References
- Alper, S., & Yilmaz, O. (2020). Does an abstract mind-set increase the internal consistency of moral attitudes and strengthen individualizing foundations? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(3), 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619856309
- American Psychological Association. (2019). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA.
- Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
- Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
- Cargill, M., & O’Connor, P. (2021). Writing scientific research articles: Strategy and steps. John Wiley & Sons.
- Cha, Y. J., Baek, S., Ahn, G., Lee, H., Lee, B., Shin, J., & Jang, D. (2020). Compensating for the loss of human distinctiveness: The use of social creativity under Human–Machine comparisons. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.027
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
- Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033
- Dowling, M., & Lucey, B. (2023). ChatGPT for (finance) research: The Bananarama conjecture. Finance Research Letters, 103662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.103662
- Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., … Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
- Eloundou, T., Manning, S., Mishkin, P., & Rock, D. (2023). GPTs are GPTs: An early look at the labor market impact potential of large language models (arXiv:2303.10130). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.10130
- Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
- King, M. (2023). Can GPT-4 formulate and test a novel hypothesis? Yes and no. TechRxiv. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22517278.v1
- Korinek, A. (2023). Language models and cognitive automation for economic research. Working Paper, 30957. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30957
- Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Altmann, A., Ejdys, J., Kazlauskaite, R., Paliszkiewicz, J., Wach, K., & Ziemba, E. (2023). Generative Artificial Intelligence as a new context for management theories: Analysis of ChatGPT. Central European Management Journal, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/CEMJ-02-2023-0091
- Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., ChatGPT, Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., Leon, L. D., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., & Tseng, V. (2022). Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.19.22283643
- Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
- OpenAI. (2022, November 30). ChatGPT: Optimizing language models for dialogue. OpenAI. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/
- OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 technical report (arXiv:2303.08774). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774
- Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
- Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
- Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., Evernden, Z., & Damer, E. (2022). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods, 54(4), 1643–1662. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3
- Satariano, A. (2023, March 31). ChatGPT is banned in Italy over privacy concerns. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/technology/chatgpt-italy-ban.html
- Stokel-Walker, C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: Many scientists disapprove. Nature, 613(7945), 620–621. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
- Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313–313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
- Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. (2023). Nature, 613(7945), 612–612. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1
- Wach, K., Duong, C. D., Ejdys, J., Kazlauskaitė, R., Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Paliszkiewicz, J., & Ziemba, E. (2023). The dark side of Generative Artificial Intelligence: A critical analysis of controversies and risks of ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11(2), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110201
- Wang, S. H. (2023). OpenAI—explain why some countries are excluded from ChatGPT. Nature, 615(7950), 34–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00553-9
- Wu, Y., Mou, Y., Li, Z., & Xu, K. (2020). Investigating American and Chinese subjects’ explicit and implicit perceptions of AI-generated artistic work. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106186