[Complete] Data collection for one study being replicated as part of Many Labs 5
(Albarracín et al., 2008) has been underway since early this year. We have
had two labs successfully complete data collection and a third is just over
50% finished. To maximize our ability to observe an effect should one
exist, we seek additional collaborating labs to join the replication
attempt. The requirements to participate are as follows:
1. Data must be collected from participants one at a time, or minimally
with participants visually and aurally separated. The ideal set up for data
collection involves a series of small rooms or cubicles outfitted with a
computer.
2. Internet connected computers (data collection uses the Qualtrics survey
program)
3. Willingness to collect minimally 80 participants during Fall 2017, with
an ideal sample size of 330.
Each replicating lab must obtain its own IRB approval, but existing
research teams have shared their materials (and obtained exempt approval
for this project). There is no limit to the number of labs that can join
this project, and participating labs have the chance to join the final
report as authors should they want to do so.
Details about the replication attempt are here: [https://osf.io/s8wrc/][1]. More
information about Many Labs 5 is here: [https://osf.io/7a6rd/][2]. A brief
description of the study in question is copied below:
Albarracín et al. (2008), Study 7, tested whether priming action or
inaction goals, vs. no goal, and then satisfying those goals (compared to
not satisfying them) would be associated with greater responding on a
subsequent cognitive task. It was hypothesized that unsatisfied action and
inaction goals would result in greater or lesser responding, respectively,
compared to no goal. Results (N = 98) showed the predicted 3 (goal: action,
inaction, no goal) x 2 (task type: active vs. inactive) interaction,
supporting the hypotheses.
Sonnleitner and Voracek (2015) attempted to directly replicate Albarracín
et al.’s (2008) study in a sample of 105 German university students. They
did not find evidence for the 3 x 2 interaction (*F* (2, 99) = 2.532, *p* =
.085, ηp2 = .049), nor the expected main effect of task type (*F* (1, 99) =
.107, *p* = .745, ηp2 < .001).
The authors (D. Albarracín, Personal Communication, April 27, 2014)
expressed concerns about the planned replication. Chief among these was the
cross-cultural comparability of the action and inaction primes in the
German context, because the previous paradigm was validated in an American
context.
The current study seeks to revise Albarracín et al.’s (2008) method to test
whether expert review and revision can improve replicability of results.
Multiple replication teams will then randomly assign participants to the
old protocol compared to the new protocol.
[1]: https://osf.io/s8wrc/
[2]: https://osf.io/7a6rd/
