Explore projects

First training session of story, fixed

Tower of London

This experiment is about perception of AI in comparison with human. Perception in this experiment based on utilitarian choice in moral dillemas and amoral advices. We use 3 scales to measure reaction on the material, that was given to participants. It is agreement, emotions and willing to punish the author.

balanced version for Image

Participants answer general knowledge questions and can request up to 10 hints, half of which are correct and half incorrect, before submitting their final answer.

The Choice Reaction Time Task (Deary & Liewald, 2011)

Go/no-go task based on Redick et al.’s (2011) article “Working Memory Capacity and Go/No-Go Task Performance: Selective Effects of Updating, Maintenance, and Inhibition”.

A test of working memory, participants see a series of numbers and must remember if this number is the same as the Nth previously.

In this task participants are required to sort the presented cards based on a rule. The rule is unknown to the participants, however they receive feedback whether their answer was correct. The rule changes after certain amount of trials. This experiment is based on Grant & Berg (1948) experiment.

In this task participants are required to sort the presented cards based on a rule. The rule is unknown to the participants, however they receive feedback whether their answer was correct. The rule changes after certain amount of trials. This experiment is based on Grant & Berg (1948) experiment.

Implement audio recording

Study on shifting the preferences for sustainability attributes of products over trials, using reference points and changing attributes. Participants indicate their ideal and worst-case preferences for carbon footprint and recycled plastic in products (among other decoy questions). These are then used for the trials. If the ideal and worst ratings are too similar, participants cannot continue until they adjust the worst prototype rating. Company A (reference/comparison product) shows either participants stated ideal or worst prototype, based on a random number 'n' being generated each trial. The code creates a list of 9 values (each twice, so 18 trials overall) which go in regular increments from worst to ideal, for both carbon (CO2_list) and plastic (Pl_list). Depending on the condition, values then change from the ideal to worst, from worst to ideal or as a control jump randomly on the line. This is decided by a random number 'condition' generating a value between 1 and 3. Study then links to qualtrics for scales and debrief. PREC ethics code: 21-089.