Loading wiki pages...

Wiki Version:
**REPLICATE ME: Available studies** *Studies ending data collection at the end of 2020:* [- Feng, S., D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Mind wandering while reading easy and difficult texts. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20*, 586-592. Study 1][6] [- Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,* 392-404. Study 1][2] [- Diener, E., Ng, W., Harter, J., & Arora, R. (2010). Wealth and happiness across the world: material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,* 52. Study 1][1] *Studies continuing data collection past 2020:* [- Sparkman, G., & Walton, G. M. (2017). Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. *Psychological Science, 28*(11), 1663-1674.][16] [- Troy, A. S., Ford, B. Q., McRae, K., Zarolia, P, & Mauss, I. B. (2017). Change the things you can: Emotion regulation is more beneficial for people from lower than from higher socioeconomic status. *Emotion, 17*(1), 141-154.][15] [- Seli, P., Risko, E. F., & Smilek, D. (2016). On the necessity of distinguishing between unintentional and intentional mind wandering. *Psychological Science, 27*(5), 685-691.][14] [- Neel, R., Kenrick, D. T., White, A. E., & Neuberg, S. L. (2016). Individual differences in fundamental social motives. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11*(6), 887-907. Sample A][13] [- Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. *Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 139*, 665. Study 3][3] [- De Neys, W., Rossi, S., & Houdé, O. (2013). Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: Cognitive misers are no happy fools. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20*, 269-273. Study 1][4] [- Tentori, K., Crupi, V., & Russo, S. (2013). On the determinants of the conjunction fallacy: Probability versus inductive confirmation. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142*, 235-255. Study 3][5] **Sample Sizes** In order to take part in the project, each replication must meet the minimum *N* requirement noted on the associated study page (or 100, whichever number is smaller). In general, the goal for the CREP is to obtain enough samples overall so that when combined the total N will be greater than 2.5 times the original samples size. **Our Study Selection Method** The first set of studies was selected in 2013 by sampling the top four cited empirical (non-meta-analysis) papers in each of the top journals for 9 sub-disciplines of psychology (according to the ISI, impact determined by [eigenfactor.org][7]) We also searched Science in 2012 for papers with key words psychology and excluded any papers that appears to be fMRI paper or papers on non-human animals. All remaining papers were then reviewed by the CREP advisory team to determine if the studies were interesting and feasible for undergraduates. Since 2015, our process has been similar but the bulk of the study selection has been completed first by Administrative Advisors (students who have completed their own CREP studies), then an Executive Reviewer rates the studies that are left and the CREP team makes a final decision. For each study we have contacted the author to let them know we are doing a CREP replication of their study. The authors often provide materials and guidance, which can be found in each study's wiki page (if applicable). **Current Study List** We currently will conduct CREP reviews on studies without enough samples to write a complete paper, or if a paper has not yet started.. There are 3 that are working their way through the writing progress. Please complete samples for new projects if you want your data included in a "study manuscript". Contributors are always welcome to continue replicating these important and feasible for undergraduates to replicate. **Why did we choose these studies?** These studies represent well cited, but also recent empirical papers in psychological science. We thus find these studies to be important ones in our field. **COMPLETED PROJECTS** New data cannot be added to the manuscripts for the projects listed below (and we no longer provide reviews for these but please feel welcome to use any of our materials): - Elliot, A. J., Niesta Kayser, D., Greitemeyer, T., Lichtenfeld, S., Gramzow, R. H., Maier, M. A., & Liu, H. (2010). Red, rank, and romance in women viewing men. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139,* 399. Study 3. **Manuscript status:** **In press** [(Wagge et al., 2018)][8] - Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. A., & Prinz, J. J. (2011). A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences moral judgment. *Psychological Science, 22*, 295-299. **Manuscript status: Under review** [(Ghelfi et al., 2018)][9] - Forest, A. & Wood, J.V. (2012). When social networking is not working individuals with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits of self-disclosure on Facebook. *Psychological Science, 23,* 295-302. Study 1. **Manuscript status:** **Published** [(Leighton et al., 2018)][10] **If you have any questions or concerns, please visit our FAQ page: [https://osf.io/hocj2/wiki/home/][11]** **If you have further questions, please feel free to contact one of our Advisory Board Leaders: [https://osf.io/zt4k5/wiki/home][12]** [1]: https://osf.io/px0sw/ [2]: https://osf.io/vdo0i/ [3]: https://osf.io/ajkpx/ [4]: https://osf.io/eqg3h/ [5]: https://osf.io/3xcr2/ [6]: https://osf.io/56m9b/ [7]: http://osf.io/zt4k5/wiki/home [8]: https://psyarxiv.com/chax8/ [9]: https://psyarxiv.com/349pk/ [10]: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.psichi.org/resource/resmgr/journal_2018/23-2_specialissue_leighton.pdf [11]: https://osf.io/hocj2/wiki/home/ [12]: http://osf.io/zt4k5/wiki/home [13]: https://osf.io/y8uhc/ [14]: https://osf.io/a2vtp/ [15]: https://osf.io/9sr2k/ [16]: https://osf.io/gzquy/
OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.
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.