Ottati et al. (2015) reported a series of studies supporting the *Earned Dogmatism Effect*, the notion that feeling like an expert makes one feel more entitled to be close-minded. The goal of this project is to complete high-powered, precise, and pre-registered replications of two key studies from Ottati et al. (2015): * Study 4 - In which perceptions of expertise were manipulated via participants completing an easy or difficult trivia test. Those who completed the easy test scored higher on a measure of open-minded cognition. * Study 6 - In which participants envision themselves in a social situation with others who know much less than them or about the same (counterbalanced order). Open-minded cognition was measured after each scenario, and was found to be lower when envisioning interacting with those who know much less (there's a good bit more to this complex study, which also measured control variables and normative-entitlement for another person interacting with novices or equals). Materials for these studies are precisely matched to the original thanks to the gracious cooperation of the original research team. **Current Status** * Study 4 - Completed a replication with a psych participant pool and with UK sample. Neither shows expected effect. Now trying a third attempt with original participant pool (MTurk) (though with familiaty screen and suspicion check to weed out repeat and familiar participants) * Study 6 - Completed a replication with a Canadian Prolific Academic sample and with a UK Prolific Academic sample. Expected effects on normative entitlement (showing expected norms about experts being allowed to be closed minded) and on OMC scores (showing participants agreeing they would be closed minded when dealing with those who know very little about a topic). An additional small scale (50 participants/each) replication is ongoing with a psych participant pool. ** Registration History ** Both replication attempts are [pre-registered][1] using the OSF pre-registration template. The pre-registration plan specifies sample sizes, research questions, analysis strategies, etc. In general, the plan specifies mirroring the original research as closely as possible. An initial overal plan was developed for both Study 4 and 6. Then, as each replication has completed, the next stage of the plan was refined/expanded and re-registered. - [1st pre-registration][1], 2016/01/12 -- completed for pre-registration challenge, describes plans for in-person replication of Study 2 and online-replication of Study 6. - [2nd pre-registration][2], 2016/01/25 -- completed to lock in plan to conduct replications sequentially, completed just before in-person replication of Study 2. - [3rd][3] and [4th pre-registration][4], 2016/02/29 - completed prior to start of online replication for Study 6. Plan to recruit Canadian participants via Mturk did not work out (not enough of these users left, 0 participants accepted the HIT in first few hours). Switched to Prolific Academic and a payment of 1 Euro (required by PA to meet their hourly minimum). - [5th pre-registration][5] 2016/03/03- completed prior to additional replications of Study 6 with a psych participant pool (50 participants planned) and a UK sample from Prolific Academic (50 participants planned). Also added an additional replication of Study 4 with a Prolific Academic sample (125 participants planned). - [6th pre-registration][6] 2016/03/10- completed prior to additional replication of Study 4 with MTurk pool. Locks in familiarity screen (1-4, those scoring 3 or 4 excluded) and sharpened suspicion check, which will help exclude those who have already participated in the original research and/or have heard about the original research in the media. The UK prolific academic studies planned in the 6th pre-registration are completed; the additional replication of Study 6 with a psych participant pool is ongoing. In what ways were these replications different? * Study 4 was conducted with a psych 101 participant pool and a UK participant pool rather than a MTurk sample. As neither showed the expected effect, a third attempt with the original participant pool (MTurk) is now being undertaken. In addition, a positive control was been added. * Study 4 used trivia questions from middle-school and collegiate academic bowls. Some questions, though, were very specific to the U.S.A. For the UK sample, those that were specific were replaced by general questions from the same academic level. * Study 6 - Was completed with a Canadian sample of Prolific Academic participatns (additional samples of psych pool and UK Prolific Academic participants planned). The original study used U.S. workers on MTurk. However, due to IRB constraints we could not obtain a list of prior participants, so using the same country is likely to lead to many duplicate participants. With the original researcher's permission, materials for these replications have been posted. [1]: https://osf.io/5f9eg/ [2]: https://osf.io/87n6d/ [3]: https://osf.io/4zm5a/ [4]: https://osf.io/ftzw2/ [5]: https://osf.io/3qg2a/ [6]: https://tbd.tbd