| Title |
The statistical analysis of cheating paradigms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-016-0729-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Morten Moshagen, Benjamin E. Hilbig |
| Abstract |
One type of paradigm commonly used in studies on unethical behavior implements a lottery, relying on a randomization device to determine winnings while ensuring that the randomized outcome is only known to participants. Thereby, participants have the incentive and opportunity to cheat by anonymously claiming to have won. Data obtained in such a way are often analyzed using the observed "win" responses as a proxy for actual dishonesty. However, because the observed "win" response is contaminated by honest respondents who actually won, such an approach only allows for inferring dishonesty indirectly and leads to substantially underestimated effects. As a remedy, we outline approaches to estimate correlations between dishonesty and other variables, as well as to predict dishonesty in a modified logistic regression model. Using both simulated and empirical data, we demonstrate the superiority and relevance of the suggested methods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 23 | 36% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,635
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,167
of 316,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#18
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,338 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.