IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpr/mprres/bffac982a56e4cfba3659e74a7622005.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using Nonnaive Participants Can Reduce Effect Sizes

Author

Listed:
  • Jesse Chandler
  • Gabriele Paolacci
  • Eyal Peer
  • Pam Mueller
  • Kate A. Ratliff

Abstract

Although researchers often assume their participants are naive to experimental materials, this is not always the case. We investigated how prior exposure to a task affects subsequent experimental results.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesse Chandler & Gabriele Paolacci & Eyal Peer & Pam Mueller & Kate A. Ratliff, 2015. "Using Nonnaive Participants Can Reduce Effect Sizes," Mathematica Policy Research Reports bffac982a56e4cfba3659e74a, Mathematica Policy Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:bffac982a56e4cfba3659e74a7622005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/26/7/1131.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Capraro, Valerio & Schulz, Jonathan & Rand, David G., 2019. "Time pressure and honesty in a deception game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 93-99.
    2. Jonathan Robinson & Cheskie Rosenzweig & Aaron J Moss & Leib Litman, 2019. "Tapped out or barely tapped? Recommendations for how to harness the vast and largely unused potential of the Mechanical Turk participant pool," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-29, December.
    3. Antonia Krefeld-Schwalb & Benjamin Scheibehenne, 2023. "Tighter nets for smaller fishes? Mapping the development of statistical practices in consumer research between 2008 and 2020," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 351-365, September.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:99-113 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    6. Antonio A. Arechar & Gordon T. Kraft-Todd & David G. Rand, 2017. "Turking overtime: how participant characteristics and behavior vary over time and day on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 1-11, July.
    7. Strømland, Eirik & Torsvik, Gaute, 2019. "Intuitive Prosociality: Heterogeneous Treatment Effects or False Positive?," OSF Preprints hrx2y, Center for Open Science.
    8. Glen William Spiteri, 2022. "Does the evaluability bias hold when giving to animal charities?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(2), pages 315-330, March.
    9. Fabiola H. Gerpott & Niels Van Quaquebeke & Sofia Schlamp & Sven C. Voelpel, 2019. "An Identity Perspective on Ethical Leadership to Explain Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Interplay of Follower Moral Identity and Leader Group Prototypicality," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 1063-1078, June.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:2:p:315-330 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Alempaki, Despoina & Starmer, Chris & Tufano, Fabio, 2019. "On the priming of risk preferences: The role of fear and general affect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    12. Anthony M. Evans & Joachim I. Krueger, 2017. "Ambiguity and expectation-neglect in dilemmas of interpersonal trust," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 584-595, November.
    13. Lancee, Bora & Rossel, Lucia & Kasper, Matthias, 2023. "When the agency wants too much: Experimental evidence on unfair audits and tax compliance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 406-442.
    14. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    15. Keela S. Thomson & Daniel M. Oppenheimer, 2016. "Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 99-113, January.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:584-595 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    nonnaïveté; repeated participation; effect sizes; judgment and decision making; panel conditioning; research methods; open data; open materials;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:bffac982a56e4cfba3659e74a7622005. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joanne Pfleiderer or Cindy George (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mathius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.