Search

Your search keyword '"Frank Renkewitz"' showing total 6 results
Start Over Author "Frank Renkewitz" Language english
6 results on '"Frank Renkewitz"'

1. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Introducing MetaPipeX, a Framework for Analyses of Multi-Lab Data

Author

Jens H. Fünderich, Lukas J. Beinhauer, and Frank Renkewitz

Abstract

Multi-lab projects are large scale collaborations between participating data collection sites that gather empirical evidence and (usually) analyze that evidence using meta-analyses. They are a valuable form of scientific collaboration, produce outstanding data sets and are a great resource for third-party researchers. Their data may be reanalyzed and used in research synthesis. Their repositories and code could provide guidance to future projects of this kind. But, while multi-labs are similar in their structure and aggregate their data using meta-analyses, they deploy a variety of different solutions regarding the storage structure in the repositories, the way the (analysis) code is structured and the file-formats they provide. Continuing this trend implies that anyone who wants to work with data from multiple of these projects, or combine their datasets, is faced with an ever-increasing complexity. Some of that complexity could be avoided. Here, we introduce MetaPipeX, a standardized framework to harmonize, document and analyze multi-lab data. It features a pipeline conceptualization of the analysis and documentation process, an R-package that implements both and a Shiny App (https://www.apps.meta-rep.lmu.de/metapipex/) that allows users to explore and visualize these data sets. We introduce the framework by describing its components and applying it to a practical example. Engaging with this form of collaboration and integrating it further into research practice will certainly be beneficial to quantitative sciences and we hope the framework provides a structure and tools to reduce effort for anyone who creates, re-uses, harmonizes or learns about multi-lab replication projects.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. The narrative bias revisited: What drives the biasing influence of narrative information on risk perceptions?

Author

Cornelia Betsch, Niels Haase, Frank Renkewitz, and Philipp Schmid

Subjects
risk perception, subjective probability, narratives, cognitive bias, negativity bias, Social Sciences, Psychology, BF1-990
Abstract

When people judge risk or the probability of a risky prospect, single case narratives can bias judgments when a statistical base-rate is also provided. In this work we investigate various methodological and procedural factors that may influence this narrative bias. We found that narratives had the strongest effect on a non-numerical risk measure, which was also the best predictor of behavioral intentions. In contrast, two scales for subjective probability reflected primarily statistical variations. We observed a negativity bias on the risk measure, such that the narratives increased rather than decreased risk perceptions, whereas the effect on probability judgments was symmetric. Additionally, we found no evidence that the narrative bias is solely produced by adherence to conversational norms. Finally, changing the absolute number of narratives reporting the focal event, while keeping their relative frequency constant, had no effect. Thus, individuals extract a representation of likelihood from a sample of single-case narratives, which drives the bias. These results show that the narrative bias is in part dependent on the measure used to assess it and underline the conceptual distinction between subjective probability and perceived risk.

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Is there evidence of publication biases in JDM research?

Author

Frank Renkewitz, Heather M. Fuchs, Susann Fiedler, Andreas Glöckner, and Benjamin E. Hilbig

Subjects
meta-analysis, publication bias, funnel plot, SVO, cooperation, Social Sciences, Psychology, BF1-990
Abstract

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.

Published
2011
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Encoding, storage and judgment of experienced frequency and duration

Author

Tilmann Betsch, Madlen Glauer, Frank Renkewitz, Isabell Winkler, and Peter Sedlmeier

Subjects
frequency processing, time perception, quantitative judgment, long-term memory, Social Sciences, Psychology, BF1-990
Abstract

This paper examines conditions that do or do not lead to accurate judgments of frequency (JOF) and judgments of duration (JOD). In three experiments, duration and frequency of visually presented stimuli are varied orthogonally in a within-subjects design. Experiment 1 reveals an asymmetric judgment pattern. JOFs reflected actual presentation frequency quite accurately and were unbiased by exposure duration. Conversely, JODs were almost insensitive to actual exposure duration and were systematically biased by presentation frequency. We show, however, that a tendency towards a symmetric judgment pattern can be obtained by manipulating encoding conditions. Sustaining attention during encoding (Experiment 2) or enhancing richness of the encoded stimuli (Experiment 3) increases judgment sensitivity in JOD and yields biases in both directions (JOF biased by exposure duration, JOD biased by presentation frequency). The implications of these findings for underlying memory mechanisms are discussed.

Published
2010
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Eye tracking: empirical foundations for a minimal reporting guideline

Author

Kenneth Holmqvist, Saga Lee Örbom, Ignace T. C. Hooge, Diederick C. Niehorster, Robert G. Alexander, Richard Andersson, Jeroen S. Benjamins, Pieter Blignaut, Anne-Marie Brouwer, Lewis L. Chuang, Kirsten A. Dalrymple, Denis Drieghe, Matt J. Dunn, Ulrich Ettinger, Susann Fiedler, Tom Foulsham, Jos N. van der Geest, Dan Witzner Hansen, Samuel B. Hutton, Enkelejda Kasneci, Alan Kingstone, Paul C. Knox, Ellen M. Kok, Helena Lee, Joy Yeonjoo Lee, Jukka M. Leppänen, Stephen Macknik, Päivi Majaranta, Susana Martinez-Conde, Antje Nuthmann, Marcus Nyström, Jacob L. Orquin, Jorge Otero-Millan, Soon Young Park, Stanislav Popelka, Frank Proudlock, Frank Renkewitz, Austin Roorda, Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Bonita Sharif, Frederick Shic, Mark Shovman, Mervyn G. Thomas, Ward Venrooij, Raimondas Zemblys, Roy S. Hessels, Neurosciences, Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Onderwijsontw & Onderwijsresearch, RS: SHE - R1 - Research (OvO), Tampere University, and Computing Sciences

Subjects
GAZE BEHAVIOR, FIXATION DURATION, genetic structures, VISUAL-ATTENTION, ComputingMethodologies_IMAGEPROCESSINGANDCOMPUTERVISION, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES, Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous), Replicability, Developmental and Educational Psychology, PUPIL SIZE, POST-SACCADIC OSCILLATIONS, Reporting practices, General Psychology, Eye tracking, SCLERAL SEARCH COIL, Data quality, BINOCULAR COORDINATION, Reporting standards, Reporting guidelines, 113 Computer and information sciences, 650 Management & public relations, eye diseases, Reproducibility, Eye movements, TIME-COURSE, Psychology (miscellaneous), sense organs, SMOOTH-PURSUIT
Abstract

In this paper, we present a review of how the various aspects of any study using an eye tracker (such as the instrument, methodology, environment, participant, etc.) affect the quality of the recorded eye-tracking data and the obtained eye-movement and gaze measures. We take this review to represent the empirical foundation for reporting guidelines of any study involving an eye tracker. We compare this empirical foundation to five existing reporting guidelines and to a database of 207 published eye-tracking studies. We find that reporting guidelines vary substantially and do not match with actual reporting practices. We end by deriving a minimal, flexible reporting guideline based on empirical research (Section “An empirically based minimal reporting guideline”).

Published
2023

6. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

Author

Yoram K. Kunkels, Dylan Selterman, Denise J. Humphries, Kristina G. Brown, David G. Dobolyi, David J. Johnson, Mark A. Roebke, Andy T. Woods, John Hodsoll, Marije van der Hulst, Alexander A. Aarts, Kim Kelso, Erin C. Westgate, James A. Grange, Jesse Chandler, Jenelle Feather, Annick Bosch, Olivia Devitt, Benjamin T. Brown, Megan M. Kyc, Štěpán Bahník, Alissa Melinger, Michael Conn, Rebecca S. Frazier, Marc Jekel, Sara Bowman, Michael J. Wood, Erica Baranski, Sining Wu, Milan Valášek, Anna E. Van't Veer, Jeanine L. M. Skorinko, Joeri Wissink, Sara Steegen, Michael C. Pitts, Douglas Gazarian, Steve N.H. Tsang, Matthew W. Kirkhart, Jennifer S. Beer, Nathali Immelman, Elizabeth Chagnon, Robbie C. M. van Aert, Maya B. Mathur, Magnus Johannesson, Joshua D. Foster, Frank J. Farach, Gandalf Nicolas, Ian S. Penton-Voak, Rebecca M. Goldberg, Sarah L. Thomas, Kathleen Schmidt, Stephanie C. Lin, Linda Cillessen, Belén Fernández-Castilla, Taru Flagan, René Schlegelmilch, Joanneke Weerdmeester, Cyril Pernet, Andreas Cordes, Onur Sahin, Jolanda J. Kossakowski, Samuel Shaki, David Santos, Sabine Scholz, Jeremy R. Gray, Frank Renkewitz, Key Jung Lee, Gillian M. Sandstrom, Marie K. Deserno, Melissa Vazquez, Ed Cremata, Rebecca Saxe, Manuela Thomae, Johannes M. Meixner, Emma Heikensten, Sylvia Eboigbe, Carmel A. Levitan, Natalia Vélez, James G. Field, Riet van Bork, Vivien Estel, Michèle B. Nuijten, Lin Lin, Kate M. Johnson, Bobby Den Bezemer, Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba, Francis Tuerlinckx, Frits Traets, Ilse Luteijn, Christopher R. Chartier, Denise C. Marigold, Denny Borsboom, Elizabeth Gilbert, Jeff Galak, Shannon P. Callahan, E. J. Masicampo, Thomas Talhelm, Chris H.J. Hartgerink, Patrick T. Goodbourn, Stephanie M. Müller, Taylor Nervi, Marcus Möschl, Katherine Moore, Wolf Vanpaemel, Seung K. Kim, Elizabeth Bartmess, Heather N. Mainard, Martin Voracek, Gea Hoogendoorn, Sean P. Mackinnon, Ryan Donohue, Kate A. Ratliff, Jin X. Goh, Anastasia E. Rigney, Andreas Glöckner, Marieke Vermue, Angela S. Attwood, Michelle A. DeGaetano, Nick Spencer, Heather Bentley, Nina Strohminger, Geneva T. Dodson, R. Nathan Pipitone, Hayley M. D. Cleary, Matt Motyl, Amanda L. Forest, Marcus R. Munafò, Marcel Zeelenberg, Susann Fiedler, Ann Calhoun-Sauls, Mallorie Miller, Anondah R. Saide, Ljiljana B. Lazarević, Hilmar Brohmer, Mallory C. Kidwell, Pranjal H. Mehta, Jessie Gorges, Russ Clay, Jeffrey R. Spies, Joanna E. Anderson, Johnny van Doorn, Ashley A. Ricker, Elizabeth W. Dunn, Erin L Braswell, Jamie DeCoster, Larissa Seibel, Matthias Lippold, Lutz Ostkamp, William B. Simpson, Cathy On-Ying Hung, Carina Sonnleitner, Emily M. Wright, Laura Dewitte, Koen Ilja Neijenhuijs, Tim Kuhlmann, Job Krijnen, Leah Beyan, Jesse Graham, Andrew M Rivers, Sacha Epskamp, Aamir Laique, Christopher J. Anderson, Peter Raymond Attridge, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Agnieszka Slowik, Michael C. Frank, Bryan Gorges, Alejandro Vásquez Echeverría, Gina Vuu, Giulio Costantini, Eskil Forsell, Michelangelo Vianello, Don van den Bergh, Anna Fedor, Courtney K. Soderberg, M. Brent Donnellan, Kayleigh E Easey, Shauna Gordon-McKeon, Raoul Bell, William J. Johnston, Brian A. Nosek, Ashlee Welsh, Melissa Lewis, Anna Dreber, Simon Columbus, Frank A. Bosco, Pia Tio, Joshua K. Hartshorne, Lars Goellner, Elisa Maria Galliani, Etienne P. Le Bel, Kellylynn Zuni, Olivia Perna, Kristi M. Lemm, Marco Perugini, Anniek M. te Dorsthorst, Hedderik van Rijn, Timothy M. Errington, Bennett Kleinberg, Vanessa C. Irsik, Frank Jäkel, Timothy Hayes, Mark Verschoor, Mark D. Cloud, Bethany Lassetter, Justin Goss, Paul J. Turchan, Gavin Brent Sullivan, Darren Loureiro, Jo Embley, Robert S. Ryan, Jovita Brüning, Jan Crusius, Joel S. Snyder, Larissa Gabrielle Johnson, Nicolás Delia Penna, Grace Binion, Calvin K. Lai, Gustav Nilsonne, Heather M. Fuchs, Angela Rachael Dorrough, Michelle Dugas, Johanna Cohoon, Minha Lee, Robert Krause, David Reinhard, Goran Knežević, Jason M. Prenoveau, Kristin A. Lane, Stanka A. Fitneva, Rima-Maria Rahal, Mathijs Van De Ven, Anup Gampa, Marcel A.L.M. van Assen, Jordan Axt, Felix Henninger, Misha Pavel, Daniel Lakens, Jeremy K. Miller, Sara García, Leslie Cramblet Alvarez, Colleen Osborne, Kai J. Jonas, Taylor Holubar, Stefan Stieger, Heather Barry Kappes, Felix Cheung, Daan R. van Renswoude, Catherine Olsson, Roel van Dooren, Tylar Martinez, Megan Tapia, Philip A. Gable, Cody D. Christopherson, Franziska Plessow, Roger Giner-Sorolla, Abraham M. Rutchick, Michael Barnett-Cowan, Mark J. Brandt, Rebecca A. Dore, Michael May, H. Colleen Sinclair, Georg Jahn, Daniel P. Martin, Fred Hasselman, Casey Eggleston, Nicole Mechin, Joshua J. Matacotta, Molly Babel, Franziska Maria Kolorz, Social & Organizational Psychology, IBBA, Clinical Psychology, EMGO+ - Mental Health, Social Networks, Solidarity and Inequality, Department of Social Psychology, Department of Methodology and Statistics, Aarts, A, Anderson, J, Anderson, C, Attridge, P, Attwood, A, Axt, J, Babel, M, Bahník, Š, Baranski, E, Barnett Cowan, M, Bartmess, E, Beer, J, Bell, R, Bentley, H, Beyan, L, Binion, G, Borsboom, D, Bosch, A, Bosco, F, Bowman, S, Brandt, M, Braswell, E, Brohmer, H, Brown, B, Brown, K, Brüning, J, Calhoun Sauls, A, Callahan, S, Chagnon, E, Chandler, J, Chartier, C, Cheung, C, Cd, Cillessen, L, Clay, R, Cleary, H, Cloud, M, Cohn, M, Cohoon, J, Columbus, S, Cordes, A, Costantini, G, Cramblet Alvarez, L, Cremata, E, Crusius, J, Decoster, J, Degaetano, M, Della Penna, N, den Bezemer, B, Deserno, M, Devitt, O, Dewitte, L, Dobolyi, D, Dodson, G, Donnellan, M, Donohue, R, Dore, R, Dorrough, A, Dreber, A, Dugas, M, Dunn, E, Easey, K, Eboigbe, S, Eggleston, C, Embley, J, Epskamp, S, Errington, T, Estel, V, Farach, F, Feather, J, Fedor, A, Fernández Castilla, B, Fiedler, S, Field, J, Fitneva, S, Flagan, T, Forest, A, Forsell, E, Foster, J, Frank, M, Frazier, R, Fuchs, H, Gable, P, Galak, J, Galliani, E, Gampa, A, Garcia, S, Gazarian, D, Gilbert, E, Giner Sorolla, R, Glöckner, A, Goellner, L, Goh, J, Goldberg, R, Goodbourn, P, Gordon McKeon, S, Gorges, B, Gorges, J, Goss, J, Graham, J, Grange, J, Gray, J, Hartgerink, C, Hartshorne, J, Hasselman, F, Hayes, T, Heikensten, E, Henninger, F, Hodsoll, J, Holubar, T, Hoogendoorn, G, Humphries, D, Hung, C, Immelman, N, Irsik, V, Jahn, G, Jäkel, F, Jekel, M, Johannesson, M, Johnson, L, Johnson, D, Johnson, K, Johnston, W, Jonas, K, Joy Gaba, J, Kappes, H, Kelso, K, Kidwell, M, Kim, S, Kirkhart, M, Kleinberg, B, Kneževic, G, Kolorz, F, Kossakowski, J, Krause, R, Krijnen, J, Kuhlmann, T, Kunkels, Y, Kyc, M, Lai, C, Laique, A, Lakens, D, Lane, K, Lassetter, B, Lazarevic, L, Lebel, E, Lee, K, Lee, M, Lemm, K, Levitan, C, Lewis, M, Lin, L, Lin, S, Lippold, M, Loureiro, D, Luteijn, I, Mackinnon, S, Mainard, H, Marigold, D, Martin, D, Martinez, T, Masicampo, E, Matacotta, J, Mathur, M, May, M, Mechin, N, Mehta, P, Meixner, J, Melinger, A, Miller, J, Miller, M, Moore, K, Möschl, M, Motyl, M, Müller, S, Munafo, M, Neijenhuijs, K, Nervi, T, Nicolas, G, Nilsonne, G, Nosek, B, Nuijten, M, Olsson, C, Osborne, C, Ostkamp, L, Pavel, M, Penton Voak, I, Perna, O, Pernet, C, Perugini, M, Pipitone, N, Pitts, M, Plessow, F, Prenoveau, J, Rahal, R, Ratliff, K, Reinhard, D, Renkewitz, F, Ricker, A, Rigney, A, Rivers, A, Roebke, M, Rutchick, A, Ryan, R, Sahin, O, Saide, A, Sandstrom, G, Santos, D, Saxe, R, Schlegelmilch, R, Schmidt, K, Scholz, S, Seibel, L, Selterman, D, Shaki, S, Simpson, E, Sinclair, H, Skorinko, J, Slowik, A, Snyder, J, Soderberg, C, Sonnleitner, C, Spencer, N, Spies, J, Steegen, S, Stieger, S, Strohminger, N, Sullivan, G, Talhelm, T, Tapia, M, te Dorsthorst, A, Thomae, M, Thomas, S, Tio, P, Traets, F, Tsang, S, Tuerlinckx, F, Turchan, P, Valášek, M, van 't Veer, A, Van Aert, R, van Assen, M, van Bork, R, van de Ven, M, van den Bergh, D, van der Hulst, M, van Dooren, R, van Doorn, J, van Renswoude, D, van Rijn, H, Vanpaemel, W, Vásquez Echeverría, A, Vazquez, M, Velez, N, Vermue, M, Verschoor, M, Vianello, M, Voracek, M, Vuu, G, Wagenmakers, E, Weerdmeester, J, Welsh, A, Westgate, E, Wissink, J, Wood, M, Woods, A, Wright, E, Wu, S, Zeelenberg, M, Zuni, K, Sociology/ICS, Experimental Psychology, Human Technology Interaction, Sociale Psychologie (Psychologie, FMG), Ontwikkelingspsychologie (Psychologie, FMG), and Brein en Cognitie (Psychologie, FMG)

Subjects
Research design, Department Psychologie, BF Psychology, media_common.quotation_subject, POWER, Learning and Plasticity, Reproducibility Project, Q1, Experimental Psychopathology and Treatment, Replication (statistics), Statistics, TRUTH, Psychology, General, Mathematics, media_common, Selection bias, Replication crisis, Behaviour Change and Well-being, Multidisciplinary, PUBLICATION, Publication bias, Reproducibility, Confidence interval, INCENTIVES, PREVALENCE, Meta-analysis, REPLICABILITY, REPLICATION, Developmental Psychopathology, FALSE
Abstract

IntroductionReproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. Scientific claims should not gain credence because of the status or authority of their originator but by the replicability of their supporting evidence. Even research of exemplary quality may have irreproducible empirical findings because of random or systematic error.RationaleThere is concern about the rate and predictors of reproducibility, but limited evidence. Potentially problematic practices include selective reporting, selective analysis, and insufficient specification of the conditions necessary or sufficient to obtain the results. Direct replication is the attempt to recreate the conditions believed sufficient for obtaining a previously observed finding and is the means of establishing reproducibility of a finding with new data. We conducted a large-scale, collaborative effort to obtain an initial estimate of the reproducibility of psychological science.ResultsWe conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. There is no single standard for evaluating replication success. Here, we evaluated reproducibility using significance and P values, effect sizes, subjective assessments of replication teams, and meta-analysis of effect sizes. The mean effect size (r) of the replication effects (Mr = 0.197, SD = 0.257) was half the magnitude of the mean effect size of the original effects (Mr = 0.403, SD = 0.188), representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had significant results (P < .05). Thirty-six percent of replications had significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.ConclusionNo single indicator sufficiently describes replication success, and the five indicators examined here are not the only ways to evaluate reproducibility. Nonetheless, collectively these results offer a clear conclusion: A large portion of replications produced weaker evidence for the original findings despite using materials provided by the original authors, review in advance for methodological fidelity, and high statistical power to detect the original effect sizes. Moreover, correlational evidence is consistent with the conclusion that variation in the strength of initial evidence (such as original P value) was more predictive of replication success than variation in the characteristics of the teams conducting the research (such as experience and expertise). The latter factors certainly can influence replication success, but they did not appear to do so here. Reproducibility is not well understood because the incentives for individual scientists prioritize novelty over replication. Innovation is the engine of discovery and is vital for a productive, effective scientific enterprise. However, innovative ideas become old news fast. Journal reviewers and editors may dismiss a new test of a published idea as unoriginal. The claim that “we already know this” belies the uncertainty of scientific evidence. Innovation points out paths that are possible; replication points out paths that are likely; progress relies on both. Replication can increase certainty when findings are reproduced and promote innovation when they are not. This project provides accumulating evidence for many findings in psychological research and suggests that there is still more work to do to verify whether we know what we think we know.

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results