Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31719207›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2019

Reply to Mislavsky et al.: Sometimes people really are averse to experiments.

Michelle N Meyer, Patrick R Heck, Geoffrey S Holtzman, Stephen M Anderson, William Cai, Duncan J Watts, Christopher F Chabris

Abstract readLetterComment
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Reply to Vogt et al.: What does it mean that a phenomenon generalizes?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  3. Reply to Bas et al.: The difference between a genuine tendency and a context-specific response.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  4. Experiment aversion does not appear to generalize.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  5. Objecting to experiments even while approving of the policies or treatments they compare.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Michelle N MeyerCenter for Translational Bioethics and Health Care Policy, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17821; michellenmeyer@gmail.com.
Patrick R HeckCenter for Translational Bioethics and Health Care Policy, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17821.ORCID 0000-0003-0819-3890
Geoffrey S HoltzmanDepartment of Psychology, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA 17603.
Stephen M AndersonDepartment of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
William CaiDepartment of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Duncan J WattsDepartment of Computer and Information Science, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.ORCID 0000-0001-5005-4961
Christopher F ChabrisAutism and Developmental Medicine Institute, Geisinger Health System, Lewisburg, PA 17837.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPolicyResearch DesignAffectHumans

Identifiers

PMID31719207
PMCPMC6883814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.