Eye tracking: empirical foundations for a minimal reporting guideline

In this paper, we present a review of how the various aspects of any study using an eye tracker (such as the instrument, methodology, environment, participant, etc.) affect the quality of the recorded eye-tracking data and the obtained eye-movement and gaze measures. We take this review to represent the empirical foundation for reporting guidelines of any study involving an eye tracker. We compare this empirical foundation to five existing reporting guidelines and to a database of 207 published eye-tracking studies. We find that reporting guidelines vary substantially and do not match with actual reporting practices. We end by deriving a minimal, flexible reporting guideline based on empirical research (Section "An empirically based minimal reporting guideline").

Enhanced memory for negative social information in borderline personality disorder

Biased social cognition toward an enhanced processing of negative social information might contribute to instability in interpersonal relationships. Such interpersonal dysfunctions are important for the understanding of several mental disorders, among them borderline personality disorder (BPD). To experimentally test enhanced memory retrieval of negative social information, using a newly developed variant of a looking-at-nothing paradigm, 45 BPD patients and 36 healthy women learned positive and negative personality traits of different target persons. In a translational memory test, participants were asked to use the learned information to evaluate statements about the target person. In addition to behavioral measures of memory performance, we investigated eye gaze patterns to decompose memory retrieval processes. We hypothesized that BPD patients would retrieve negative as compared to positive person information more accurately than healthy controls, and show increased eye gaze toward spatial locations where negative information was provided during the learning phase. Results pointed to a more accurate retrieval of negative person attributes in the patient group as compared with healthy controls, thereby corroborating a negativity bias in social cognition in an exemplary sample of patients with interpersonal problems. Interestingly, the observed negativity bias for person memory was associated with BPD severity, stronger expectancies to be rejected by others, and social detachment. No group differences regarding eye fixation behavior were found. We propose that enhanced retrieval of negative person information might be associated with dysfunctional cognitive schemas as well as reduced behavioral trust, and be of relevance for mental disorders characterized by interpersonal difficulties. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

How to Detect Publication Bias in Psychological Research

Abstract. Publication biases and questionable research practices are assumed to be two of the main causes of low replication rates. Both of these problems lead to severely inflated effect size estimates in meta-analyses. Methodologists have proposed a number of statistical tools to detect such bias in meta-analytic results. We present an evaluation of the performance of six of these tools. To assess the Type I error rate and the statistical power of these methods, we simulated a large variety of literatures that differed with regard to true effect size, heterogeneity, number of available primary studies, and sample sizes of these primary studies; furthermore, simulated studies were subjected to different degrees of publication bias. Our results show that across all simulated conditions, no method consistently outperformed the others. Additionally, all methods performed poorly when true effect sizes were heterogeneous or primary studies had a small chance of being published, irrespective of their results. This suggests that in many actual meta-analyses in psychology, bias will remain undiscovered no matter which detection method is used.

Belastbare und effiziente Wissenschaft

Zusammenfassung. Die Replikationskrise innerhalb der Psychologie hat eine Diskussion über gängige Praktiken im Forschungsprozess und die beteiligten Institutionen ausgelöst. Wir stellen Maßnahmen vor, die dazu beitragen können, Forschung effizienter und Forschungsergebnisse belastbarer zu machen, indem sie eine strategische Ausrichtung und stärkere Verzahnung von Forschungsprozessen in Gang setzen. Die notwendigen Veränderungen setzen dabei auf der Ebene des Individuums sowie der Institutionen an und betreffen die Inhaltsbereiche Theorie, Empirie und Evidenzakkumulation. Über die bekannten eher spezifischen Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Reproduzierbarkeit hinaus, zielen unsere Vorschläge darauf ab, die Voraussetzungen für effizientes wissenschaftliches Arbeiten zu verbessern, indem u. a. (i) die exakte Spezifikation und die kritische Testung und Revision von Theorien wieder stärker in den Mittelpunkt der Forschung gerückt werden, (ii) eine Kultur der Transparenz, akzeptierten Fehlbarkeit und Offenheit für Empirie- aber insbesondere auch Theorierevision etabliert wird, (iii) diese Kultur und die damit verbundene Methodik als integrale Bestandteile durchgängig in der Lehre verankert werden und (iv) Evidenz und Theorien in fortlaufend dezentral aktualisierten und miteinander verknüpften Theorie- und Empirie-Datenbanken zusammengeführt werden.

Source Credibility and the Biasing Effect of Narrative Information on the Perception of Vaccination Risks

Immunization rates are below the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy established by the World Health Organization. One reason for this are anti-vaccination activists, who use the Internet to disseminate their agenda, frequently by publishing narrative reports about alleged vaccine adverse events. In health communication, the use of narrative information has been shown to be effectively persuasive. Furthermore, persuasion research indicates that the credibility of an information source may serve as a cue to discount or augment the communicated message. Thus, the present study investigated the effect of source credibility on the biasing effect of narrative information regarding the perception of vaccination risks. 265 participants were provided with statistical information (20%) regarding the occurrence of vaccine adverse events after vaccination against a fictitious disease. This was followed by 20 personalized narratives from an online forum on vaccination experiences. The authors varied the relative frequency of narratives reporting vaccine adverse events (35% vs. 85%), narrative source credibility (anti-vaccination website vs. neutral health forum), and the credibility of the statistical information (reliable data vs. unreliable data vs. control) in a between-subjects design. Results showed a stable narrative bias on risk perception that was not affected by credibility cues. However, narratives from an anti-vaccination website generally led to lower perceptions of vaccination risks.

The measurement of subjective probability: evaluating the sensitivity and accuracy of various scales

The RISK of an event generally relates to its expected severity and the perceived probability of its occurrence. In RISK research, however, there is no standard measure for subjective probability estimates. In this study, we compared five commonly used measurement formats--two rating scales, a visual analog scale, and two numeric measures--in terms of their ability to assess subjective probability judgments when objective probabilities are available. We varied the probabilities (low vs. moderate) and severity (low vs. high) of the events to be judged as well as the presentation mode of objective probabilities (sequential presentation of singular events vs. graphical presentation of aggregated information). We employed two complementary goodness-of-fit criteria: the correlation between objective and subjective probabilities (sensitivity), and the root mean square deviations of subjective probabilities from objective values (accuracy). The numeric formats generally outperformed all other measures. The severity of events had no effect on the performance. Generally, a rise in probability led to decreases in performance. This effect, however, depended on how the objective probabilities were encoded: pictographs ensured perfect information, which improved goodness of fit for all formats and diminished this negative effect on the performance. Differences in performance between scales are thus caused only in part by characteristics of the scales themselves-they also depend on the process of encoding. Consequently, researchers should take the source of probability information into account before selecting a measure.

Effect of Narrative Reports about Vaccine Adverse Events and Bias-Awareness Disclaimers on Vaccine Decisions

Background. As the number of individuals who search for health information in interactive online environments is increasing, patient networks deserve more scientific attention. Objective. To quantitatively examine if and how reading statistical and/or narrative information as typically displayed in patient networks (e.g., patientslikeme.com ) affects decisions for pharmaceuticals. Previous work suggests that narrative information (e.g., about vaccine adverse events, VAE) affects risk perceptions and intentions. The authors compare the effect of narrative and statistical information about VAE on vaccination decisions and examine if a disclaimer reduces the narrative bias as well as if low numeracy leads to increased use of the narratives. Method and Design. In an online experiment, 458 participants were randomly assigned to a 3 (relative frequency of vaccine adverse events in 1, 7, or 17 of 20 cases) × 3 (type of information: narratives, summary statistics, or both) × 2 (bias awareness v. control disclaimer) between-subjects design. Measurements. Perceived risk, vaccination intention, and subjective numeracy. Results. A higher relative frequency of cases reporting VAE decreased the intention to get vaccinated. This relation was mediated by increased risk perception. The type of information moderated the contents’ impact: Summary statistics had the smallest impact, whereas narrative information was more influential, and the presence of both types of information had the greatest impact on risk perception. Individuals who received the bias-awareness disclaimer were less influenced by the patient network. Highly numerate individuals were generally more sensitive to the provided information independent of its format. Conclusions. Patient networks can influence vaccination decisions by delivering risk-related information. Disclaimers may help to reduce the influence if desired.

The influence of narrative v. statistical information on perceiving vaccination risks

BACKGROUND

Health-related information found on the Internet is increasing and impacts patient decision making, e.g. regarding vaccination decisions. In addition to statistical information (e.g. incidence rates of vaccine adverse events), narrative information is also widely available such as postings on online bulletin boards. Previous research has shown that narrative information can impact treatment decisions, even when statistical information is presented concurrently.

OBJECTIVES

As the determinants of this effect are largely unknown, we will vary features of the narratives to identify mechanisms through which narratives impact risk judgments.

METHODS

An online bulletin board setting provided participants with statistical information and authentic narratives about the occurrence and nonoccurrence of adverse events. Experiment 1 followed a single factorial design with 1, 2, or 4 narratives out of 10 reporting adverse events. Experiment 2 implemented a 2 (statistical risk 20% vs. 40%) × 2 (2/10 vs. 4/10 narratives reporting adverse events) × 2 (high vs. low richness) × 2 (high vs. low emotionality) between-subjects design. Dependent variables were perceived risk of side-effects and vaccination intentions.

RESULTS

Experiment 1 shows an inverse relation between the number of narratives reporting adverse-events and vaccination intentions, which was mediated by the perceived risk of vaccinating. Experiment 2 showed a stronger influence of the number of narratives than of the statistical risk information. High (vs. low) emotional narratives had a greater impact on the perceived risk, while richness had no effect.

IMPLICATIONS

The number of narratives influences risk judgments can potentially override statistical information about risk.

The influence of vaccine-critical websites on perceiving vaccination risks

This large-scale Internet-experiment tests whether vaccine-critical pages raise perceptions of the riskiness of vaccinations and alter vaccination intentions. We manipulated the information environment (vaccine-critical website, control, both) and the focus of search (on vaccination risks, omission risks, no focus). Our analyses reveal that accessing vaccine-critical websites for five to 10 minutes increases the perception of risk of vaccinating and decreases the perception of risk of omitting vaccinations as well as the intentions to vaccinate. In line with the 'risk-as-feelings' approach, the affect elicited by the vaccine-critical websites was positively related to changes in risk perception.