User Tools
research-covering-conflicts-of-interest
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Last revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
research-covering-conflicts-of-interest [2019/08/01 13:01] marcos |
research-covering-conflicts-of-interest [2020/08/25 21:52] marcos |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ====== Conflict of Interest (COI) in Research Studies ====== | + | ====== Research Covering Conflicts of Interest (COI) ====== |
| // Because of COI, searching for the truth is difficult business. // | // Because of COI, searching for the truth is difficult business. // | ||
| - | ===== Studies that study COI===== | + | ===== Studies that study COI ===== |
| Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles\\ | Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles\\ | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| "Over the past decade, a large and growing body of experimental research has analyzed dishonest behavior. Yet the findings as to when people engage in (dis)honest behavior are to some extent unclear and even contradictory. A systematic analysis of the factors associated with dishonest behavior thus seems desirable. This meta-analysis reviews four of the most widely used experimental paradigms: sender–receiver games, die-roll tasks, coin-flip tasks, and matrix tasks. We integrate data from 565 experiments (totaling N = 44,050 choices) to address many of the ongoing debates on who behaves dishonestly and under what circumstances. Our findings show that dishonest behavior depends on both situational factors, such as reward magnitude and externalities, and personal factors, such as the participant’s gender and age. Further, laboratory studies are associated with more dishonesty than field studies, and the use of deception in experiments is associated with less dishonesty. To some extent, the different experimental paradigms come to different conclusions. For example, a comparable percentage of people lie in die-roll and matrix tasks, but in die-roll tasks liars lie to a considerably greater degree. We also find substantial evidence for publication bias in almost all measures of dishonest behavior. Future research on dishonesty would benefit from more representative participant pools and from clarifying why the different experimental paradigms yield different conclusions." | "Over the past decade, a large and growing body of experimental research has analyzed dishonest behavior. Yet the findings as to when people engage in (dis)honest behavior are to some extent unclear and even contradictory. A systematic analysis of the factors associated with dishonest behavior thus seems desirable. This meta-analysis reviews four of the most widely used experimental paradigms: sender–receiver games, die-roll tasks, coin-flip tasks, and matrix tasks. We integrate data from 565 experiments (totaling N = 44,050 choices) to address many of the ongoing debates on who behaves dishonestly and under what circumstances. Our findings show that dishonest behavior depends on both situational factors, such as reward magnitude and externalities, and personal factors, such as the participant’s gender and age. Further, laboratory studies are associated with more dishonesty than field studies, and the use of deception in experiments is associated with less dishonesty. To some extent, the different experimental paradigms come to different conclusions. For example, a comparable percentage of people lie in die-roll and matrix tasks, but in die-roll tasks liars lie to a considerably greater degree. We also find substantial evidence for publication bias in almost all measures of dishonest behavior. Future research on dishonesty would benefit from more representative participant pools and from clarifying why the different experimental paradigms yield different conclusions." | ||
| - | ===== Books Related to COI ===== | + | ===== Psychology, Sociology ===== |
| - | Blind Spots Why We Fail to Do What's Right and What to Do about It\\ | + | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink\\ |
| - | Max H. Bazerman & Ann E. Tenbrunsel\\ | + | Individuals with minds adept at overriding [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance |cognitive dissonance]] with creative thinking can come to any conclusion desirable by the id. |
| - | https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9390.html\\ | + | |
| - | ===== Things to look up ===== | + | ===== Related ===== |
| * How to find sources of funding for a research article, when it is not declared | * How to find sources of funding for a research article, when it is not declared | ||
| * How to investigate [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) |Revolving door (politics)]] | * How to investigate [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) |Revolving door (politics)]] | ||
| * How to "follow the money", or trace [[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-outsized-returns-from-lobbying/2011/10/10/gIQADSNEaL_blog.html |Corporate Lobbying]] | * How to "follow the money", or trace [[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-outsized-returns-from-lobbying/2011/10/10/gIQADSNEaL_blog.html |Corporate Lobbying]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Best Practices in Writing ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Each article we write, has aspirations of being a thesis. In addition to being able to identify COI, there are many things you should be aware of in creating a research article, like the quality of the journal where the research is published. The following e-learning module from University of New England covers the topic. | ||
| + | |||
| + | https://www.une.edu.au/library/support/eskills-plus | ||
research-covering-conflicts-of-interest.txt · Last modified: 2020/09/18 21:08 by marcos
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
