Judgment and Decision Making (JDM), an interdisciplinary field integrating psychology, economics, management, and cognitive science, has provided substantial insights into human decision-making processes over the past 70 years. Despite its rich history, the field’s credibility relies on replication to validate findings across diverse contexts and enhance methodological rigor. This chapter examines the replication landscape within JDM, highlighting key milestones such as the "replication crisis" and major collaborative replication projects. We assess current replication efforts of JDM effects using comprehensive sources, including academic databases and collaborative networks. Our review of over 100 studies (osf.io/j58t2) reveals a 44% success rate in replications, with an additional 25% showing partial replication. Successfully replicated effects often involve well-established paradigms like economic games and numerous heuristics and biases. However, challenges persist in replicating priming effects and other subtle manipulations, such as incidental anchors and research on the unconscious thought advantage. The chapter underscores the importance of transparency practices and collaborative efforts in addressing replication challenges, ultimately aiming to strengthen the integrity of JDM research.
Pozostałe osiągnięcia naukoweMonografia (zamknięty dostęp)Monograph Chapter
Research on financial well-being (FWB) is experiencing rapid growth despite a lack of internationally validated measures. Most of the literature relies on unidimensional FWB scores calculated as the sum of responses to statements in cross-sectional data from individual countries. We conducted the first Europe-wide longitudinal assessment of two dimensions of FWB and evaluated their measurement invariance. The data were collected in turbulent times (at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, the beginning of the economic downturn, and the war in Europe) in 12 European countries. Our analysis confirms the FWB’s multidimensionality and its measures’ longitudinal invariance, allowing for cross-wave comparison, while the evidence for cross-country invariance is mixed. We also find that a sense of control and subjective financial knowledge are notable correlates of FWB. However, subjective knowledge is more strongly related to expected future financial security, while the sense of control is related to both dimensions of FWB to different degrees. Our results emphasize the need to distinguish between the components of FWB in appropriate analyses and interventions and to take into account the potentially different structures of FWB in different countries.
Stanley Milgram’s groundbreaking research on obedience to authority remains a foundational study in social psychology. His work revealed that a significant majority of individuals when instructed by an authoritative figure, were willing to administer what they believed were severe electric shocks to another person, all in the context of a supposed learning experiment. Given the high levels of stress Milgram imposed on participants, ethical concerns now make a direct replication of his study untenable. In 2009, however, Burger introduced a modified version, often referred to as “obedience lite,” which halts the procedure after participants administer a 150-volt shock. Both Burger and subsequent researchers have replicated Milgram’s experiment using this modified approach, recruiting participants via newspaper advertisements and utilizing a large shock-emitting device similar to Milgram’s original setup. However, questions remain as to whether such replication studies should account for the technological advancements that have occurred over the decades. This article presents a study in which participants were recruited online, and a smaller, computer-connected device was used to simulate the electric shocks. The research also explored the impact of different environments (university vs. non-university settings) and the framing of the study (scientific vs. marketing) on participants’ behavior. The findings revealed that the levels of obedience closely mirrored those observed by Milgram in the 1960s, with neither the study’s location nor the framing significantly influencing participants’ actions.
