Registered Replication Report: Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012)

By I. Cheung, L. Campbell, Etienne P LeBel, Robert A. Ackerman, Bülent Aykutog˘lu, Š. Bahník, J. Bowen, C. Bredow, C. Bromberg, P. Caprariello and 33 more. 2017

309 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In an anonymous 4-person economic game, participants contributed more money to a common project (i.e., cooperated) when required to decide quickly than when forced to delay their decision (Rand, Greene & Nowak, 2012), a pattern consistent with the social heuristics hypothesis proposed by Rand and colleagues. The results of studies using time pressure have been mixed, with some replication attempts observing similar patterns (e.g., Rand et al., 2014) and others observing null effects (e.g., Tinghög et al., 2013; Verkoeijen & Bouwmeester, 2014). This Registered Replication Report (RRR) assessed the size and variability of the effect of time pressure on cooperative decisions by combining 21 separate, preregistered replications of the critical conditions from Study 7 of the original article (Rand et al., 2012). The primary planned analysis used data from all participants who were randomly assigned to conditions and who met the protocol inclusion criteria (an intent-to-treat approach that included the 65.9% of participants in the time-pressure condition and 7.5% in the forced-delay condition who did not adhere to the time constraints), and we observed a difference in contributions of −0.37 percentage points compared with an 8.6 percentage point difference calculated from the original data. Analyzing the data as the original article did, including data only for participants who complied with the time constraints, the RRR observed a 10.37 percentage point difference in contributions compared with a 15.31 percentage point difference in the original study. In combination, the results of the intent-to-treat analysis and the compliant-only analysis are consistent with the presence of selection biases and the absence of a causal effect of time pressure on cooperation.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Safety Research, Social Psychology

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Safety Research

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science. (2020, background): “…2019); registered replication reports, primarily from the journal Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science (Alogna et al. 2014, Bouwmeester et al. 2017, Cheung et al. 2016, Colling et al. 2020, Eerland et al. 2016, Hagger et al. 2016, McCarthy et al. 2018, O’Donnell et al.…”
Psychology, Science, and Knowledge Construction: Broadening Perspectives from the Replication Crisis (2018, background): “%) found signiﬁcant results as individual clear evidence for verbal overshadowing” U n v e r s (Alogna et al. 2014, p. 571).”
Large-Scale Replication Projects in Contemporary Psychological Research (2017, methodology): “…phenomena that include the facial feedback hypothesis, ego depletion, the effect of time pressure on cooperative decisions, and the link between commitment to and betrayal of a romantic relationship (Wagenmakers et al. 2016; Hagger et al. 2016; Bouwmeester et al. 2017; Cheung et al. 2016).”
A Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power (2017, methodology): “Oosterwijk, a social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, for a reanalysis of the Registered Replication Report on the facial feedback hypothesis (Wagenmakers et al., 2016).”
The Replicability Crisis and Public Trust in Psychological Science (2018, background): “gical findings have also yielded null-effects (e.g., Hagger et al., 2016; O’Donnell et al., 2018; Wagenmakers et al., 2016).”
Moral Development in Business Ethics: An Examination and Critique (2019, background): “Given the conflicting research findings (e.g., Mazar et al. 2008; Verschuere et al. 2018), we call for more research that shows what stimuli can trigger a person to view a decision as a moral decision as opposed to a decision in which social influences or personal preferences take precedence.”