Browsing by Author "Saavedra P."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Civic engagement and giving behaviors : the role of empathy and beliefs about poverty
    (2016) Luengo Kanacri, Bernadette Paula; González Gutiérrez, Roberto; Valdenegro, D.; Jiménez Moya, Gloria; Saavedra P.; Mora E.; Miranda Fuenzalida, Daniel Andrés; Didier, L.; Pastorelli, C.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Is it really “panic buying”? Public perceptions and experiences of extra buying at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic
    (Public Library of Science, 2022) Ntontis E.; Ntontis E.; Jurstakova K.; Vestergren S.; Stott C.; Saavedra P.; Neville F.; Cocking C.; Lay S.; Drury J.; Vignoles V.L.; Reicher S.
    © 2022 Ntontis et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Shopping behaviour in response to extreme events is often characterized as “panic buying” which connotes irrationality and loss of control. However, “panic buying” has been criticized for attributing shopping behaviour to people’s alleged psychological frailty while ignoring other psychological and structural factors that might be at play. We report a qualitative exploration of the experiences and understandings of shopping behaviour of members of the public at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 23 participants, we developed three themes. The first theme addresses people’s understandings of “panic buying”. When participants referred to “panic buying” they meant observed product shortages (rather than the underlying psychological processes that can lead to such behaviours), preparedness behaviours, or emotions such as fear and worry. The second theme focuses on the influence of the media and other people’s behaviour in shaping subsequent shopping behaviours. The third theme addresses the meaningful motivations behind increased shopping, which participants described in terms of preparedness; some participants reported increased shopping behaviours as a response to other people stockpiling, to reduce their trips to supermarkets, or to prepare for product shortages and longer stays at home. Overall, despite frequently using the term ‘panic’, the irrationalist connotations of “panic buying” were largely absent from participants’ accounts. Thus, “panic buying” is not a useful concept and should not be used as it constructs expected responses to threat as irrational or pathological. It can also facilitate such behaviours, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Many labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings
    (SAGE Publications Inc., 2018) Klein R.A.; Ijzerman H.; Vianello M.; Dalla Rosa A.; Hasselman F.; de Vries M.; Podesta L.; Hasselman F.; Podesta L.; Voermans I.P.J.; Adams B.G.; Brandt M.J.; de Bruijn M.; Adams B.G.; Adams R.B.; Nelson A.J.; Pinter B.; Steiner T.G.; Alper S.; Aveyard M.; Maitner A.T.; Axt J.R.; Babalola M.T.; Bahnik S.; Batra R.; Berkics M.; Bernstein M.J.; Berry D.R.; Bialobrzeska O.; Frankowska N.; Karick H.; Osowiecka M.; Binan E.D.; Dagona Z.K.; Gandi J.C.; Karick H.; Bocian K.; Wronska M.K.; Busching R.; Redei A.C.; Cai H.; Cambier F.; Friedman M.; Kervyn N.; Cambier F.; Friedman M.; Kervyn N.; Cantarero K.; Carmichael C.L.; Ceric F.; Sirlopu D.; Ceric F.; Chandler J.; Chandler J.; Chang J.-H.; Chang J.-H.; Chatard A.; Chatard A.; Chen E.E.; Cheong W.; Cicero D.C.; Coen S.; Szeto S.; Coleman J.A.; Joy-Gaba J.A.; Collisson B.; Conway M.A.; Lipsey N.P.; Losee J.E.; Pogge G.; Corker K.S.; Curran P.G.; Cushman F.; Dalgar I.; Davis W.E.; De Schutter L.; Devos T.; de Vries M.; de Vries M.; Dogulu C.; Dozo N.; Dukes K.N.; Dunham Y.; Durrheim K.; Ebersole C.R.; Nosek B.A.; Edlund J.E.; Eller A.; Freyre M.-A.; English A.S.; Finck C.; Jimenez-Leal W.; Galliani E.M.; Ghoshal T.; Giessner S.R.; Gill T.; Packard G.; Gnambs T.; Gnambs T.; Gomez A.; Vazquez A.; Gonzalez R.; Graham J.; Grahe J.E.; Grahek I.; Green E.G.T.; Hai K.; Haigh M.; Myachykov A.; Neave N.; Smith M.A.; Haines E.L.; Hall M.P.; Heffernan M.E.; Hicks J.A.; Houdek P.; Huntsinger J.R.; Mallett R.K.; Huynh H.P.; Inbar Y.; Innes-Ker A.H.; Sundfelt O.K.; John M.-S.; Skorinko J.L.M.; Kamiloglu R.G.; Kappes H.B.; Karabati S.; Keller V.N.; Pilati R.; Kende A.; Ujhelyi A.; Knezevic G.; Kovacs C.; Krueger L.E.; Kurapov G.; Kurtz J.; Welch C.; Lakens D.; Smolders K.C.H.J.; Lazarevic L.B.; Levitan C.A.; Lewis N.A.; Lins S.; Neto F.; Maassen E.; van Aert R.C.M.; van Assen M.A.L.M.; Malingumu W.; Marotta S.A.; Mededovic J.; Mededovic J.; Petrovic B.; Mena-Pacheco F.; Ocampo A.; Vega L.D.; Milfont T.L.; Morris W.L.; Murphy S.C.; Neijenhuijs K.; Neijenhuijs K.; Nichols A.L.; O'donnell S.L.; Oikawa H.; Oikawa M.; Ong E.; Tang A.C.W.; Orosz G.; Perez-Sanchez R.; Smith-Castro V.; Pollmann M.M.H.; Rutchick A.M.; Saavedra P.; Saeri A.K.; Tear M.J.; Salomon E.; Schmidt K.; Schonbrodt F.D.; Spachtholz P.; Sekerdej M.B.; Szumowska E.; Sobkow A.; Traczyk J.; Sowden W.; Srivastava M.; Stouten J.; Street C.N.H.; Tanzer N.; Theriault J.; Thomae M.; Wood M.; Torres D.; Tybur J.M.; van Lange P.A.M.; van der Hulst M.; van 't Veer A.E.; Vasquez-Echeverria A.; Vaughn L.A.; Verniers C.; Verschoor M.; Vranka M.A.; Wichman A.L.; Williams L.A.; Woodzicka J.A.; Young L.; Zelenski J.M.; Zhijia Z.; Nosek B.A.
    © The Author(s) 2018.We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p <.05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p <.0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely highpowered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than.20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above.10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.