Submit a report

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

373

Revisiting the Effects of Helper Intention on Gratitude and Indebtedness: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Tsang (2006)use asterix (*) to get italics
Chi Fung Chan, Hiu Ching Lim, Fung Yee Lau, Wing Ip, Chak Fong Shannon Lui, Katy Y. Y. Tam, Gilad FeldmanPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2024
<p>[IMPORTANT: Abstract, method, and results were written using a randomized dataset produced by Qualtrics to simulate what these sections will look like after data collection. These will be updated following the data collection. For the purpose of the simulation, we wrote things in past tense, but no pre-registration or data collection took place yet.]</p> <p>Gratitude and indebtedness are common emotions in response to a favor, but are experienced differently depending on situations. Tsang (2006) suggested that gratitude for a favor depended on perceived helper intention, while indebtedness did not. Specifically, she proposed that a benevolent helper intention yielded higher gratitude from beneficiaries when compared to a selfish one, whereas helper intention did not influence the level of indebtedness induced. In a Replication Registered Report with a US Prolific student sample (N = 1000), we conducted a replication and extension of Studies 2 and 3 from Tsang (2006). Tsang found support for the impact of the helper’s intention on gratitude (Study 2: η2p = .2, 90% CI = [0.08, 0.32]; Study 3: η2p = .14, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.26]), but not for indebtedness (Study 2: η2p = .01, 90% CI = [0.00, 0.08]; Study 3: η2p = .00, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.03]). [The following findings are simulated random noise and will be updated after data collection:]. We [found/failed to find] support for the effect on gratitude (Study 2: η2p &lt; .001, 90% CI = [0.00, 0.03]; Study 3: η2p &lt; .001, 90% CI = [0.00, 0.01]), and [found/failed to find] support for effect on indebtedness (Study 2: η2p = .03, 90% CI = [0.00, 0.08]; Study 3: η2p = .03, 90% CI = [0.00, 0.05]). We concluded that … [conclusion]. Extending the replication, we examined the impact of perceived helpers’ intention on perceived expectations for reciprocity (d = -0.13, 95% CI = [-0.27, 0.03]), beneficiaries’ reciprocity tendency (d = -0.12, 95% CI = [-0.27, 0.03]), and associations of perceived reciprocity expectations with gratitude (r = .01, 95%CI = [-.05, 0.07]) and indebtedness (r &lt; .001, 95%CI = [-0.05, 0.06]). Materials, data, and code are available on: https://osf.io/ghfy4/</p>
You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
Gratitude, indebtedness, intent, reciprocity, affect, judgment and decision making, replication
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Social sciences
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]
2023-01-12 09:34:50
Zhang Chen