Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35442983›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2022

Effects of experimental situation on group cooperation and individual performance: Comparing laboratory and online experiments.

Hiroki Ozono, Daisuke Nakama

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hiroki OzonoFaculty of Law, Economics and Humanities, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5495-9079
Daisuke NakamaInstitute for Organizational Behavior Research, Recruit Management Solutions, Co. Ltd., Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Kagoshima University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the spread of online behavioral experiments, estimating the effects of experimental situations and sample heterogeneity is increasing in discussions of the generalizability of data. In this study, we examined how the experimental situations (laboratory/online) affected group cooperation and individual performances. The participants were Japanese university students, randomly assigned to laboratory or online experiments. For the group cooperation task, they were asked to perform the public goods game with or without punishment, but no effect of the experimental situation was found both for cooperative and punitive behaviors. For the individual tasks, participants were asked to perform tasks including a creative task and a dull task. We manipulated the presence or absence of an external incentive. As a result, there was no significant difference between the experimental situations with one exception: only in the laboratory situation was the performance of the difficult creative task lower in the presence of an external incentive. Furthermore, we conducted as an additional experiment using the same treatments for a Japanese online-worker sample. This sample was less cooperative in the public goods game than the student sample, both with and without punishment. In addition, the presence of external incentives facilitated performance of the online-worker sample only for the dull task. We discuss the similarities and differences with previous studies that examined the effects of experimental situations and sample heterogeneity, and the implications for remote work in the real world.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorGame TheoryGroup ProcessesHumansPunishment

Identifiers

PMID35442983
PMCPMC9020741
OpenAlexW4226042743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.