equivalence hypothesis). Evidence and theoretical reasons, however, suggest that the cognitive processes measured by these response formats and their associated performances might differ (the non-equivalence hypothesis). We tested the two hypotheses experimentally by assessing the performance in tests with different response formats and by comparing their predictive and construct validity. In a between-subjects experiment (n = 452), participants answered an open-ended, a two- or a four-option response format of stem-equivalent CRT items and completed tasks on belief bias, denominator neglect and paranormal beliefs (benchmark indicators of predictive validity) as well as actively open-minded thinking and numeracy (benchmark indicators of construct validity). We found no significant differences between the three response formats in the number of correct responses, the number of intuitive responses (with the exception of the two-option version being higher than the other tests) and in the correlational patterns with the indicators of predictive and construct validity. All three test versions were similarly reliable but the multiple-choice formats were completed more quickly. We speculate that the specific nature of the CRT items helps to build construct equivalence among the different response formats. We recommend using the validated multiple-choice version of the CRT presented here, particularly the four-option CRT, for practical and methodological reasons

The COVID-19 Vaccine Communication Handbook. A practical guide for improving vaccine communication and fighting misinformation

This handbook is for journalists, doctors, nurses, policy makers, researchers, teachers, students, parents – in short, it’s for everyone who wants to know more about the COVID-19 vaccines, how to talk to others about them, how to challenge misinformation about the vaccines. This handbook is self-contained but additionally provides access to a “wiki” of more detailed information

Evaluating the Pedagogical Effectiveness of Study Preregistration in the Undergraduate Dissertation

Research shows that questionable research practices (QRPs) are present in undergraduate final-year dissertation projects. One entry-level Open Science practice proposed to mitigate QRPs is “study preregistration,” through which researchers outline their research questions, design, method, and analysis plans before data collection and/or analysis. In this study, we aimed to empirically test the effectiveness of preregistration as a pedagogic tool in undergraduate dissertations using a quasi-experimental design. A total of 89 UK psychology students were recruited, including students who preregistered their empirical quantitative dissertation ( n = 52; experimental group) and students who did not ( n = 37; control group). Attitudes toward statistics, acceptance of QRPs, and perceived understanding of Open Science were measured both before and after dissertation completion. Exploratory measures included capability, opportunity, and motivation to engage with preregistration, measured at Time 1 only. This study was conducted as a Registered Report; Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9hjbw (date of in-principle acceptance: September 21, 2021). Study preregistration did not significantly affect attitudes toward statistics or acceptance of QRPs. However, students who preregistered reported greater perceived understanding of Open Science concepts from Time 1 to Time 2 compared with students who did not preregister. Exploratory analyses indicated that students who preregistered reported significantly greater capability, opportunity, and motivation to preregister. Qualitative responses revealed that preregistration was perceived to improve clarity and organization of the dissertation, prevent QRPs, and promote rigor. Disadvantages and barriers included time, perceived rigidity, and need for training. These results contribute to discussions surrounding embedding Open Science principles into research training

Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs

Significance Using experiments involves leeway in choosing one out of many possible experimental designs. This choice constitutes a source of uncertainty in estimating the underlying effect size which is not incorporated into common research practices. This study presents the results of a crowd-sourced project in which 45 independent teams implemented research designs to address the same research question: Does competition affect moral behavior? We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis involving 18,123 experimental participants. Importantly, however, the variation in effect size estimates across the 45 designs is substantially larger than the variation expected due to sampling errors. This “design heterogeneity” highlights that the generalizability and informativeness of individual experimental designs are limited. Abstract Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity—variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity—estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs—indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis