Dataset Information

Strength Is Still a Weakness in Coalition Formation: Replicating and Understanding the Strength-Is-Weakness Effect.

ABSTRACT: A key observation in coalition formation is that bargainers with most resources are often excluded from coalitions: the Strength-is-Weakness effect. Previous studies have suffered from low sample sizes and lack of (appropriate) incentives and have rarely focused on underlying processes. To address these issues, we conducted a cross-platform replication using the Online Coalition Game. We replicated the Strength-is-Weakness effect in a psychology laboratory, on Amazon Mechanical Turk, and on Prolific. Moreover, our results showed that the equity norm shapes the Strength-is-Weakness effect in two ways. First, strong bargainers claim a higher larger of the payoffs than weak bargainers do, making them less attractive coalition partners. Second, weak bargainers expect strong bargainers to make these larger claims, directing weak bargainers to each other from the outset. Finally, the studies suggest that the Online Coalition Game is a viable tool for conducting high-powered coalition formation research.

SUBMITTER: Wissink J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8801643 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Strength Is Still a Weakness in Coalition Formation: Replicating and Understanding the Strength-Is-Weakness Effect.

Wissink Joeri J van Beest Ilja I Pronk Tila T van de Ven Niels N

Personality & social psychology bulletin 20210413 2

A key observation in coalition formation is that bargainers with most resources are often excluded from coalitions: the Strength-is-Weakness effect. Previous studies have suffered from low sample sizes and lack of (appropriate) incentives and have rarely focused on underlying processes. To address these issues, we conducted a cross-platform replication using the Online Coalition Game. We replicated the Strength-is-Weakness effect in a psychology laboratory, on Amazon Mechanical Turk, and on Prol ...[more]

PMID: 33848446

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Reduced muscle strength- commonly characterized by decreased handgrip strength compared to population norms- is associated with numerous untoward outcomes. Preoperative handgrip strength is a potentially attractive real-time, non-invasive, cheap and easy-to-perform "bedside" assessment tool. Using systematic review procedure, we investigated whether preoperative handgrip strength was associated with postoperative outcomes in adults undergoing surgery. METHODS: PRISMA and MOOSE consensus guidelines for reporting systematic reviews were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (1980-2010) were systematically searched by two independent reviewers. The selection criteria were limited to include studies of preoperative handgrip strength in human adults undergoing non-emergency, cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. Study procedural quality was analysed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment score. The outcomes assessed were postoperative morbidity, mortality and hospital stay. RESULTS: Nineteen clinical studies (17 prospective; 4 in urgent surgery) comprising 2194 patients were identified between1980-2010. Impaired handgrip strength and postoperative morbidity were defined inconsistently between studies. Only 2 studies explicitly ensured investigators collecting postoperative outcomes data were blinded to preoperative handgrip strength test results. The heterogeneity of study design used and the diversity of surgical procedures precluded formal meta-analysis. Despite the moderate quality of these observational studies, lower handgrip strength was associated with increased morbidity (n = 10 studies), mortality (n = 2/5 studies) and length of hospital stay (n = 3/7 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Impaired preoperative handgrip strength may be associated with poorer postoperative outcomes, but further work exploring its predictive power is warranted using prospectively acquired, objectively defined measures of postoperative morbidity.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of handgrip strength (HGS) in clinical cancer research is surging. The association between HGS and outcomes in patients with cancer varied across studies, which might be due to the different measurement protocols for HGS. We aimed to answer three questions: (1) Did the use of various protocols for HGS, along with different numbers of repetitions, lead to significant differences in maximum HGS values? (2) If yes, were these differences clinically significant? (3) Did the differences in HGS protocols and repetitions affect the identification of HGS weakness or HGS asymmetry?MethodsWe continuously recruited adult patients with solid tumours. Two protocols were used to measure HGS: Method A, following the American Society of Hand Therapists guidelines, and Method B, following the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey guidelines. To analyse HGS, we used the maximal value obtained from either two or three repetitions of the dominant hand or four or six repetitions of both hands.ResultsWe included 497 patients (326 men and 171 women, median age: 58 years). The maximal HGS values, measured with Method B, were significantly higher than those measured by Method A in both men and women, despite repetitions (all P < 0.05). The maximum HGS values were significantly different across the repetition groups, regardless of measurement protocols and sex (all P < 0.01). The protocol-induced differences in maximal HGS values might be clinically meaningful in over 60% of men and 40% of women despite repetitions. The repetition-induced difference was only clinically significant in 4.3-17.8% of men and 4.1-14.6% of women. To identify HGS weakness, using Method A (six repetitions) as the 'gold' standard, the other protocols demonstrated an overall accuracy of 0.923-0.997 in men and 0.965-1 in women. To identify HGS asymmetry, using Method A (six repetitions) as the 'gold' standard, Method B (six repetitions) demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 0.972 in men and 0.971 in women. Method A (four repetitions) showed a diagnostic accuracy of 0.837 in men and 0.825 in women, while Method B (four repetitions) showed a diagnostic accuracy of 0.825 in men and 0.807 in women.ConclusionsBoth measurement protocols and repetitions significantly affect the maximal HGS values. The identification of HGS weakness is not significantly affected by either protocols or repetitions, while the identification of HGS asymmetry may be affected by different repetitions but not protocols.

Dataset Information

Strength Is Still a Weakness in Coalition Formation: Replicating and Understanding the Strength-Is-Weakness Effect.

Publications

Strength Is Still a Weakness in Coalition Formation: Replicating and Understanding the Strength-Is-Weakness Effect.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets