Reducing ambiguity in the psychological understanding of ambiguity avoidance
Revisiting the psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance: Replication and extensions of Curley, Yates, and Abrams (1986)
Recommendation: posted 06 June 2022, validated 06 June 2022
- Advances in Cognitive Psychology
- Journal of Cognition
- Peer Community Journal
- Royal Society Open Science
- Swiss Psychology Open
Replication and extensions of Curley, Yates, and Abrams (1986), in principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/wb3hc
Chris Chambers (2022) Reducing ambiguity in the psychological understanding of ambiguity avoidance. Peer Community in Registered Reports, . https://rr.peercommunityin.org/articles/rec?id=175
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/jbghx/
Author's Reply, 01 Jun 2022
Revised manuscript: https://osf.io/xdes8/
All revised materials uploaded to: https://osf.io/ycxh3/, updated manuscript under sub-directory "PCIRR Stage 1\PCI-RR submission following R&R"
Decision by Chris Chambers, posted 09 Apr 2022
Two expert reviewers have now evaluated the Stage 1 manuscript. As you will see, both are positive about your submission, which already comes close to meeting the Stage 1 criteria. There are however, a variety of issues to address concerning clarification of concepts, inclusion of additional methodological details (including in vital areas such as exclusion criteria), validity of specific design components, and justification of analytic decisions (including moderator variables). Provided you are able to address all points comprehensively in a revision and response, Stage 1 in-principle acceptance should be forthcoming without requiring further in-depth review.
Reviewed by Leyla Loued-Khenissi, 07 Apr 2022
This study proposes to replicate an experiment from 1986 that provided empirical evidence in support of motivations underlying ambiguity aversion, a putatively “irrational” bias in decision-making. The motivations behind this tendency include “hostility”; anticipated regret; and concerns on post-choice social judgment from others. The replication is important in verifying the conclusions made in the original paper and the authors have clearly done an admirably thorough methodological and statistical groundwork to ensure that their replication minimizes bias. The only criticism of note is in the fuzziness of the term “hostile”, which appears to be a misnomer, but the authors 1) define it in the report; 2) appear to use the original term from the Curley, 1986 paper to name the specific condition.
The research question posed centers on a replication of a seminal study investigating the causes underlying ambiguity aversion. The validity of the research question, being a replication of an older but foundational study that deserves scrutiny, is sound.
The proposed study adheres very closely to the original one and in addition, quantifies this adherence (LeBel et al. (2019). The logic, rationale and plausibility of the hypotheses are therefore applicable, given the aim (replication).
1C; 1D; 1E
The methodology of the proposed study is thorough and transparent, including with respect to samples sizes and power estimations, as well as data inclusion/exclusion. The authors included both comprehension and manipulation checks to maximize the reliability of their data. Packages used as well as the code implemented has been made available in addition to an exhaustive explanation of the methodology, making subsequent replication feasible to the community. The level of detail in the report further limits flexibility in the study’s subsequent analyses. The authors do propose some exploratory analyses but they appear hypothesis-driven and are not central to the study.