'Information on judgment invariance in sequential collaboration'
(AsPredicted #158,326)
Download PDF

---

---

1) Have any data been collected for this study already?
No, no data have been collected for this study yet.

2) What's the main question being asked or hypothesis being tested in this study?
Hypothesis 1 (replication): With increasing expertise, participants change presented items a) more frequently and b) more accurately. (main effect of expertise)
Hypothesis 2 (replication): With increasing item deviation, participants change presented items a) less frequently and b) less accurately. (main effect of item deviation)
Hypothesis 3 (replication): Expertise and item deviation interact such that slightly deviating items are even more frequently changed while strongly deviating items are even less frequently changed by participants that are high in expertise compared to participants that are low in expertise. Similarly, participants with higher expertise are expected to show a pronounced pattern in accuracy such that participants with higher expertise given even more accurate judgments for slightly deviating items compared to participants with lower expertise (interaction of expertise and item deviation)
Hypothesis 4: The more frequently the current judgment has remained unchanged in the immediately preceding steps of the sequential collaboration, the less frequently a participant changes the presented judgment. (main effect of judgment invariance)
Hypothesis 5: The more frequently the current judgment has remained unchanged in the immediately preceding steps of the sequential collaboration, the smaller is the distance between the presented judgment and the provided judgment. (main effect of judgment invariance)
Hypothesis 6: The more expertise a participant has, the less susceptible this participant is to the influence of judgment invariance on the frequency of changes of presented judgments. (interaction of expertise and judgment invariance)
Hypothesis 7: The more expertise a participant has, the less susceptible he is to being influenced by the judgment invariance with regard to the degree of orientation towards the presented judgment. This orientation is expressed by the distance between the presented judgment and the provided judgment. (interaction of expertise and judgment invariance)

3) Describe the key dependent variable(s) specifying how they will be measured.
a) Decision whether to change / maintain the presented position of each city
b) Euclidean distance between the indicated position and the true position of each city or the indicated position and the presented position, respectively

4) How many and which conditions will participants be assigned to?
Within-subjects Design:
- 4 different item deviations (manipulated through the distance between the presented position of each city and the true position of each city)
- expertise measure: Before participants indicate whether they would like to change or maintain the presented position, their expertise is measured by 17 items for which they should indicate the position on the map.
- Judgment invariance: presentation of the number of sequential steps in which the judgment has remained unchanged in succession (0, 1, 3, 5, 10)

5) Specify exactly which analyses you will conduct to examine the main question/hypothesis.
(Generalized) Linear Mixed Models are used. First, the dependent variable is the categorical decision to change (1) or keep (0) the judgment (GLMM). Second, the dependent variable is the continuous accuracy of the final judgment (LMM). The variables item deviation, expertise and judgment invariance are included as fixed effects. Persons and items are included as random intercepts.

6) Describe exactly how outliers will be defined and handled, and your precise rule(s) for excluding observations.
Participants who do not accept the terms and conditions of the study, do not use a computer or change browser windows more than five times are excluded during participation. Participants who fail to answer more than 15% of the questions within the 40-second time window, or place more than 15% of their response points outside the designated white areas are excluded from the analysis. If the above cases occur in less than 15% of the trials, only the single trials will be excluded. Additionally, participants who consistently position their response in the same place as the presented advice or appear to look up the correct answer will be excluded.

7) How many observations will be collected or what will determine sample size?
No need to justify decision, but be precise about exactly how the number will be determined.
A power analysis for (G)LMM using simulations based on the data of a pilot study was carried out. A necessary sample size of n = 475 was estimated to ensure a power of 0.75 for all main effects. The sample will therefore consist of n = 500 people.

8) Anything else you would like to pre-register?
(e.g., secondary analyses, variables collected for exploratory purposes, unusual analyses planned?)
Nothing else to pre-register.