Revisiting the psychology of waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996)
Arkes (Arkes 1996 J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 9, 213–224. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199609)9:3<213::AID-BDM230>3.0.CO;2-1) demonstrated a phenomenon of wastefulness avoidance, showing that people’s decisions are impacted by wastefulness, making decisions that avoid appearing wasteful. In a Regist...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
The Royal Society
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Royal Society Open Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.250367 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849690241807417344 |
|---|---|
| author | Zijin Zhu Gilad Feldman |
| author_facet | Zijin Zhu Gilad Feldman |
| author_sort | Zijin Zhu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Arkes (Arkes 1996 J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 9, 213–224. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199609)9:3<213::AID-BDM230>3.0.CO;2-1) demonstrated a phenomenon of wastefulness avoidance, showing that people’s decisions are impacted by wastefulness, making decisions that avoid appearing wasteful. In a Registered Report with a Prolific sample (N = 659), we conducted a replication and extensions of studies 1, 2 and 3 from Arkes, 1996. We found empirical support for the impact of waste on evaluations of decisions in the movie package scenario in study 1 (original: h = 0.43 [0.03, 0.83]; replication: h = 0.26 [0.10, 0.42]) and on hypothetical decisions in the tent project scenario in study 3 (original: w = 0.23 [0.00, 0.52]; replication: w = 0.09 [0.00, 0.17]), but with no support in the tax program scenario in study 2 (original: w = 0.27 [0.00, 0.55]; replication: w = 0.03 [0.00, 0.12]). Our extension employing a continuous willingness measure, to supplement the scenarios’ dichotomous choice, showed similar results. We added a manipulation check extension, which showed that the manipulation worked as expected in scenarios 1 and 3, but not in scenario 2. In our extension examining reasons, in the successfully replicated scenarios, we found that in scenario 1, utility maximization was not rated as the most important, and in scenario 3, minimizing waste was rated as the most important reason. Overall, we concluded a mixed replication, with a successful replication of two of the three tested studies. Materials, data and code are available at https://osf.io/gf8rc/. This Registered Report has been officially endorsed by Peer Community in Registered Reports: https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.rr.100801. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-dab4182b3c51447b9387c46e3dc2b22c |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2054-5703 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | The Royal Society |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Royal Society Open Science |
| spelling | doaj-art-dab4182b3c51447b9387c46e3dc2b22c2025-08-20T03:21:22ZengThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society Open Science2054-57032025-05-0112510.1098/rsos.250367Revisiting the psychology of waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996)Zijin Zhu0Gilad Feldman1Department of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong KongDepartment of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong KongArkes (Arkes 1996 J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 9, 213–224. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199609)9:3<213::AID-BDM230>3.0.CO;2-1) demonstrated a phenomenon of wastefulness avoidance, showing that people’s decisions are impacted by wastefulness, making decisions that avoid appearing wasteful. In a Registered Report with a Prolific sample (N = 659), we conducted a replication and extensions of studies 1, 2 and 3 from Arkes, 1996. We found empirical support for the impact of waste on evaluations of decisions in the movie package scenario in study 1 (original: h = 0.43 [0.03, 0.83]; replication: h = 0.26 [0.10, 0.42]) and on hypothetical decisions in the tent project scenario in study 3 (original: w = 0.23 [0.00, 0.52]; replication: w = 0.09 [0.00, 0.17]), but with no support in the tax program scenario in study 2 (original: w = 0.27 [0.00, 0.55]; replication: w = 0.03 [0.00, 0.12]). Our extension employing a continuous willingness measure, to supplement the scenarios’ dichotomous choice, showed similar results. We added a manipulation check extension, which showed that the manipulation worked as expected in scenarios 1 and 3, but not in scenario 2. In our extension examining reasons, in the successfully replicated scenarios, we found that in scenario 1, utility maximization was not rated as the most important, and in scenario 3, minimizing waste was rated as the most important reason. Overall, we concluded a mixed replication, with a successful replication of two of the three tested studies. Materials, data and code are available at https://osf.io/gf8rc/. This Registered Report has been officially endorsed by Peer Community in Registered Reports: https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.rr.100801.https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.250367wastefulnessavoidancebiasjudgement and decision-makingRegistered Reportreplication |
| spellingShingle | Zijin Zhu Gilad Feldman Revisiting the psychology of waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996) Royal Society Open Science wastefulness avoidance bias judgement and decision-making Registered Report replication |
| title | Revisiting the psychology of waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996) |
| title_full | Revisiting the psychology of waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996) |
| title_fullStr | Revisiting the psychology of waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996) |
| title_full_unstemmed | Revisiting the psychology of waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996) |
| title_short | Revisiting the psychology of waste: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Arkes (1996) |
| title_sort | revisiting the psychology of waste replication and extensions registered report of arkes 1996 |
| topic | wastefulness avoidance bias judgement and decision-making Registered Report replication |
| url | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.250367 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zijinzhu revisitingthepsychologyofwastereplicationandextensionsregisteredreportofarkes1996 AT giladfeldman revisitingthepsychologyofwastereplicationandextensionsregisteredreportofarkes1996 |