Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Economics Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Registered replication report: Rand, Greene and Nowak (2012)
Author(s): Bouwmeester, Samantha
Verkoeijen, Peter
Aczel, Balazs
Barbosa, Fernando
Bègue, Laurent
Brañas-Garza, Pablo
Chmura, Thorsten
Cornelissen, Gert
Døssing, Felix
Espín, Antonio
Evans, Anthony
Ferreira-Santos, Fernando
Fiedler, Susann
Flegr, Jaroslav
Wollbrant, Conny
Keywords: cooperation
social heuristic hypothesis
decision making
economic games
social psychology
Issue Date: 1-May-2017
Date Deposited: 9-Jan-2019
Citation: Bouwmeester S, Verkoeijen P, Aczel B, Barbosa F, Bègue L, Brañas-Garza P, Chmura T, Cornelissen G, Døssing F, Espín A, Evans A, Ferreira-Santos F, Fiedler S, Flegr J & Wollbrant C (2017) Registered replication report: Rand, Greene and Nowak (2012). <i>Perspectives on Psychological Science</i>, 12 (3), pp. 527-542.
Abstract: In an anonymous 4-person economic game, participants contributed more money to a common project (i.e., cooperated) when required to decide quickly than when forced to delay their decision (Rand, Greene & Nowak, 2012), a pattern consistent with the social heuristics hypothesis proposed by Rand and colleagues. The results of studies using time pressure have been mixed, with some replication attempts observing similar patterns (e.g., Rand et al., 2014) and others observing null effects (e.g., Tinghög et al., 2013; Verkoeijen & Bouwmeester, 2014). This Registered Replication Report (RRR) assessed the size and variability of the effect of time pressure on cooperative decisions by combining 21 separate, preregistered replications of the critical conditions from Study 7 of the original article (Rand et al., 2012). The primary planned analysis used data from all participants who were randomly assigned to conditions and who met the protocol inclusion criteria (an intent-to-treat approach that included the 65.9% of participants in the time-pressure condition and 7.5% in the forced-delay condition who did not adhere to the time constraints), and we observed a difference in contributions of −0.37 percentage points compared with an 8.6 percentage point difference calculated from the original data. Analyzing the data as the original article did, including data only for participants who complied with the time constraints, the RRR observed a 10.37 percentage point difference in contributions compared with a 15.31 percentage point difference in the original study. In combination, the results of the intent-to-treat analysis and the compliant-only analysis are consistent with the presence of selection biases and the absence of a causal effect of time pressure on cooperation
DOI Link: 10.1177/1745691617693624
Rights: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (
Notes: Additional co-authors: Minou Ghaffari, Andreas Glöckner, Timo Goeschl, Lisa Guo, Oliver P Hauser, Roberto Hernan-Gonzalez, Anthony Herrero, Zachary Horne, Petr Houdek, Magnus Johannesson, Lina Koppel, Praveen Kujal, Tei Laine, Johannes Lohse, Eva C Martins, Carlos Mauro, Dorothee Mischkowski, Sumitava Mukherjee, Kristian Ove R Myrseth, Daniel Navarro-Martínez, Tess M S Neal, Julie Novakova, Roger Pagà, Taigo O Paiva, Bence Palfi, Marco Piovesan, Rima-Maria Rahal, Erika Salomon, Narayanan Srinivasan, Ajita Srivastava, Barnabas Szaszi, Aba Szollosi, Karoline Ø Thor, Gustav Tinghög, Jennifer S Trueblood, Jay J Van Bavel, Anna E van ‘t Veer, Daniel Västfjäll, Megan Warner, Erik Wengström, Julian Wills
Licence URL(s):

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
C17_Registered Replication Report.pdfFulltext - Published Version634.48 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.