Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

5 results

  • Is there evidence of publication biases in JDM research?

  • Frank Renkewitz, Heather M. Fuchs, Susann Fiedler
  • Journal:
    Judgment and Decision Making / Volume 6 / Issue 8 / December 2011
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    01 January 2023, pp. 870-881
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • It is a long known problem that the preferential publication of statistically significant results (publication bias) may lead to incorrect estimates of the true effects being investigated. Even though other research areas (e.g., medicine, biology) are aware of the problem, and have identified strong publication biases, researchers in judgment and decision making (JDM) largely ignore it. We reanalyzed two current meta-analyses in this area. Both showed evidence of publication biases that may have led to a substantial overestimation of the true effects they investigated. A review of additional JDM meta-analyses shows that most meta-analyses conducted no or insufficient analyses of publication bias. However, given our results and the rareness of non-significant effects in the literature, we suspect that biases occur quite often. These findings suggest that (a) conclusions based on meta-analyses without reported tests of publication bias should be interpreted with caution and (b) publication policies and standard research practices should be revised to overcome the problem.

  • Assessing the test-retest reliability of the social value orientationslider measure

  • Carlos A. de Matos Fernandes, Dieko M. Bakker, Jacob Dijkstra
  • Journal:
    Judgment and Decision Making / Volume 17 / Issue 1 / January 2022
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    01 January 2023, pp. 31-49
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Decades of research show that (i) social value orientation (SVO)is related to important behavioral outcomes such as cooperation and charitablegiving, and (ii) individuals differ in terms of SVO. Aprominent scale to measure SVO is the social value orientation slider measure(SVOSM). The central premise is that SVOSM captures a stable trait. But it isunknown how reliable the SVOSM is over repeated measurements more than one weekapart. To fill this knowledge gap, we followed a sample of N =495 over 6 months with monthly SVO measurements. We find that continuous SVOscores are similarly distributed (Anderson-Darling k-sample p =0.57) and highly correlated (r ≥ 0.66) across waves. Theintra-class correlation coefficient of 0.78 attests to a high test-retestreliability. Using multilevel modeling and multiple visualizations, wefurthermore find that one’s prior SVO score is highly indicative of SVOin future waves, suggesting that the slider measure consistently capturesone’s SVO. Our analyses validate the slider measure as a reliable SVOscale.

  • 21 - Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions on Word Order Variation in Chinese

  • from Part Four - Syntax-semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse Issues
  • Edited by Chu-Ren Huang, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Yen-Hwei Lin, Michigan State University, I-Hsuan Chen, University of California, Berkeley, Yu-Yin Hsu, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Chinese Linguistics
    Published online:
    04 August 2022
    Print publication:
    18 August 2022, pp 444-466

  • Summary

    The canonical word order of Modern Chinese is SVO, and yet Modern Chinese does not demonstrate the patterns of a typical VO language. This chapter reviews representative arguments that have contributed to our closer understanding of what pragmatic and semantic factors condition word order variation in Modern Chinese. Discourse analyses in relation with information structure account for the pragmatic function of the preverbal object and why there is the relative ordering between subject and object in non-canonical SOV/OSV patterns, based on the notion of topicality, focus, and emphatic/contrastive function. Semantic accounts explain how the animacy of subject and object constrains the obligatory vs. optional ba marking of object in the SOV pattern and the acceptability of the OSV pattern. Finally, arguments based on iconicity principle and lexical aspect analyses are used to account for the relative ordering of verb and locative/temporal adverbials.

  • 20 - SOV as the Canonical Word Order in Modern Chinese

  • from Part Four - Syntax-semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse Issues
  • Edited by Chu-Ren Huang, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Yen-Hwei Lin, Michigan State University, I-Hsuan Chen, University of California, Berkeley, Yu-Yin Hsu, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Chinese Linguistics
    Published online:
    04 August 2022
    Print publication:
    18 August 2022, pp 428-443

  • Summary

    The debate on modern Chinese being SVO or SOV is facing a dilemma: the word order is SVO in an unmarked declarative sentence in Chinese, while Chinese exhibits many features shared by SOV languages. To tackle this difficult situation, researchers should focus on language types, but not the relative orders of subject, verb, and object. Based on the usage of modern Chinese, we have checked ten universals generalized in Greenberg (1963) which are relevant to this topic. It is shown that 90% of the universals support Chinese being a SOV language, and only one universal is on the SVO side. Modern Chinese is therefore argued to be located very close to the SOV end of a continuum.

  • 19 - SVO as the Canonical Word Order in Modern Chinese

  • from Part Four - Syntax-semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse Issues
  • Edited by Chu-Ren Huang, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Yen-Hwei Lin, Michigan State University, I-Hsuan Chen, University of California, Berkeley, Yu-Yin Hsu, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Chinese Linguistics
    Published online:
    04 August 2022
    Print publication:
    18 August 2022, pp 407-427

  • Summary

    The question of what canonical word order Chinese has is not a controversial issue at the present time; most of the studies within the last 30 years assume that the canonical word order of Modern Chinese is SVO. However, during the 1970s and 80s there was a lively debate on Chinese word order concerning its historical development as well as its status in Modern Chinese. This chapter reviews the arguments for and against SVO as the canonical word order in Chinese. Arguments for SVO originated as reactions against two claims: Chinese is in the process of becoming an SOV language, and Modern Chinese is an SOV language. A wide range of arguments have been brought forth to argue against the two claims, including historical development, grammar internal considerations, typological features, and discourse analysis.