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

801

Title *

Revisiting the Psychology of Waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996)use asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Zijin Zhu, 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"

Year *

2024

Picture

Abstract *

<p>Arkes (1996) demonstrated a phenomenon of wastefulness avoidance, showing that people’s decisions are impacted by wastefulness, making decisions that avoid appearing wasteful. In a Registered Report with a Prolific sample (N = 659), we conducted a replication and extensions of Studies 1, 2, and 3 from Arkes (1996). We found empirical support for the impact of waste on evaluations of decisions in the movie package scenario in Study 1 (original: h = 0.43 [0.03, 0.83]; replication: h = 0.26 [0.10, 0.42]) and on hypothetical decisions in the tent project scenario in Study 3 (original: w =.23 [0.00, 0.52]; replication: w = 0.09 [0.00, 0.17]), but with no support in the tax program scenario in Study 2 (original: w = .27 [0.00, 0.55]; replication: w = 0.03 [0.00, 0.12]). Our extension employing a continuous willingness measure, to supplement the scenarios’ dichotomous choice, showed similar results. We added a manipulation check extension which showed that the manipulation worked as expected in Scenarios 1 and 3, but not in Scenario 2. In our extension examining reasons, in the successfully replicated scenarios we found that in Scenario 1 utility maximization was not rated as the most important and in Scenario 3 minimizing waste was rated as the most important reason. Overall, we concluded a mixed replication, with a successful replication of two of the three tested studies. Materials, data, and code are available on: https://osf.io/vgtkf/ </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)

wastefulness; avoidance; bias; signal; judgment and decision making; registered report; replication; sunk cost effect; outcome bias

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

2024-06-04 19:00:58

Recommender

Douglas Markant

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report