Announcements
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.
220 records found
Latest recommendations
Id | Title * | Authors * ▲ | Abstract * | Picture | Thematic fields * | Recommender | Reviewers | Submission date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
09 Jul 2023
STAGE 1
How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant InformationDavid A. Neequaye & Alexandra Lorson https://psyarxiv.com/bpdn2How an interviewee knows what information is key to disclose or withholdRecommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by 2 anonymous reviewersResearch on interviewing has often focused on topics (such as aiding memory of witnesses) which presume the interviewee has already correctly identified the precise information that the interviewer is really after. But how does an informant know what sort of information is asked for, a precondition for an informant to then choose to provide the information or withhold it (depending on their own interests)?
In this study, Neequaye and Lorson will ask subjects to take the role of an informant about a criminal gang, with the further instructions to be cooperative or resistant in helping the interviewer obtain the information they want. In one study, the participants will be asked merely to identify what information the interviewer wants. In the second study, the participants will answer the interviewer's questions, disclosing whatever information they feel best suits their interest. Crucially, the level of detail of the questions will be manipulated, such that the question specifies a clear objective or not. The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments and edits to the stage 1 report, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA). URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/82qtn Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: References
1. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2022). How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/82qtn
| How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information | David A. Neequaye & Alexandra Lorson | <p>This research explores how intelligence interviewees mentally identify the relevant information at their disposal, which they may or may not disclose. We theorize that interviewees mentally identify applicable information items by estimating th... | Humanities, Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2022-02-25 22:20:40 | View | ||
How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant InformationDavid A. Neequaye & Alexandra Lorson https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bpdn2How an interviewee knows what information is key to disclose or withholdRecommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by 1 anonymous reviewerResearch on interviewing has often focused on topics (such as aiding memory of witnesses) which presume the interviewee has already correctly identified the precise information that the interviewer is really after. But how does an informant know what sort of information is asked for, a precondition for an informant to then choose to provide the information or withhold it (depending on their own interests)?
In this study, Neequaye and Lorson (2023) asked subjects to take the role of an informant about a criminal gang, with the further instructions to be cooperative or resistant in helping the interviewer obtain the information they want. In one study, the participants were asked merely to identify what information the interviewer wants. In the second study, the participants answered the interviewer's questions, disclosing whatever information they felt best suited their interest. Crucially, the level of detail of the questions was manipulated, such that the question specified a clear objective or not. Contrary to the theory, mental designation preferences indicated that interviewees generally assume interviewers wanted to know complete details, irrespective of question specificity. The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on responses to the comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation. URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/82qtn Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: References
1. Neequaye, D. A., & Lorson, A. (2023). How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information [Stage 2]. Acceptance of of Version 10 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bpdn2
| How Intelligence Interviewees Mentally Identify Relevant Information | David A. Neequaye & Alexandra Lorson | <p>This research explored how intelligence interviewees mentally identify the relevant information at their disposal. We theorized that interviewees estimate the interviewer’s objectives based on how they frame any attempt to solicit information. ... | Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2023-05-24 06:57:09 | View | ||
02 Jun 2022
STAGE 1
Exploring How Members of Illicit Networks Navigate Investigative InterviewsDavid A. Neequaye, Pär Anders Granhag, Timothy J. Luke, Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg. https://osf.io/yksc4What to say to help one's partners in crimeRecommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by Tom Ormerod and Lorraine HopeWhen interviewing members of a criminal network, what determines what information a given interviewee chooses to disclose, as guided by the network's collective planning? What principles could help inform a detective preparing for such interviews? In the current study, Neequaye et al. will recruit groups of people known to each other to assume the role of networks that run an illegal sports betting business, fronting as a chain of tanning salons. Although each network launders money, they have to come up with a strategy to convince investigators they are legit. The groups are motivated to disclose some information when individuals are interviewed, but only enough to appear cooperative. The relation of the amount of different sorts of information disclosed depending on estimated risks and benefits for the group will be tested.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by two expert reviewers. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/n7ugr
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. Data collection began during the final round of Stage 1 peer review. Since no further revisions were made after this review round, the risk of bias due to prior data observation remains zero, and the manuscript therefore qualifies for Level 6. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Neequaye, D. A., Granhag, P. A. & Luke, T. J. (2022). Exploring How Members of Illicit Networks Navigate Investigative Interviews, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/n7ugr | Exploring How Members of Illicit Networks Navigate Investigative Interviews | David A. Neequaye, Pär Anders Granhag, Timothy J. Luke, Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg. | <p>This study will explore how members of an illicit network navigate investigative interviews probing their crimes. We will examine how perceived disclosure outcomes, namely, the projected costs and benefits, affect what members choose to reveal.... | Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | Tom Ormerod, Lorraine Hope | 2021-12-20 10:03:41 | View | |
Exploring How Members of Illicit Networks Navigate Investigative InterviewsDavid A. Neequaye, Pär Anders Granhag, Timothy Luke https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f3ct4What to say to help one's partners in crimeRecommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by Lorraine HopeWhen interviewing members of a criminal network, what determines the information a given interviewee chooses to disclose, as guided by the network's collective planning? What principles could help inform a detective preparing for such interviews? In the current study, Neequaye et al. recruited groups of people known to each other to assume the role of networks that run an illegal sports betting business, fronting as a chain of tanning salons. Although each network launders money, they have to come up with a strategy to convince investigators they are legit. The groups are motivated to disclose some information when individuals are interviewed, but only enough to appear cooperative. Members disclosed information they perceived would yield benefical outcomes, but the extent to which members disclosed varied substantially according to the groups they were in.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/n7ugr
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. Data collection began during the final round of Stage 1 peer review. Since no further revisions were made after this review round, the risk of bias due to prior data observation remained zero, and the manuscript therefore qualified for Level 6. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Neequaye, D. A., Granhag, P. A. & Luke, T. J. (2023). Exploring How Members of Illicit Networks Navigate Investigative Interviews. Acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f3ct4 | Exploring How Members of Illicit Networks Navigate Investigative Interviews | David A. Neequaye, Pär Anders Granhag, Timothy Luke | <p>This study explored how members of an illicit network navigate investigative interviews probing their crimes. We examined how perceived disclosure outcomes, namely, the projected costs and benefits, affect what members choose to reveal. We recr... | Humanities, Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2022-07-11 15:21:09 | View | ||
11 Apr 2024
STAGE 1
Managing Disclosure Outcomes in Intelligence InterviewsDavid A. Neequaye, Timothy J. Luke, and Kristina Kollback, Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg. https://psyarxiv.com/tfp2cManaging costs and rewards when choosing to disclose informationRecommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by Jason Chin, Yikang Zhang and Tyler JacobsAn interviewee in an intelligence interview can face competing interests in disclosing information: The value in cooperating because, for example, information given leads to the arrest of a narcotics gang, making the neighbourhood safer; and the risk that disclosing the information leads to reprisals from the gang. Different pieces of information will compete with each other for disclosure, depending on this balance of risks to self-interest. According to the disclosure-outcomes management model of Neequaye et al., information will be disclosed more with a high than low probability of reward, as might be straightforwardly expected, but this difference will be larger when there is a low probability of cost rather than a high probability. The high probability of cost will induce more a variable response to the possible benefits.
Neequaye et al. (2023) will invite participants to assume the role of an informant, with the goal of maximizing their points according to stated probabilities of costs and benefits of disclosing pieces of information relating to given scenarios. Then the degree to which each type of information is disclosed in a subsequent interview will be assessed: this way the crucial interaction can be tested. The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/ru8j5
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: References
Neequaye, D. A., Luke, T. J., & Kollback, K. (2023). Managing Disclosure Outcomes in Intelligence Interviews, in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/ru8j5
| Managing Disclosure Outcomes in Intelligence Interviews | David A. Neequaye, Timothy J. Luke, and Kristina Kollback, Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg. | <p>We introduce the disclosure-outcomes management model. The model views disclosure in intelligence interviews as a behavior interviewees use to profitably navigate self-interest dilemmas. We theorize that interviewees compare the potential outco... | Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2022-09-15 15:03:59 | View | ||
Managing Disclosure Outcomes in Intelligence InterviewsDavid A. Neequaye, Timothy J. Luke, Kristina Kollback https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tfp2cManaging costs and rewards when choosing to disclose informationRecommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by Yikang Zhang and Tyler JacobsAn interviewee in an intelligence interview can face competing interests in disclosing information: The value in cooperating because, for example, information given leads to the arrest of a narcotics gang, making the neighbourhood safer; and the risk that disclosing the information leads to reprisals from the gang. Different pieces of information will compete with each other for disclosure, depending on this balance of risks to self-interest. According to the disclosure-outcomes management model of Neequaye et al., information will be disclosed more with a high than low probability of reward, as might be straightforwardly expected, but this difference will be larger when there is a low probability of cost rather than a high probability. The high probability of cost will induce more a variable response to the possible benefits.
Neequaye et al. (2024) invited participants to assume the role of an informant, with the goal of maximizing their points according to stated probabilities of costs and benefits of disclosing pieces of information relating to given scenarios. The degree to which each type of information was disclosed in a subsequent interview wase assessed. Perceived benefits positively influenced the likelihood of disclosing information. The crucial interaction, obtained in a Pilot study, was not significant in the pre-registered replication. The study had decent power to pick up an interaction the same size as found in the pilot, but not half the size, which would still have been interesting. The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/ru8j5
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
Neequaye, D. A., Luke, T. J., & Kollback, K. (2024). Managing Disclosure Outcomes in Intelligence Interviews [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 11 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tfp2c
| Managing Disclosure Outcomes in Intelligence Interviews | David A. Neequaye, Timothy J. Luke, Kristina Kollback | <p>We introduce the disclosure-outcomes management model. The model views disclosure in intelligence interviews as a behavior interviewees use to profitably navigate self-interest dilemmas. We theorized that interviewees compare the potential outc... | Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2024-02-29 17:26:19 | View | ||
25 Jun 2024
STAGE 1
Does ‘virtuality’ affect the role of prior expectations in perception and action? Comparing predictive grip and lifting forces in real and virtual environmentsDavid J. Harris, Tom Arthur, & Gavin Buckingham https://osf.io/q3ktsThe role of prior expectations for lifting objects in virtual realityRecommended by Robert McIntosh based on reviews by 2 anonymous reviewersAs virtual reality environments become more common, it is important to understand our sensorimotor interactions with them. In real world settings, sensory information is supplemented by prior expectations from past experiences, aiding efficient action control. In VR, the relative role of expectations could decrease due to a lack of prior experience with the environment, or increase because sensory information is impoverished or ambiguous. Harris, Arthur and Buckingham (2024) propose to test these possibilities by comparing a real-world object lifting task and a VR version in which the same objects are lifted but visual feedback is substituted by a virtual view. The experiment uses the Size-Weight Illusion (SWI) and the Material Weight Illusion (MWI). In these paradigms, the visual appearance of the object induces expectations about weight that can affect the perception of weight during lifting, and the fingertip forces generated. The degree to which the visual appearance of objects induces differences in perceived weight, and in measured fingertip forces, will index the influence of prior expectations for these two paradigms. The analyses will test whether the influence of prior expectations is lower or higher in the VR set-up than in real-world lifting. The outcomes across tasks (SWI and MWI) and measures (perceived weight, fingertip forces) will broaden our understanding of the role of predictive sensorimotor control in novel virtual environments.
After three rounds of evaluation, with input from two external reviewers, the recommender judged that the Stage 1 manuscript met the criteria for in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/36jhb
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References 1. Harris, D. J., Arthur, T., & Buckingham, G. (2024). Does ‘virtuality’ affect the role of prior expectations in perception and action? Comparing predictive grip and lifting forces in real and virtual environments. In principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/36jhb
| Does ‘virtuality’ affect the role of prior expectations in perception and action? Comparing predictive grip and lifting forces in real and virtual environments | David J. Harris, Tom Arthur, & Gavin Buckingham | <p>Recent theories in cognitive science propose that prior expectations strongly influence how individuals perceive the world and control their actions. This influence is particularly relevant in novel sensory environments, such as virtual reality... | Life Sciences | Robert McIntosh | Ben van Buren | 2023-11-22 12:25:57 | View | |
22 Nov 2022
STAGE 1
Estimating the Effect of Reward on Sleep-Dependent Memory Consolidation – A Registered ReportDavid P. Morgan, Juliane Nagel, N. Cagatay Gürsoy, Simon Kern & Gordon B. Feld https://osf.io/3emj9?view_only=c4a0bcdcbcee423e9e2e61b2e75ff490How does reward influence the effect of sleep on memory?Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by 2 anonymous reviewersSleep and reward each have an important role in human memory. According to the active system consolidation hypothesis, memory consolidation during sleep originates from the repeated reactivation of memory representations that were encoded during wake (Rasch & Born, 2013). Research has also consistently shown that memory performance is enhanced for items or stimuli associated with higher vs. lower rewards. While these lines of evidence are relatively clear, the role of sleep in shaping the interaction between reward and memory is more opaque, likely due to a combination of methodological variation between studies but also due to the field’s reliance on small-N designs and biased reporting practices. Clarifying this three-way relationship, and setting field benchmarks for effect sizes, is crucial not only for building richer neurocognitive models of memory, but for clinical applications such as targeted sleep interventions to treat addiction and other forms of mental illness.
Using a large, stratified online German sample (N=1750), Morgan et al. (2022) will study the three-way relationship between sleep, reward and memory by asking whether, and if so how, reward influences the magnitude of sleep-dependent memory consolidation. Using an AM:PM-PM:AM design in combination with a motivated learning task, the authors will address three main questions: first, whether sleep yields greater memory performance compared to an equivalent period of wake; second whether information associated with higher reward leads to greater memory performance compared to lower reward; and third, the crucial interaction of whether sleep causes greater recognition memory performance for higher vs. lower reward items. The design also includes a series of rigorous positive controls to confirm testability of the hypotheses, while measuring a host of additional moderating variables for exploratory analyses (including age, education status, mental health, and more).
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/q5pk8
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: References
1. Rasch, B. & Born, J. (2013). About Sleep's Role in Memory. Physiological Revews, 93, 681–766. https://doi.org/10.1152%2Fphysrev.00032.2012
2. Morgan, D. P., Nagel, J., Cagatay Gürsoy, N., Kern, S. & Feld, G. B. (2022). Estimating the effect of reward on sleep-dependent memory consolidation – A Registered Report, in principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/q5pk8
| Estimating the Effect of Reward on Sleep-Dependent Memory Consolidation – A Registered Report | David P. Morgan, Juliane Nagel, N. Cagatay Gürsoy, Simon Kern & Gordon B. Feld | <p>Rewards play an important role in guiding which memories are formed. Dopamine has been shown to be an important neuromodulator mediating the effect of rewards on memory. In rodents dopaminergic activity during learning has been shown to enhance... | Life Sciences, Social sciences | Chris Chambers | 2022-05-16 10:12:18 | View | ||
17 Jan 2023
STAGE 1
How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replicationde Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P.C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L.P., Gunschera, L.J., Murre, J.M.J. https://osf.io/hpsft/?view_only=c8ec62553146496e8b5e4d100a0f08b5How much practice is needed before daily actions are performed in a way that feels habitual?Recommended by Zoltan Dienes based on reviews by Benjamin Gardner, Wendy Wood and Adam TakacsEven small changes in daily life can have a significant impact on one’s health, for example going to the gym at regular times and eating a healthy breakfast. But how long must we do something before it becomes a habit? Lally et al. (2010) tracked the subjective automaticity of a novel, daily (eating or exercise-related) routine. Based on 39 participants, they found a median time of 66 days. This estimate has never been replicated with their exact procedure, so the question remains of how well this holds up. Yet the estimate is useful for knowing how long we have to effortfully make ourselves perform an action until we will do it automatically.
In the current study, de Wit et al. (2023) propose a four-centre near-exact replication of Lally et al. (2010), for which they aim to test 800 subjects to provide a precise estimate of the time it takes to form a habit.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over four rounds of review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/bj9r2 Level of bias control achieved: Level 4. At least some of the data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question already exists AND is accessible in principle to the authors (e.g. residing in a public database or with a colleague), BUT the authors certify that they have not yet accessed any part of that data/evidence.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References
1. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674
2. de Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P. C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L. P., Gunschera, L. J., AND Murre, J. M. J. (2023). How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication, in principle acceptance of Version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bj9r2
| How long does it take to form a habit?: A Multi-Centre Replication | de Wit, S., Bieleke, M., Fletcher, P.C., Horstmann, A., Schüler, J., Brinkhof, L.P., Gunschera, L.J., Murre, J.M.J. | <p>How long does it take to form a habit? This question will be addressed by an innovative study by Lally et al. (2010), in which they tracked the subjective automaticity of a novel, daily (eating or exercise-related) routine, using the Self-Repor... | Social sciences | Zoltan Dienes | 2022-05-26 09:54:26 | View | ||
A Laboratory Experiment on Using Different Financial-Incentivization Schemes in Software-Engineering ExperimentationDmitri Bershadskyy, Jacob Krüger, Gül Çalıklı, Siegmar Otto, Sarah Zabel, Jannik Greif, Robert Heyer https://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.10985Bug detection in software engineering: which incentives work best?Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Edson OliveiraJrBug detection is central to software engineering, but what motivates programmers to perform as optimally as possible? Despite a long history of economic experiments on incentivisation, there is surprisingly little research on how different incentives shape software engineering performance.
In the current study, Bershadskyy et al. (2024) undertook an experiment to evaluate how the pay-off functions associated with different financial incentives influence the performance of participants in identifying bugs during code review. The authors hypothesised that performance-based incentivisation would result in higher average performance, as defined using the F1-score, and that different incentivisation schemes may also differ in their effectiveness.
The results did not support the preregistered predictions, with no statistically significant differences in F1-score observed between groups that received performance-based incentives compared to a control group that received no incentive. Exploratory analyses suggested some potential trends of interest, but the main implication of this work is methodological: that experiments in this field require substantially larger sample sizes to provide definitive tests. The current work is valuable in providing a novel unbiased insight on the magnitude of this challenge, which is now primed for further investigation.
The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the recommender and reviewer's comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/s36c2 Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals: References
Bershadskyy, D., Krüger, J., Çalıklı, G., Siegmar, O., Zabel, S., Greif, J. and Heyer, R. (2024). A Laboratory Experiment on Using Different Financial-Incentivization Schemes in Software-Engineering Experimentation. Acceptance of Version 8 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.10985
| A Laboratory Experiment on Using Different Financial-Incentivization Schemes in Software-Engineering Experimentation | Dmitri Bershadskyy, Jacob Krüger, Gül Çalıklı, Siegmar Otto, Sarah Zabel, Jannik Greif, Robert Heyer | <p>In software-engineering research, many empirical studies are conducted with open-source or industry developers. However, in contrast to other research communities like economics or psychology, only few experiments use financial incentives (i.e.... | Computer science | Chris Chambers | 2024-03-20 07:44:51 | View |
MANAGING BOARD
Chris Chambers
Zoltan Dienes
Corina Logan
Benoit Pujol
Maanasa Raghavan
Emily S Sena
Yuki Yamada