Loading wiki pages...

Wiki Version:
<p>[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:</p> <ol> <li> <p>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.</p> </li> <li> <p>Internet connected computers (data collection uses the Qualtrics survey program)</p> </li> <li> <p>Willingness to collect minimally 80 participants during Fall 2017, with an ideal sample size of 330.</p> </li> </ol> <p>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.</p> <p>Details about the replication attempt are here: <a href="https://osf.io/s8wrc/" rel="nofollow">https://osf.io/s8wrc/</a>. More information about Many Labs 5 is here: <a href="https://osf.io/7a6rd/" rel="nofollow">https://osf.io/7a6rd/</a>. A brief description of the study in question is copied below:</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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 (<em>F</em> (2, 99) = 2.532, <em>p</em> = .085, ηp2 = .049), nor the expected main effect of task type (<em>F</em> (1, 99) = .107, <em>p</em> = .745, ηp2 &lt; .001).</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>
This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Free and easy to use, the Open Science Framework supports the entire research lifecycle: planning, execution, reporting, archiving, and discovery.

Create an Account Learn More Hide this message