3 research outputs found

    The peer reviewers' openness initiative:Incentivising open research practices through peer review

    Get PDF
    Openness is one of the central values of science. Open scientific practices such as sharing data, materials and analysis scripts alongside published articles have many benefits, including easier replication and extension studies, increased availability of data for theory-building and meta-analysis, and increased possibility of review and collaboration even after a paper has been published. Although modern information technology makes sharing easier than ever before, uptake of open practices had been slow. We suggest this might be in part due to a social dilemma arising from misaligned incentives and propose a specific, concrete mechanism—reviewers withholding comprehensive review—to achieve the goal of creating the expectation of open practices as a matter of scientific principle

    Affective contingencies in the affiliative domain: Physiological assessment, associations with the affiliation motive, and prediction of behavior (vol 109, pg 662, 2015)

    No full text
    According to classical motive disposition theory, individuals differ in their propensity to derive pleasure from affiliative experiences. This propensity is considered a core process underlying the affiliation motive and a pervasive cause of motivated behavior. In this study, we tested these assumptions. We presented participants with positive affiliative stimuli and used electromyography to record changes in facial muscular activity that are indicative of subtle smiling. We were thus able to physiologically measure positive affect following affiliative cues. Individual differences in these affective contingencies were internally consistent and temporally stable. They converged with affiliation motive self- and informant reports and picture story exercise scores, indicating that they are partly accessible to the self, observable to outsiders, and overlap with implicit systems. Finally, they predicted affiliative behavior in terms of situation selection and modification across a wide variety of contexts (i.e., in daily life, the laboratory, and an online social network). These findings corroborate the long-held assumption that affective contingencies represent a motivational core aspect of affiliation

    Religiosity as social value: replication and extension

    No full text
    Are religious people psychologically better or worse adjusted than their non-religious counterparts? Hundreds of studies have reported a positive relation between religiosity and psychological adjustment. Recently, however, a comparatively small number of cross-cultural studies has questioned this staple of religiosity research. The latter studies find that religious adjustment benefits are restricted to religious cultures. Gebauer, Sedikides, and Neberich (2012b) suggested the religiosity-as-social-value hypothesis (RASV) as one explanation for those cross-cultural differences. RASV states that, in religious cultures, religiosity possesses much social value, and, as such, religious people will feel particularly good about themselves. In secular cultures, however, religiosity possesses limited social value, and, as such, religious people will feel less good about themselves, if at all. Yet, previous evidence has been inconclusive regarding RASV and regarding cross-cultural differences in religious adjustment benefits more generally. To clarify matters, we conducted three replication studies. We examined the relation between religiosity and self-esteem (the most direct and appropriate adjustment indicator, according to RASV) in a self-report study across 65 countries (N = 2,195,301), an informant-report study across 36 countries (N = 560,264), and another self-report study across 1,932 urban areas from 243 federal states in 18 countries (N = 1,188,536). Moreover, we scrutinized our results against seven, previously untested, alternative explanations. Our results fully and firmly replicated and extended prior evidence for cross-cultural differences in religious adjustment benefits. These cross-cultural differences were best explained by the RASV hypothesis
    corecore