Publications

Edited Books:

Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kühberger, A. & Johnson, J. (Eds.). (2018). A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kühberger, A. & Ranyard, R. (Eds.). (2011). A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research: A Critical Review and User’s Guide. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Published chapters and journal articles:

Kuehberger, A., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2018). Selecting target papers for replication. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, E139. doi:10.1017/S0140525X18000742

O’Donnell, M., Nelson, L. D., Ackermann, E., Aczel, B., Akhtar, A., Aldrovandi, S., … & Balatekin, N. (2018). Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 268-294.

Pachur, T., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Murphy, R.O., & Hertwig, R. (2018). Prospect theory reflects selective allocation of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(2), 147–169.

de Bellis, E., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Brucks, W., Herrmann, A., & Hertwig, R. (2018). Blind haste: As light decreases, speeding increases. PLoS ONE 13(1): e0188951.

Stöckli, S., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Borer, S., & Samson, A. C. (2018). Facial expression analysis with AFFDEX and FACET: A validation study. Behavior Research Methods, 50(4), 1446-1460.

Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kühberger, A., Gagl, S., & Hutzler, F. (2017). Inducing thought processes: Bringing process measures and cognitive processes closer together. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(5), 1001-1013.

Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Johnson, J.G., Böckenholt, U., Goldstein, D., Russo, J., Sullivan, N., &  Willemsen, M. (2017). Process tracing methods in decision making: On growing up in the 70ties. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(5), 442-450.

Kühberger, A. & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2017). Economic decision making: risk, value and affect. In R. Ranyard (Ed.). Economic Psychology, 20-34. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester, UK.

Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Spaanjaars, N.L., & Witteman, C.L.M. (2017). The (in)visibility of psychodiagnosticians’ expertise. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 89-94.

Lejarraga, T., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Smedema, D. (2017). The pyeTribe: Simultaneous eyetracking for economic games. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1769-1779.

Kieslich, P. J., Wulff, D. U., Henninger, F., Haslbeck, J. M. B., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2016). Mousetrap: An R package for processing and analyzing mouse-tracking data. CRAN.

Skvortsova, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Jellema, S., Sanfey, A., & Witteman, C. (2016). Deliberative versus intuitive psychodiagnostic decision. Psychology7, 1438–1450.

Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Kühberger, A. (2014). Out of sight – out of mind?  Information acquisition patterns in risky choice framing. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 45, 21–28.
Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Sohn, M., De Bellis, E., Martin, N., & Hertwig, R. (2013). A lack of appetite for information and computation. Simple heuristics in food choice. Appetite, 71, 242–251.
 Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. & Murphy, R.O. (2012). Flashlight as an online process tracing method. In Z. Yan (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Cyber Behavior. (p. 88–95). IGI Global: Hershey, PA.
 Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kühberger, A., & Ranyard, R. (2011). The Role of Process Data in the Development and Testing of Process Models of Judgment and Decision Making. Judgement and Decision Making, 6(8), 733–739.
 Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Murphy, R. O., & Hutzler, F. (2011). Flashlight: Recording Information Acquisition Online. Computers in human behavior, 27, 1771–1782.
Huber, O., Huber, O.W., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2011). Determining the information participants need – Methods of Active Information Search. In M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, A., Kühberger, A. & R. Ranyard (Eds.). A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research: A Critical Review and User’s Guide. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Ranyard, R. (2011). Windows for understanding the mind: Introduction to A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research. In M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, A., Kühberger, A. & R. Ranyard (Eds.). A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research: A Critical Review and User’s Guide. New York: Taylor & Francis.
 Norman, E. & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2009). Take a careful click at that! Mouselab and eye-tracking as tools to measure intuition. In: A. Glöckner & C. Witteman (Eds). Foundations for Tracing Intuition: Challenges and methods. London: Psychology Press.
 Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Murphy, R.O. (2009). Prozessdaten online erheben: Verschiedene Methoden im Uberblick. In: N. Jackob, H. Schoen, & T. Zerback. Sozialforschung im Internet (p. 197–209). Wiesbaden, Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.
 Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2008). Brave New World … Wide Web: Blending Old Teaching Methods With a Cutting-edge Virtual Learning Environment. In: B. Perlman,L.I. McCann, & S.H. McFadden. Lessons Learned (Vol. 3): Practical advice for the teaching of psychology (p. 109-118). Washington, Association for Psychological Science.  
 Johnson, E.J., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Willemsen, M. (2008). Process Models deserve Process Data: Comment on Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, & Hertwig (2006). Psychological Review, 115(1), 263-272.
 Johnson, E.J., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Willemsen, M.C. (2008). Postscript: Rejoinder to Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2008). Psychological Review, 115, 1, 272-273.
Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2007). Information processing as one key for a unification? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(1), 40 – 40.
Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2006). Assessment durch Feedback. In: F. Gertsch (Ed.), Das Moodle Praxisbuch (S. 29 – 39). Munchen: Addison Wesley.  
 Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2006). Virtual Learning Environment. Planung und Durchführung einer webbasierten Übung in der Psychologie . In: S. Wehr (Ed.), Hochschullehre – adressatengerecht und wirkungsvoll (S. 57 – 92). Bern: Haupt Verlag.
 Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Neun, M. (2005). WebDiP – a tool for information search experiments on the World-Wide-Web. Behavior Research Methods, 37(2), 293 – 300.
 Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2005). Tracing the decision maker. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Fribourg, Switzerland.
 Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2004). Brave New World … Wide Web. Blending Old Teaching Methods With a Cutting-edge Virtual Learning Environment. APS Observer, 17 (10), 48 – 53.
 Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. & Huber, O. (2003). Information Search in the Laboratory and on the Web: With or Without an Experimenter. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35(2), 227 – 235.
 Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (2002). Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1162 – 1175.
 Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (1999). The effect of probabilities and payoff on framing: A meta-analysis and an empirical test. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 204 – 231.
 Schulte, M. (1998). Framing in real and hypothetical decision situations. Unpublished Master Thesis. University of Salzburg, Austria.  
 Kühberger, A., Perner, J., Schulte, M., & Leingruber, R. (1995). Choice or No Choice. Is the Langer Effect Evidence against Simulation? Mind and Language, 10(4), 423 – 436.
 

Recent Posts

A letter to the black goat

I wrote this letter to the black goat podcast … will update here if I hear back from them …

 

Dear goaters (is this a good way to address the three of you?),

I attended SIPS some weeks ago (first timer). I was unsure what to expect but got a lot of bang for my buck (which is great) – as a side note I would recommend first timers to try to go there with a concrete project or question or problem, I think there is a good chance to find people with similar issues interested in collaborations.
Here is an observation I would be interested to hear your thoughts on: in the SIPS world everything seems to be really straight forward – we want to ‘unfuck psych science’ (Lindsay, 2018), we want to pre-reg studies, upload data, learn R, comment on code, accelerate science, ‘do it right this time’, collaborate, respect, be inclusive (I really learned a lot in that regard listening to your podcast and talking to people at SIPS) …
All of that is great. I subscribe to all of these points.
Here is the twist – people @SIPS talk about ‘a movement’  (something that seems very American to me), maybe a movement is needed; people @SIPS talk about ‘a revolution’ – again, great! obviously there is a need to rattle the cage and accelerate things beyond ‘paradigm shifts at funerals’ (Planck?)
BUT
What happens if you go ‘Outside the SIPS Bubble’ (OSIPSB)?
I have no data (other than my own experiences) but I wonder whether the world (psychology, other sciences) is actually that ready, that willing and open to adopt to these new standards and to actually make a paradigm shift in how we do science. I work at a business school (consumer psych and JDM) there is a lot of finger pointing going on toward psychology (I have a similar feeling that within psychology there is a lot of finger pointing toward social psych) – ‘this is clearly a problem of psychologists but not of us [economists, consumer psychologists, business, accounting researchers …]’.
Another OSIPSB experience I had was talking to an Action Editor of the Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCR) last year – we got into a heated debate about the most basic issues, eg, sharing data, pre-reg studies …
Is this an observation you share? What would be good steps to address these issues? Should we talk about this within SIPS to get a better balance between enthusiasm and real world requirements (eg hiring decisions are still made mostly by senior faculty, assuming my observation hold, less interested in replication than ’new and exciting effects’ (quote anonymous senior AE of JCR).
Thanks for your thoughts!
  1. Blind Haste (aka im Blindflug) Leave a reply
  2. Professor priming – or not Leave a reply
  3. The root of the problem Leave a reply
  4. A short history of process tracing Leave a reply
  5. LaTeX <- pdfTeX, LuaTeX, XeTeX Leave a reply
  6. Growing up to be old Leave a reply
  7. Something about reverse inference Leave a reply
  8. Eye-Tracking with N > 1 Leave a reply
  9. Everything you believe in is wrong – or is it simply terrorism? Leave a reply