Abstract
Much research on social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978) has been performed, with some of it being experimental and some of it being correlational. The hope, of course, is that such research sheds light on key social identity issues, including addressing social identity criticisms. However, a prerequisite is that researchers need to be able to be confident that the empirical facts really are factual; that is, that the sample statistics reported accurately estimate corresponding population parameters. By employing a recently invented procedure, the a priori procedure (Trafimow, 2017; Trafimow & MacDonald, 2017), the present research assesses the precision with which published experimental and correlational social identity research statistics, in three time periods, estimate corresponding population parameters. The main findings are pessimistic, but with the glimmer of light that precision is improving.
Evaluating the Sampling Precision of Social Identity Related Published Research
Wilson, C., Trafimow, D., Wang, T., & Wang, C. (2022). Evaluating the Sampling Precision of Social Identity Related Published Research, Graduate Student Journal of Psychology, 19, 114-128. Doi: 10.52214/gsjp.v19i.10053
Findings
This study examined sampling precision (Trafimow, 2017) in a sample of published social identity reserach. The main goal was to determine whether sampling precision was more or less impressive as time has progressed.
The main finding is pessimistic with most precision values in published work falling below what would be considered sufficient. However, precision has imporved over time, and this trend is promising for future academic work.
Keywords: sampling precision, quantitiative analysis, social identity, confidence, estimation, replication
Abstract & Main Findings
As robots become more common, people interact with them individually, with strangers, and with friends. For example, when coming across a robot in a mall, a family might ask it for instructions. An individual person might hesitate to interact with the robot until they see another person interacting, and then explore the robot together. Although human–robot interaction (HRI) research has recently uncovered the importance of examining differences in group behavior toward robots versus individuals’ behavior, thus far, most HRI research has not distinguished behavior based on group type (e.g., stranger, companion). In this online lab-based study, we explore how individuals, strangers, and companions collaborate with robot teammates. We test competing hypotheses: (1) More cohesive companion groups will form a human subgroup and exclude the robots more than strangers or individuals, vs. (2) More cohesive companion groups will provide social support to interact better with the novel robotic technology than strangers or individuals. In this cooperative context in which participants were required to interact with the robot, results supported H1: the subgroup hypothesis. Based on these findings, people deploying robots should note that if people are required to interact with the robots, the interactions may not go as smoothly for companion groups compared to stranger groups or individuals
Strangers on a Team?: Human Companions, Compared to Strangers or Individuals, are More Likely to Reject a Robot Teammate
Wilson, C.D., Langlois, D. & Fraune, M.R. (2024) Strangers on a Team?: Human Companions, Compared to Strangers or Individuals, are More Likely to Reject a Robot Teammate. International Journal of Social Robotics 16, 699–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01133-1
Keywords: Social robotics · Competition · Cooperation · Human–robot interaction · HRI · Ingroup vs outgroup · Social support · Method of strong inference
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this work was to examine the relationship between self-concept and ingroup/outgroup categorization of robots.
Background: Social psychological literature can improve Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) through investigations about cultural differences, intergroup dynamics, and more. Parallel to human-human interaction, people categorize robots as ingroup (“my group”) or outgroup (“not my group”) based on a myriad of variables. They favor ingroup robots by viewing them as more positive and humanlike versus outgroup robots or humans. Previous work has examined the effect of robot anthropomorphism (i.e., human-likeness) on this categorization process with diverse findings.
Method: Examining the self-concept via the Two-baskets theory of self-cognitions, we compared the ingroup categorization of humans, machine-like robots, low-anthropomorphic robots, and high-anthropomorphic robots using a simple categorization task.
Results: Results indicate that robots and human are categorized to the ingroup correlating with the uncanny valley effect, with Humans being most likely to the ingroup followed by medium-human like, machine-like, and highly human-like.
Conclusions: Self-concept may not be as important for categorization as other factors; however, important categorization differences exist following the trend of the uncanny valley.
Application: Those who design and utilize robots should take categorization differences into consideration when designing robots for public interactions. Further, those who purchase robots for use should be careful to consider the implications of visual similarities to human beings to ensure optimal acceptance.
OSF: https://osf.io/x9rqn/?view_only=fd0894404e304422a6c77ccffa013bcd
The effect of self-cognitions on ingroup-outgroup categorization of human and robot images
Wilson, C., Fraune, M. R., Wullenkord, R., & Correia, F. (Under Review). The effect of self-cognitions on ingroup-outgroup categorization of human and robot images.
Keywords: self-cognitions, two-baskets theory, human-robot interaction, HRI, social categorization
Abstract
As the family of normal distributions is a subset of the family of skew normal distributions, two-group comparisons arguably should feature differences between locations rather than differences between means. However, if the two types of differences are practically always in the same direction, the distinction may not be important and safely can be ignored. In contrast, if the two types of differences are in opposite directions with nontrivial frequency, a dramatic implication would be that researchers should report skew normal statistics along with normal statistics routinely in their research. The present study tests this via comparisons between males and females, Whites and Hispanics, and working class versus middle class with respect to a large set of dependent variables. In all three sets of analyses, a nontrivial percentage of differences between means and differences between locations were in opposite directions, thereby implying opposing substantive stories.
Differences in Means Versus Locations: Potentially Opposing Substantive Stories.
Trafimow, D., Wilson, C., Wang, T., & Choy, S. T. B. (Under Review). Differences in Means Versus Locations: Potentially Opposing Substantive Stories.
Findings
Past work has demonstrated that means and locations can potentially demonstrate opposing inferential evidence. This work demonstrates that nontrivial differences in inferential conclusions can be drawn dependent upon whether means or locations are the parameter of interest.
Keywords: skew normal distributions; locations; scales; shapes; data reporting
Abstract
Basic and applied research have different goals with basic focusing on theory building, and applied focusing on problem solving. By employing the a priori procedure, the present research assesses the sampling precision with which published basic and applied psychology research statistics estimate corresponding population parameters. We hypothesized 1: The precision of applied research should be markedly better than basic (due to the argument that applied research is more tangible for measurement) and 2: Precision should be improving, with recent research enjoying a precision advantage over less recent research with a moderate correlation value. A total sample of 194 papers (352 studies total) were collected for analysis. The main findings are neither optimistic nor pessimistic. The applied versus basic argument is complex, but sampling precision seems to be one area where neither triumphs. Further, precision values are indeed improving over time.
A Comparison of Precision in Basic and Applied Psychology in a Sample of Published Research
Wilson, C., & Trafimow, D. (Under Review). A Comparison of Precision in Basic and Applied Psychology in a Sample of Published Research.
Findings
Basic and applied research are two sides of the same research coin. Many argue that one is better than the other, and your side in that argument often depends on your own research and funding goals. This paper's goal was to determine if one of the two research types hosted a better overall sampling precision than the other.
Findings indicate that neither applied nor basic research can be crowned the winner, and that overall precision values are neither optimistic or pessimistic. The hope is that precision values will continue to improve, thereby increasing replicability of research in both basic and applied research paradigms.
Keywords: precision, confidence, a priori procedure, estimation, applied versus basic
Abstract
The reasoned action approach has been a key theory of behavioral action since it was first posited by Ajzen and Fishbein and states that behavioral actions are preceded by intentions, and that intentions are preceded by evaluations of attitudes, norms, control, and difficulty. Work also states that intentions are equivalent to actions due to the high levels of correspondence between intentions and actions. Marketing research has shown that attitudes and norms surrounding copyrights and knockoffs are a major consideration when someone decides to buy. However, we found that copyright infringement and knockoff attitudes and norms may not play as large a role in purchasing decisions as currently believed. The goal of this work was to investigate the link between copyright attitudes/norms (knockoffs attitudes/norms) and intentions to purchase certain products. We used stand-in competing products. We measured Copyright attitudes/norms, Knockoffs attitudes/norms, and reasoned action model variables. Overall, Copyright and Knockoffs had little to no relationship with purchasing behavioral intentions. Further, reasoned action variables had different levels of relationship with purchasing intentions indicating a brand difference.
A reasoned action approach to purchasing behaviors
Wilson, C., & Trafimow, D. (Under Review). A reasoned action approach to purchasing behaviors.
Findings
Overall, Copyright and Knockoffs had little to no relationship with purchasing behavioral intentions. Further, reasoned action variables had different levels of relationship with purchasing intentions indicating a brand difference.
Keywords: Reasoned Action, Planned Behavior, Purchasing Behaviors, Copyright Infringement, Knockoffs
Abstract
The two-structure theory of self-cognitions presents a conceptualization of the self-concept that includes the private self (traits, states, and behaviors; also known as the independent self-concept) and the collective self (group memberships; also known as interdependent self-concept). Each is unique because self-cognition accessibility depends on the self-structure from which one is sampling which, in turn, is influenced by contextual primes. Strong evidence exists for the existence of the private and collective selves, as well as for the idea that the accessibility of these structures can be affected via priming. Across two studies, an analysis of skew normal parameter estimates demonstrates that priming affects the accessibility of “Who I Am” versus “What I Do” sub-concepts leading to an increase in the proportion of items retrieved from them. Overall, this work provides initial evidence for the existence of collective sub-concepts, as well as for the effect of priming on their accessibility. We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study.
Early Experimental Evidence for the Theoretical Expansion of the Self-Concept Theory of Self Cognitions
Keywords: self-cognitions, self-concept, priming, experimental, self-concept theory, who I am, what I do
Wilson, C., & Trafimow, D. (In Prep). Expanding the two-baskets theory of self-cognitions.
Abstract
Research replication has seen a major crisis in the last couple of decades with researchers, journals, and even academic organization such as the ASA and APA. All openly call for an increased effort to not only replicate research, but to increase the replication of original research. Strategies to do so have involved statistical revolutions, methodological alterations and improvements, and even theoretical and philosophical advancements. However, one thing that many authors, editors, and reviewers may not be taking into consideration is their own hindsight bias. Hindsight bias, at its most basic, is the tendency for us to mis-recall past events. This article looks at the expanded view of hindsight bias and introduces how hindsight bias may be an additional issue for the replication of the sciences, especially psychological science.
Hindsight and the Replication Crisis