More pain, more prosocial? Assessing the Martyrdom Effect
Do pain and effort increase prosocial contributions?: Revisiting the Martyrdom Effect with a Replication and extensions Registered Report of Olivola and Shafir (2013)
Abstract
Recommendation: posted 10 April 2024, validated 11 April 2024
Rahal, R.-M. (2024) More pain, more prosocial? Assessing the Martyrdom Effect. Peer Community in Registered Reports, . https://rr.peercommunityin.org/articles/rec?id=647
Recommendation
Combining these three studies in a high-powered within-subjects replication attempt, transparently communicating necessary deviations from the original design and carefully outlining the analysis strategy, the current study will offer insights into the robustness of prior findings on the role of effort and pain in determining donations.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two reviewers and the recommender. 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).
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
- Advances in Cognitive Psychology
- Collabra: Psychology
- International Review of Social Psychology
- Meta-Psychology
- Peer Community Journal
- PeerJ
- Royal Society Open Science
- Social Psychological Bulletin
- Studia Psychologica
- Swiss Psychology Open
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.
Reviewed by Vanessa Clemens, 10 Apr 2024
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/zmkf2
Version of the report: 1
Author's Reply, 27 Mar 2024
Revised manuscript: https://osf.io/7njh8
All revised materials uploaded to: https://osf.io/yu25a/, updated manuscript under sub-directory "PCIRR Stage 1\PCI-RR submission following R&R"
Decision by Rima-Maria Rahal, posted 04 Mar 2024, validated 04 Mar 2024
Dear Dr. Feldman,
I have now received two reviews of your submission on a replication project addressing Olivola and Shafir (2013). In line with my own reading of your manuscript, the reviewers highlight important strengths of your outlined approach, but also note some areas for further improvement. In line with these suggestions, I would like to invite you to revise the manuscript.
The suggestions focus largely on clarifications needed regarding the power analysis as well as specific statements of how analyses inform the conclusions drawn about the hypotheses, with some additional requests to clarify the terminology and procedure. These issues fall within the normal scope of a Stage 1 evaluation and can be addressed in a comprehensive round of revisions.
Warmest,
Rima-Maria Rahal