The Influence of Judgment Calls on Meta-Analytic Findings

Previous research has suggested that judgment calls (i.e., methodological choices made in the process of conducting a meta-analysis) have a strong influence on meta-analytic findings and question their robustness. However, prior research applies case study comparison or reanalysis of a few meta-analyses with a focus on a few selected judgment calls. These studies neglect the fact that different judgment calls are related to each other and simultaneously influence the outcomes of a meta-analysis, and that meta-analytic findings can vary due to non–judgment call differences between meta-analyses (e.g., variations of effects over time). The current study analyzes the influence of 13 judgment calls in 176 meta-analyses in marketing research by applying a multivariate, multilevel meta-meta-analysis. The analysis considers simultaneous influences from different judgment calls on meta-analytic effect sizes and controls for alternative explanations based on non–judgment call differences between meta-analyses. The findings suggest that judgment calls have only a minor influence on meta-analytic findings, whereas non–judgment call differences between meta-analyses are more likely to explain differences in meta-analytic findings. The findings support the robustness of meta-analytic results and conclusions.     

Ethical Predispositions to Violate or Obey Traffic Rules and the Mediating Role of Driving Styles

Traffic law violations are the most important determinants of traffic accidents. This study examined the influence of drivers' ethical perspective on their traffic violations and the mediating role of driving styles in these relationships. A sample of 313 drivers participated in the study. Contrary to expectations, high ethical relativism was found to be associated with fewer aggressive traffic violations. This suggests that the informal normative system that parallels the official traffic regulations is the more salient reference against which drivers usually assess the adequacy of their behaviors, highly relativistic drivers being more willing to also take into consideration the official traffic code in these appraisals. We also found significant interactions between idealism and relativism on both ordinary and aggressive violations. Idealism emerged as a predictor of these violations only in drivers low in relativism. In this group, one's concern about the harm that he/she might cause to other traffic participants induces higher traffic law abidingness. These influences of idealism were mediated by certain driving styles. Drivers' general ethical perspective fosters a specific pattern of driving styles and, consequently, the tendency to commit or to refrain from traffic violations.     

What Kind of Normativity is the Normativity of Grammar?

The overall goal of this article is to show that aesthetics plays a major role in a debate at the very center of philosophy. Drawing on the work of David Bell, the article spells out how Kant and Wittgenstein use reflective judgment, epitomized by a judgment of beauty, as a key in their respective solutions to the rule‐following problem they share. The more specific goal is to offer a Kantian account of semantic normativity as understood by Wittgenstein. The article argues that Wittgenstein's reason for describing language as a collection of language games is to allow for a perspective that shows those games as internally purposive without any extralinguistic purpose. This perspective also allows for that union of the general rule and its particular application in practice that the original paradox of rule‐following is wanting.     

Do you see my growth? Two longitudinal studies on personality development from childhood to young adulthood from multiple perspectives

Personality developmental studies typically rely on single reporter data, while multi-informant studies are rare. In two longitudinal studies, the present investigation examined inter-judge differences in the development of the Big Five personality traits from childhood to young adulthood. Study 1 investigated personality development as judged by the self and parents from age 12 to 17 to 29 (N = 186). Study 2 investigated personality development annually from age 12 to 18 as judged by the self, and both parents and siblings (N = 574). Results showed personality maturation from childhood to young adulthood with disruptions during adolescence. Only parent-reports indicated maturation in adolescents’ negative affectivity (decreases in N), while self-reports indicated maturation in self-regulatory traits (increases in A and C).