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

The impact of flood action groups on the uptake of flood management measures

Household flood management measures can significantly reduce the risk from flooding. Understanding the factors that influence the uptake of measures has important implications for the design of measures to induce people to take charge of risk mitigation. We investigate the impact of flood action groups in communities in Scotland on the uptake of four measures: insurance, flood warnings, sandbags and floodgates applying regression analysis using a cross-sectional survey (n = 124). The groups were formed in response to the threat from flooding in those communities, and offer information and training on household flood management measures. We use the theoretical framework of Protection Motivation Theory, and compare uptake of the measures before and after the foundation of the flood action groups, as well as in the near future. The models show positive adoption effects for flood warnings, floodgates and to an extent for insurance, and a positive correlation with increased confidence of implementing and belief in the effectiveness of the measures. The effect is significant if specific information on the measures was provided, indicating the importance of tailored content. We conclude that appropriately designed flood action groups can be a cost-effective way of increasing the uptake of household flood management measures

Perception of Product Risks

This chapter provides several explanations for consumer risk perception. For frequently repeated behavior that is seemingly under their own control, consumers tend to be overly optimistic. This occurs in spite of the general tendency of consumers to be risk averse. Specific dimensions of different products or situations trigger psychometric factors, most notably dread and uncertainty that increase, or reduce risk perception. Cultural theories look for differences in risk perception caused by difference between consumer groups and how this result in interpretation of risk information. Besides these takes on risk perception, it is now commonly accepted that risk perception is at least in part based on emotions, that there is some relation between risk and benefit perception, that media attention influences perceived risks, and that perceived lack of knowledge influence risk seeking behavior. These approaches influence risk perception through potential categorical rejection of risky products, through weighing of risk against benefits and other product properties. Risk perception influences behavior as part of an elaborate evaluation or as trigger of an automatic behavior