Are Small Effects the Indispensable Foundation for a Cumulative Psychological Science? A Reply to Götz et al. (2022)

In the January 2022 issue of Perspectives, Götz et al. argued that small effects are “the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science.” They supported their argument by claiming that (a) psychology, like genetics, consists of complex phenomena explained by additive small effects; (b) psychological-research culture rewards large effects, which means small effects are being ignored; and (c) small effects become meaningful at scale and over time. We rebut these claims with three objections: First, the analogy between genetics and psychology is misleading; second, p values are the main currency for publication in psychology, meaning that any biases in the literature are (currently) caused by pressure to publish statistically significant results and not large effects; and third, claims regarding small effects as important and consequential must be supported by empirical evidence or, at least, a falsifiable line of reasoning. If accepted uncritically, we believe the arguments of Götz et al. could be used as a blanket justification for the importance of any and all “small” effects, thereby undermining best practices in effect-size interpretation. We end with guidance on evaluating effect sizes in relative, not absolute, terms

The natural resources of Morro Bay

The primary purpose of this report, then, is to document the natural resources of Morro Bay and their values; point out significant problems regarding their use and to make recommendations for preservation of these resources to planners, administrators and interested citizens. A secondary purpose of this report is to pull together into one source, all data and references on the biological resources of Morro Bay. Up to now these data have been widely distributed amongst letters, reports, papers, etc., to which few have access. At the request of Senate Resolution No. 176, 1966 First Extraordinary Session, the Department completed in December, 1966 a report entitled, "Report of the Natural Resources of Morro Bay and Proposal for Comprehensive Area Plan." Based largely upon the recommendations of that report, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors appointed a task force to prepare a comprehensive area plan for the Morro Bay area and its watershed. Hence, the information herein is presented in order that the natural resources of Morro Bay will be given adequate consideration, based on the best data available, in the proposed comprehensive area plan and in other plans such as one being prepared by the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. (148ppp.

Piecewise Tensor Product Wavelet Bases by Extensions and Approximation Rates

Following [Studia Math., 76(2) (1983), pp. 1-58 and 95-136] by Z. Ciesielski and T. Figiel and [SIAM J. Math. Anal., 31 (1999), pp. 184-230] by W. Dahmen and R. Schneider, by the application of extension operators we construct a basis for a range of Sobolev spaces on a domain $\Omega$ from corresponding bases on subdomains that form a non-overlapping decomposition. As subdomains, we take hypercubes, or smooth parametric images of those, and equip them with tensor product wavelet bases. We prove approximation rates from the resulting piecewise tensor product basis that are independent of the spatial dimension of $\Omega$. For two- and three-dimensional polytopes we show that the solution of Poisson type problems satisfies the required regularity condition. The dimension independent rates will be realized numerically in linear complexity by the application of the adaptive wavelet-Galerkin scheme

A Hedged Monte Carlo Approach to Real Option Pricing

In this work we are concerned with valuing optionalities associated to invest or to delay investment in a project when the available information provided to the manager comes from simulated data of cash flows under historical (or subjective) measure in a possibly incomplete market. Our approach is suitable also to incorporating subjective views from management or market experts and to stochastic investment costs. It is based on the Hedged Monte Carlo strategy proposed by Potters et al (2001) where options are priced simultaneously with the determination of the corresponding hedging. The approach is particularly well-suited to the evaluation of commodity related projects whereby the availability of pricing formulae is very rare, the scenario simulations are usually available only in the historical measure, and the cash flows can be highly nonlinear functions of the prices.Comment: 25 pages, 14 figure

The psychological science accelerator’s COVID-19 rapid-response dataset

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Are Small Effects the Indispensable Foundation for a Cumulative Psychological Science? A Reply to Götz et al. (2022).

Götz et al. (2022) argue that small effects are “the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science”. They support their argument by claiming that (i) psychology, like genetics, consists of complex phenomena explained by additive small effects, (ii) psychological research culture rewards large effects, which means small effects are being ignored, and (iii) small effects become meaningful at scale and over time. We rebut these claims with three objections: (i) the analogy between genetics and psychology is misleading, (ii) p-values are the main currency for publication in psychology, meaning that any biases in the literature are (currently) caused by a pressure to publish statistically significant results and not large effects, and (iii) claims regarding small effects as important and consequential must be supported by empirical evidence or, at least, a falsifiable line of reasoning. If accepted uncritically, we believe the arguments of Götz et al. (2022) could be used as a blanket justification for the importance of any and all ‘small’ effects, thereby undermining best practices in effect size interpretation. We end with guidance on evaluating effect sizes in relative, not absolute terms

Structural validity evidence for the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale across 15 languages

Background: The Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) recently completed a large-scale moral psychology study using translated versions of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (OUS). However, the translated versions have no validity evidence. Objective: The study investigated the structural validity evidence of the OUS across 15 translated versions and produced version-specific validity reports. Methods: We analyzed OUS data from the PSA, which was collected internationally on a centralized online questionnaire. We also collected qualitative feedback from experts for each translated version. Results: For each version, we produced version-specific psychometric reports which include the following: (1) descriptive item and demographics analyses, (2) factor structure evidence using confirmatory factor analyses, (3) measurement invariance testing across languages using multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses and alignment optimization, and (4) reliability analyses using coefficients ? and ?.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Creative destruction in science

Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents\u2019 reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void\u2014 reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article

A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This crosscountry, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one's core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people's existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges