PCI Registered Reports

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.

Back

149

Title *

Taking A Closer Look At The Bayesian Truth Serum: A Registered Reportuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Philipp Schoenegger & Steven VerheyenPlease 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"

Year *

2022

Picture

Abstract *

<p>Over the past decades, psychology and its cognate disciplines have undergone substantial reform, ranging from advances in statistical methodology to significant changes in academic norms. One aspect of experimental design that has received comparatively little attention is incentivisation, i.e. the way that participants are rewarded and incentivised monetarily for their participation. While incentive compatible designs are in use in disciplines like economics, the majority of studies in psychology and experimental philosophy are constructed such that individuals’ incentives to maximise their payoffs in many cases counteract their incentives to state their true preferences honestly. This is in part because the subject matter is often self-report data about subjective topics. One mechanism that allows for the introduction of an incentive-compatible design in such circumstances is the Bayesian Truth Serum (Prelec, 2004), which rewards participants based on how surprisingly common their answer are. Recently, Schoenegger (2021) applied this mechanism in the context of Likert-scale self-reports, finding that the introduction of this mechanism significantly altered response behaviour. In this registered report, we further investigate this mechanism by (i) replicating the original result and (ii) teasing out whether the effect may be explainable by an increase in expected earnings or the addition of a prediction task. We take this project to help introduce incentivisation mechanisms into fields where they were not widely used before. </p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

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://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

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://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Incentivisation, Bayesian Truth Serum, Methods, Open Science

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

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

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2021-12-06 17:36:15

Recommender

Ljerka Ostojic

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report