liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
EnglishSvenskaNorsk
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Lindkvist, Amanda M.ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-3984-5081
Publications (7 of 7) Show all publications
Lindkvist, A. M., Koppel, L., Andersson, D., Västfjäll, D. & Tinghög, G. (2026). Is research ethics discipline-specific? A survey of researchers' and ethics reviewers' views on research misconduct and questionable practices. Research Policy, 55(4), Article ID 105435.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Is research ethics discipline-specific? A survey of researchers' and ethics reviewers' views on research misconduct and questionable practices
Show others...
2026 (English)In: Research Policy, ISSN 0048-7333, E-ISSN 1873-7625, Vol. 55, no 4, article id 105435Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Are views on research ethics and questionable research practices discipline-specific? This study investigates attitudes toward research misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) among researchers (n = 11,050) and ethics reviewers (n = 144) across academic fields. Our findings indicate that while most questionable practices are viewed as unacceptable overall, attitudes vary systematically across fields. Medical researchers and ethics reviewers generally viewed questionable practices as less acceptable than researchers and reviewers in other fields. Female researchers and full professors also had stricter attitudes
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2026
Keywords
Research ethics; Questionable research practices; Research integrity; Survey
National Category
Economics Ethics Psychology (Excluding Applied Psychology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-221401 (URN)10.1016/j.respol.2026.105435 (DOI)001699350200001 ()2-s2.0-105030247469 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Available from: 2026-02-20 Created: 2026-02-20 Last updated: 2026-04-10
Koppel, L., Lindkvist, A. M. & Tinghög, G. (2026). Money talks? How different incentive schemes influence prosocial behavior in economic games. Experimental Economics
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Money talks? How different incentive schemes influence prosocial behavior in economic games
2026 (English)In: Experimental Economics, ISSN 1386-4157, E-ISSN 1573-6938Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

The use of real monetary incentives has long defined experimental economics, setting it apart from disciplines like psychology, where hypothetical choices are common. While full-payment and hypothetical designs represent two clear extremes, random-payment incentive schemes - where one of several decisions is randomly selected for payment - have become a prominent approach in economics. Yet the behavioral validity of random-payment schemes remains underexamined: Do they more closely resemble fully incentivized tasks or hypothetical ones? We compare full-payment (participants paid for every decision), no-payment (participants not paid for any decision), and random-payment (participants paid for one randomly selected decision) incentive schemes, using five standard economic games to measure social preferences (Dictator Game, Ultimatum Game, Trust Game, Public Goods Game, and Prisoner's Dilemma). Results from Experiment 1 (n = 1,501), with 1 pound stakes, indicate no significant differences between incentive schemes in any of the games included or a composite measure of prosocial behavior. In Experiment 2 (n = 750), with 10 pound stakes, results were largely in line with Experiment 1, suggesting no consistent behavioral impact of incentive schemes at increased stakes. The one notable exception was responder behavior in the Ultimatum Game, where participants in the full-payment condition were less likely to reject offers compared to those in the no-payment condition, with random-payment falling in between. Our results challenge the rigid disciplinary norm that real stakes are essential for valid measurement and invite a more nuanced consideration of how and when different incentive schemes are necessary or appropriate in behavioral research.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2026
Keywords
Dictator game; prisoner's dilemma; public goods game; trust game; ultimatum game; B40; C70; C90; D90
National Category
Economics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-223226 (URN)10.1017/eec.2026.10044 (DOI)001745511300001 ()2-s2.0-105037141159 (Scopus ID)
Note

Funding: Swedish Research Council

Available from: 2026-04-23 Created: 2026-04-23 Last updated: 2026-06-27
Mede, N. G., Cologna, V., Berger, S., Besley, J., Brick, C., Joubert, M., . . . Zwaan, R. A. (2025). Perceptions of science, science communication, and climate change attitudes in 68 countries - the TISP dataset. Scientific Data, 12(1), Article ID 114.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Perceptions of science, science communication, and climate change attitudes in 68 countries - the TISP dataset
Show others...
2025 (English)In: Scientific Data, E-ISSN 2052-4463, Vol. 12, no 1, article id 114Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Science is integral to society because it can inform individual, government, corporate, and civil society decision-making on issues such as public health, new technologies or climate change. Yet, public distrust and populist sentiment challenge the relationship between science and society. To help researchers analyse the science-society nexus across different geographical and cultural contexts, we undertook a cross-sectional population survey resulting in a dataset of 71,922 participants in 68 countries. The data were collected between November 2022 and August 2023 as part of the global Many Labs study "Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism" (TISP). The questionnaire contained comprehensive measures for individuals' trust in scientists, science-related populist attitudes, perceptions of the role of science in society, science media use and communication behaviour, attitudes to climate change and support for environmental policies, personality traits, political and religious views and demographic characteristics. Here, we describe the dataset, survey materials and psychometric properties of key variables. We encourage researchers to use this unique dataset for global comparative analyses on public perceptions of science and its role in society and policy-making.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
NATURE PORTFOLIO, 2025
National Category
Oceanography, Hydrology and Water Resources
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-212585 (URN)10.1038/s41597-024-04100-7 (DOI)001413007000001 ()39833242 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85216440065 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2025-03-24 Created: 2025-03-24 Last updated: 2025-05-20
Mede, N. G., Cologna, V., Berger, S., Besley, J. C., Brick, C., Joubert, M., . . . Zwaan, R. A. (2025). Public Communication about Science in 68 Countries: Global Evidence on How People Encounter and Engage with Information about Science. Science communication
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Public Communication about Science in 68 Countries: Global Evidence on How People Encounter and Engage with Information about Science
Show others...
2025 (English)In: Science communication, ISSN 1075-5470, E-ISSN 1552-8545Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

This 68-country survey (n = 71,922) examines science information diets and communication behavior, identifies cross-country differences, and tests how such differences are associated with sociopolitical and economic conditions. We find that social media are the most used sources of science information in most countries, except those with democratic-corporatist media systems where news media tend to be used more widely. People in collectivist societies are less outspoken about science in daily life, whereas lower education is associated with higher outspokenness. Limited access to digital media is correlated with participation in public protests on science matters. We discuss implications for future research, policy, and practice.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC, 2025
Keywords
science communication; public engagement with science; media use; social media; survey; comparative study; secondary data analysis
National Category
Sociology (Excluding Social Work, Social Anthropology, Demography and Criminology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-220842 (URN)10.1177/10755470251376615 (DOI)001655675300001 ()
Available from: 2026-01-29 Created: 2026-01-29 Last updated: 2026-03-29
Koppel, L., Lindkvist, A. M. & Tinghög, G. (2025). Scientific normative dissonance: A large-scale survey of researchers’ subscription to scientific norms and counternorms across academic fields. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 237, Article ID 107140.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Scientific normative dissonance: A large-scale survey of researchers’ subscription to scientific norms and counternorms across academic fields
2025 (English)In: Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, ISSN 0167-2681, E-ISSN 1879-1751, Vol. 237, article id 107140Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

We investigate the extent to which researchers hold morally competing ideals related to scientific norms, which we refer to as scientific normative dissonance. Researchers (n = 11,050) indicated their agreement with four general scientific norms (communality, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism) and counternorms (individualism, particularism, self-interestedness, and organized dogmatism). Results indicate systematic differences in the relative norm–counternorm subscription (i.e., scientific normative dissonance) across academic fields, academic seniority, and genders. Specifically, normative dissonance was higher among researchers in the medical and health sciences (vs. researchers in social sciences, humanities, or natural sciences), more senior researchers, and male researchers. Our findings have implications for fostering ethical research environments and aligning research practices and incentive structures with scientific ideals.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2025
Keywords
Normative dissonance; Scientific norms; Counternorms; Ambivalence
National Category
Economics Psychology (Excluding Applied Psychology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-216304 (URN)10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107140 (DOI)001541314600004 ()2-s2.0-105011668458 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Note

Funding Agencies|Swedish Research Council

Available from: 2025-08-12 Created: 2025-08-12 Last updated: 2025-09-23
Cologna, V., Mede, N. G., Berger, S., Besley, J., Brick, C., Joubert, M., . . . Zwaan, R. A. (2025). Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries. Nature Human Behaviour, 9, 713-730
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries
Show others...
2025 (English)In: Nature Human Behaviour, E-ISSN 2397-3374, Vol. 9, p. 713-730Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Science is crucial for evidence-based decision-making. Public trust in scientists can help decision makers act on the basis of the best available evidence, especially during crises. However, in recent years the epistemic authority of science has been challenged, causing concerns about low public trust in scientists. We interrogated these concerns with a preregistered 68-country survey of 71,922 respondents and found that in most countries, most people trust scientists and agree that scientists should engage more in society and policymaking. We found variations between and within countries, which we explain with individual- and country-level variables, including political orientation. While there is no widespread lack of trust in scientists, we cannot discount the concern that lack of trust in scientists by even a small minority may affect considerations of scientific evidence in policymaking. These findings have implications for scientists and policymakers seeking to maintain and increase trust in scientists.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
NATURE PORTFOLIO, 2025
National Category
Political Science (Excluding Peace and Conflict Studies)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-212584 (URN)10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5 (DOI)001439575200001 ()39833424 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85215413416 (Scopus ID)
Note

Funding Agencies|Swiss National Science Foundation Postdoc Mobility Fellowship [P500PS_202935]; Harvard University Faculty Development Funds; Swiss Federal Office of Energy [SI/502093-01]; HELTS Foundation; School of Psychology, University of Sheffield; LPDP Indonesia; John Templeton Foundation [62631]; Australian Research Council [DP180102384]; Resnick Sustainability Institute; ESRC GCRF; SNSF (VAR-EXP); German Research Foundation [BE 3970/12-1]; Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; SWPS University; University of Warsaw; Boston University (Startup Funds); Jagiellonian University; Quadrature Climate Fund; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1144]; EDCTP2 Programme [TMA2020CDF-3171]; Cambridge Humanities Research Grant; CRASSH grant fund for climaTRACES lab; Keynes Fund; UKRI ODA International Partnership Fund; University of Vienna; OptimAgent (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research) [031L0299D]; University of Lubeck; Austrian Science Fund grant FWF [I3381]; Austrian Science Fund FWF [W1262-B29]; Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft [RE 4752/1-1]; David and Claudia Harding Foundation; Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University); University of Lodz; School of Economics Interdisciplinary funding at University of Birmingham; USAID; Aarhus University Research Foundation [AUFF-E-2019-9-4]; Carleton College; Government of Alberta Major Innovation Fund [RES0049213]; Conacyt [A1S9013]; Hixon Center for Climate and the Environment, Harvey Mudd College; Faculty Research Grant of City University of Hong Kong [PJ9618021]; College of Social Sciences, Kimep University; Hitachi Fund Support for Research Related to Infectious Diseases; JST-RISTEX ELSI grant [JPMJRX20J3]; School of Geography, Planning, and Spatial Sciences, University of Tasmania; University of Bamberg; Nicolaus Copernicus University; Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism, Charles University; Federation Wallonie-Bruxelles (Belgium); Center for Climate and Energy Transformation, University of Bergen, Norway; University of Turku; Victoria University of Wellington; NORFACE Joint Research Programme on Democratic Governance in a Turbulent Age; NWO; European Commission [822166]; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [430-2022-00711]; School of Psychology and Public Health Internal Grant Scheme [2022]; 'An Evolutionary and Cultural Perspective on Intellectual Humility via Intellectual Curiosity and Epistemic Deference' from the John Templeton Foundation; ANR [DEC ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02, ANR-17-EURE-0017]; University of Delaware; School of Medicine and Psychology, Australian National University; Trinity Western University; Swedish Research Council [2020-02584]; University of Silesia in Katowice; John Templeton Foundation Academic Cross Training Fellowship [61580]; University of Warsaw under the Priority Research Area V of the 'Excellence Initiative-Research University' programme; National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan (ROC) [111-2628-H-002-003-, 112-2628-H-002-002-]; SAo Paulo Research Foundation-FAPESP [2019/26665-5]; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [-458303980]; Aston University; ANR PICS; FundacAo para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [UIDB/04295/2020, UIDP/04295/2020]; European Union [964728]; Universite Officielle de Bukavu; Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation [7F09521]; NOMIS Foundation; School of Psychological Sciences; University of Louvain; European Research Council [101018262]; Genome Canada; Genome Alberta, Canada; Alberta Ministry of Technology and Innovation Canada; Major Innovation Fund Project AMR-One Health Consortium; University of Hamburg; Resnick Sustainability Institute, Critical Zone Initiative; UK Research and Innovation under the UK government [EP/X042758/1]; Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT); CNPq-INCT (National Institute of Science and Technology on Social and Affective Neuroscience) [406463/2022-0]; Swiss National Science Foundation PRIMA Grant [PR00P1_193128]; Economic and Social Research Council, UK [ES/X000702/1]; Leverhulme International Professorship Grant [LIP-2022-001]; Slovak Research and Development Agency (APVV) [APVV-22-0242]; Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich

Available from: 2025-03-24 Created: 2025-03-24 Last updated: 2025-05-20
Lindkvist, A. M., Koppel, L. & Tinghög, G. (2024). Bounded research ethicality: researchers rate themselves and their field as better than others at following good research practice. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article ID 3050.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Bounded research ethicality: researchers rate themselves and their field as better than others at following good research practice
2024 (English)In: Scientific Reports, E-ISSN 2045-2322, Vol. 14, no 1, article id 3050Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Bounded ethicality refers to people’s limited capacity to consistently behave in line with their ethical standards. Here, we present results from a pre-registered, large-scale (N = 11,050) survey of researchers in Sweden, suggesting that researchers too are boundedly ethical. Specifically, researchers on average rated themselves as better than other researchers in their field at following good research practice, and rated researchers in their own field as better than researchers in other fields at following good research practice. These effects were stable across all academic fields, but strongest among researchers in the medical sciences. Taken together, our findings illustrate inflated self-righteous beliefs among researchers and research disciplines when it comes to research ethics, which may contribute to academic polarization and moral blindspots regarding one’s own and one’s colleagues’ use of questionable research practices.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Nature Publishing Group, 2024
National Category
Economics Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology) Peace and Conflict Studies Other Social Sciences not elsewhere specified
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-201088 (URN)10.1038/s41598-024-53450-0 (DOI)001158746700014 ()38321164 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85184418218 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Swedish Research CouncilLinköpings universitet
Note

Funding Agencies|Vetenskapsrdet

Available from: 2024-02-20 Created: 2024-02-20 Last updated: 2025-02-20Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-3984-5081

Search in DiVA

Show all publications
v. 2.49.0
|
Accessibility
|
DiVA portal
|
DiVA Log in
|
Contact us
|
LiU University Library
|
SwePub
|
Uppsök