Registered Replication Report: Rand, Greene & Nowak (2012)

Article


Bouwmeester, S., Verkoeijen, P., Acze, B., Barbosa, F., Bègue, L., Branas-Garza, P., Chmura, T., Cornelissen, G., Døssing, F., Espín, A., Evans, A., Ferreira-Santos, F., Fiedler, S., Flegr, J., Ghaffari, M., Glöckner, A., Goeschl, T., Guo, L., Hauser, O., Hernan-Gonzalez, R., Herrero, A., Horne, Z., Houdek, P., Johannesson, M., Koppel, L., Kujal, P., Laine, T., Lohse, J., Martins, E., Mauro, C., Mischkowski, D., Mukherjee, S., Myrseth, K., Navarro-Martínez, D., Neal, T., Novakova, J., Pagà, R., Paiva, T., Palf, B., Piovesan, M., Rahal, R., Salomon, E., Srinivasan, N., Srivastava, A., Szaszi, B., Szollosi, A., Thor, K., Tinghög, G., Trueblood, J., Van Bavel, J., van 't Veer, A., Västfjäll, D., Warner, M., Wengström, E., Wills, J. and Wollbrant, C. 2017. Registered Replication Report: Rand, Greene & Nowak (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 12 (3), pp. 527-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693624
TypeArticle
TitleRegistered Replication Report: Rand, Greene & Nowak (2012)
AuthorsBouwmeester, S., Verkoeijen, P., Acze, B., Barbosa, F., Bègue, L., Branas-Garza, P., Chmura, T., Cornelissen, G., Døssing, F., Espín, A., Evans, A., Ferreira-Santos, F., Fiedler, S., Flegr, J., Ghaffari, M., Glöckner, A., Goeschl, T., Guo, L., Hauser, O., Hernan-Gonzalez, R., Herrero, A., Horne, Z., Houdek, P., Johannesson, M., Koppel, L., Kujal, P., Laine, T., Lohse, J., Martins, E., Mauro, C., Mischkowski, D., Mukherjee, S., Myrseth, K., Navarro-Martínez, D., Neal, T., Novakova, J., Pagà, R., Paiva, T., Palf, B., Piovesan, M., Rahal, R., Salomon, E., Srinivasan, N., Srivastava, A., Szaszi, B., Szollosi, A., Thor, K., Tinghög, G., Trueblood, J., Van Bavel, J., van 't Veer, A., Västfjäll, D., Warner, M., Wengström, E., Wills, J. and Wollbrant, C.
Abstract

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 et al., 2014). This Registered Replication Report (RRR) assessed the size and variability of the effect of time pressure on cooperative decisions by combining 21 separate, pre-registered replications of the critical conditions from Study 7 of the original paper (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 observed a difference in contributions of -0.37 percentage points, compared to an 8.6 percentage point difference calculated from the original data. Analyzing the data as the original paper did, including data only for participants who complied with the time constraints, the RRR observed a 10.37 percentage point difference in contributions compared to 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.

LanguageEnglish
PublisherSage
JournalPerspectives on Psychological Science
ISSN1745-6916
Electronic1745-6924
Publication dates
Online01 Mar 2017
Print01 May 2017
Publication process dates
Deposited23 Feb 2017
Accepted30 Jan 2017
Output statusPublished
Publisher's version
License
Accepted author manuscript
Copyright Statement

Bouwmeester, S., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Aczel, B., Barbosa, F., Bègue, L., Brañas-Garza, P., … Wollbrant, C. E. (2017). Registered Replication Report: Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(3), 527–542. © The Author(s) 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693624

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693624
Permalink -

https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/item/86x81

Download files


Publisher's version

Accepted author manuscript
  • 24
    total views
  • 1
    total downloads
  • 3
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month

Export as

Related outputs

The effect of wage proposals on efficiency and income distribution
Ezquerra, L., Gómez-Miñambres, J., Jimenez, N. and Kujal, P. 2023. The effect of wage proposals on efficiency and income distribution. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 216, pp. 469-493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.10.006
Trustors' disregard for trustees deciding quickly or slowly in three experiments with time constraints
Cabrales, A., Espín, A., Kujal, P. and Rassenti, S. 2022. Trustors' disregard for trustees deciding quickly or slowly in three experiments with time constraints. Scientific Reports. 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15420-2
Self-selecting into being a dictator: distributional consequences
Ezquerra Guerra, L. and Kujal, P. 2020. Self-selecting into being a dictator: distributional consequences. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101559
On booms that never bust: ambiguity in experimental asset markets with bubbles
Corgnet, B., Hernan-Gonzalez, R. and Kujal, P. 2020. On booms that never bust: ambiguity in experimental asset markets with bubbles. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control. 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2019.103754
Cognitive reflection test: whom, how, when
Branas-Garza, P., Lenkei, B. and Kujal, P. 2019. Cognitive reflection test: whom, how, when. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 82, pp. 1-18.
To trust or not to trust: cognitive reflection in trust game
Corgnet, B., Espín, A., Hernán-González, R., Kujal, P. and Rassenti, S. 2016. To trust or not to trust: cognitive reflection in trust game. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 64, pp. 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2015.09.008
Editorial: Prosocial and antisocial behavior in economic games
Branas-Garza, P., Espín, A., Herrmann, B., Kujal, P. and Nagel, R. 2016. Editorial: Prosocial and antisocial behavior in economic games. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00243
What is a fair wage? Reference points, entitlements and gift exchange
Bottino, E., García-Muñoz, T., Goddio, C. and Kujal, P. 2016. What is a fair wage? Reference points, entitlements and gift exchange. Journal of Experimental and Behavioural Economics. 63, pp. 125-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2016.06.002
Multiple openings and competitiveness of forward markets: experimental evidence
Ferreira, J., Kujal, P. and Rassenti, S. 2016. Multiple openings and competitiveness of forward markets: experimental evidence. PLoS ONE. 11 (17), pp. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158098
Trust and trustworthiness under information asymmetry and ambiguity
Clots-Figueras, I., Hernán González, R. and Kujal, P. 2016. Trust and trustworthiness under information asymmetry and ambiguity. Economics Letters. 147, pp. 168-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.08.019
The relative efficacy of price announcements and express communication for collusion: experimental findings
Harrington, J., Hernán-González, R. and Kujal, P. 2016. The relative efficacy of price announcements and express communication for collusion: experimental findings. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 128, pp. 251-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.05.014
Context-dependent cheating: experimental evidence from 16 countries
Pascual-Ezama, D., Fosgaard, T., Cardenas, J., Kujal, P., Veszteg, R., Gil-Gómez de Liaño, B., Gunia, B., Weichselbaumer, D., Hilken, K., Armenak, A., Delnoij, J., Proestakis, A., Tira, M., Patromo, Y., Jaber-López, T. and Branas-Garza, P. 2015. Context-dependent cheating: experimental evidence from 16 countries. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 116, pp. 379-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.04.020
Information asymmetry and deception
Clots-Figueras, I., Hernán-González, R. and Kujal, P. 2015. Information asymmetry and deception. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 9 (109). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00109
The effect of earned versus house money on price bubble formation in experimental asset markets
Corgnet, B., Hernán-González, R., Kujal, P. and Porter, D. 2015. The effect of earned versus house money on price bubble formation in experimental asset markets. Review of Finance. 19 (4), pp. 1455-1488. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfu031
The effect of reliability, content and timing of public announcements on asset trading behavior
Corgnet, B., Kujal, P. and Porter, D. 2010. The effect of reliability, content and timing of public announcements on asset trading behavior. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 76 (2), pp. 254-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.06.014
List pricing and discounting in a Bertrand-Edgeworth duopoly
García Díaz, A., Hernán-González, R. and Kujal, P. 2009. List pricing and discounting in a Bertrand-Edgeworth duopoly. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 27 (6), pp. 719-727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2009.03.002
International trade policy towards monopoly and oligopoly
Kujal, P. and Ruiz, J. 2009. International trade policy towards monopoly and oligopoly. Review of International Economics. 17 (3), pp. 461-475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9396.2009.00812.x
Reaction to public information in markets: how much does ambiguity matter?
Corgnet, B., Kujal, P. and Porter, D. 2012. Reaction to public information in markets: how much does ambiguity matter? The Economic Journal. 123 (569), pp. 699-737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2012.02557.x