Implementation Details ---------------------- This page describes how our lab implemented the procedures required by the official protocol for the RRR. It also describes and justifies any departures from that protocol. You can view the official protocl and the main project page for this RRR using these links: - Official Protocol: [https://osf.io/2h6tf/][1] - Main RRR project page: [https://osf.io/s3hfr/][2] ---------- #### Experimenters #### Heidi S. Kane: Dr. Kane received her Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of California Santa Barbara in 2009. She then completed the NIMH Biobehavioral Issues in Mental and Physical Health Postdoctoral Training Fellowship at the University of California Los Angeles and worked as a research scientist at Wayne State University. She joined the faculty at the University of Texas at Dallas in 2014 as an assistant professor of Psychological Sciences. Her research program focuses on understanding how social and cognitive processes shape interpersonal experiences and how these experiences impact relationship dynamics and health and well-being in adulthood. Dr. Kane is currently the director of the Close Relationships and Health Laboratory and has extensive experience conducting experimental laboratory studies (e.g., Kane, McCall, Collins & Blascovich, 2012; Collins, Kane et al., 2014). Kevin J. Carson: Kevin Carson received his MS in Psychological Sciences from the University of Texas at Dallas in 2014, and is currently a first-year doctoral student in the Psychological Sciences program. Kevin has been a member of the Personality and Interpersonal Relationships (PAIR) lab since the Fall of 2012. His research interests revolve around how individual differences impact close relationships. Kevin has experience with collecting longitudinal data from same-sex roommate dyads, collecting single session data from same-sex strangers who become better acquainted, and collecting single session data from romantically involved heterosexual dyads for a study he designed himself. Kevin also has experience with behavioral coding of video-taped interactions from these studies (using the Riverside Behavioral Q-Sort developed by Funder) and with analyzing dyadic data. Conrad A. Corretti: Conrad Corretti received two degrees, a B.S. in Psychology and a B.S. in Sociology, from Michigan State University in 2013. He began his doctoral studies in Psychological Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas (UT Dallas) in Fall of 2013. His research interests center on better understanding the role of demographic characteristics, personality traits, and social contexts in the initiation and development of close relationships. Conrad has been a member of the Personality and Interpersonal Relationships (PAIR) lab at UT Dallas since 2013 where he has assisted in data collection and analyses of various online and laboratory based studies, including designing an experimental manipulation for his qualifying thesis. Additionally, Conrad was a member of the Personality and Evolutionary Psychology Lab at Michigan State University from 2011 until 2013 and gained experience administering detailed experimental protocols (e.g., scripted cover stories, deception) and novel paradigms (e.g., virtual reality). Robert A. Ackerman: Trained as a social/personality psychologist, Dr. Ackerman received his Ph.D. from Michigan State University in 2011 and is currently an assistant professor of Psychological Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas (UT Dallas). He has expertise in personality assessment and dyadic data analysis, and his substantive interests entail the role of individual differences in relationship development and maintenance. Dr. Ackerman has been director of the Personality and Interpersonal Relationships (PAIR) lab at UT Dallas since 2011, and has conducted various online and laboratory studies with this lab (e.g., Ackerman & Corretti, in press). All researchers will follow a step-by-step procedure prepared in accordance with the materials and description of the original study. Mock runs will be completed to ensure familiarity with the procedure. Researchers' blindness to the conditions will be ensured by having the cover page for the manipulation face upwards. ---------- #### Setting/Lab/Equipment #### Two laboratories will be used to collect data for this replication effort. In both laboratories, each computer is connected to the internet, and so participants will also be able to access Qualtrics and complete the relevant questionnaires at their cubicles. These laboratories are similar in the types of computers and desks used and in their style (e.g., similar wall paint and carpeting). The PAIR Lab: Data collection for the PAIR lab will take place in the main room of the laboratory (please see Ackerman Main Room photos). Within this room, we have five Dell Precision T1600 computers in separate cubicles along the back wall (with up to five computers, it is possible to run between one and five participants as per the study protocol). Each of these cubicles is separated by a divider so that participants are unable to see each other’s responses. Moreover, the desks in these cubicles provide enough room for participants to complete paper-and-pencil measures. The PAIR lab also has a control room and discussion area (please see Ackerman Control Room and Discussion Area photos). The Close Relationships and Health Lab: Data collection for the Close Relationships and Health Lab will take place in two different rooms (although a third room was originally mentioned in the proposal, this room is currently under construction and will be unable to be used). One room contains a desk and one Dell Optiplex 3020 computer for a single participant (please see Kane Single Participant Room photo). In the other room, there are two desks and two computers (a Dell Precision T3500 computer and a Dell Optiplex 780 computer) that are facing opposite walls. This room also contains a large freezer (please see Kane Freezer Room photos). In this room, one to two participants may be run at a time. Because the desks (and computers) are facing opposite walls, participants will be able to complete the study protocol in private. Finally, the desks in all these rooms are large enough to provide participants enough room to complete paper-and-pencil measures. (please note that the freezer room may make the occassional humming sound; although we do not anticipate that this will impact the results, we will make a note of which room data were collected in to permit the exploration of this possibility later). ---------- #### Sample, subjects, and randomization #### **Target sample size:** We hope to obtain at least 150 participants in total across the two labs. However, if resources permit, we will attempt to collect more data right up until the end of the Fall 2015 semester. **Target sample demographics:** We will use college students recruited through the SONA system at the University of Texas at Dallas and who are compensated with SONA credit for their classes. Overall, in 2014, there were 21,193 students (13,049 undergraduate students) at our university (see http://www.utdallas.edu/ospa/stats/documents/CDS_2013-2014.pdf). Among undergraduates, there were 6,069 male full-time undergraduates (1,357 were part-time students), and 4,566 female full-time undergraduates (1,057 were part-time students). The majority of the undergraduate students were White, non-Hispanic (40.33%), Asian, non-Hispanic (26.48%), Hispanic/Latino (16.76%), and Black or African American, non-Hispanic (6.35%). Using pre-screening questionnaires completed by participants on the SONA system for this semester (Spring 2015; n around 900), we found that 72.9% of the available subject pool are women. Moreover, many are 18 (7.4%), 19 (16.1%), 20 (15.9%), 21 (11.8%), 22 (9.8%), 23 (6.5%), or 24 (6.3%) years old (Mean = 23.57, SD = 6.70, Median = 21.00). **Minimum sample size after exclusions:** Our minimal sample size will be 100 participants (50 per condition). **Stopping rule(s):** We plan to continue collecting data until the end of the Fall 2015 semester. Because our goal is to collect as much data as possible, we anticipate that we will collect more than our minimum sample size and thus have enough participants after appropriate exclusions are made. **Randomization to conditions:** The official protocol gives explicit directions for how to randomly assign participants to conditions, and the main project page for this RRR provides an R script that all labs will use to generate these random condition assignments. **Blinding to conditions:** We will not mention the presence of the alternative conditions to the participants, and the participants will only be able to see the condition that they are placed in (i.e., they will not be able to see other participants' conditions or responses). **Exclusion rules:** We will be using the same exclusion rules specified by the official protocol. ---------- #### Software/Code #### We will be using the provided materials, and have verified that they work in each of our labs. ---------- #### Differences from the official protocol #### This replication attempt will be a joint effort by two separate labs (i.e., the PAIR Lab and the Close Relationships and Health Lab) at the University of Texas at Dallas to maximize our chances of obtaining a larger sample. We plan to have weekly lab meetings to better coordinate our efforts between the labs. In addition, because two of the researchers are faculty, we decided to modify a portion of the script from the cover story to make it more believable to participants. Specifically, instead of saying "one of my professors" when referencing the ostensibly unconnected study, we changed it to "one of our colleagues." Further, because the Close Relationships and Health lab run by Heidi Kane prevents the researcher from being in the same room with the participant, Heidi will be telling the participants to come and get her in an adjacent room when they are done with the study. While Heidi was running a participant in her lab room with the fridge, the fridge went off while she was describing the participants' rights as a participant. The participant looked startled. Because of the possibility that the fridge may continue to be distracting to participants, we decided not to collect data from participants in this room anymore. From this point on (i.e., after July 17, 2015), Heidi only collected data from participants in room JO 2.22. It is also worth noting that until participant 26, Rob, Conrad, and Kevin had each been deviating slightly from the protocol by not advancing to the next screen on the qualtrics questionnaire after entering participants ID number on the screen. From this point forward, Rob, Conrad, and Kevin made sure to advance to the next screen. We checked the demographics of the study on Monday (9-07-15). After excluding two participants who were 26 (apparently, they did not read the study requirements), we found that our sample was about 90% women and on average about 21 years old. The protocol requires that we have 20-80% women in our sample and that the average age be between 18 and 19 years. On our application, we had said we would screen the demographics of our sample midway through data collection, and if we found that our sample was older, we would restrict future participants to be between the ages of 18-19. We further said that we would pursue the same strategy to ensure that our gender breakdown matches what is required by the protocol. Because we were concerned that sticking with this exact plan may hurt our chances of collecting enough people for the study, we asked the editor if we could deviate from this protocol. With the editor's approval (who was blind to the actual data), we decided to restrict the age range of participants to 18-21 years. In addition, we modified the posting of study sessions so that a smaller proportion of the time slots (or openings with those time slots) are available for women. Specifically, we made it so that 3 of the 5 openings for each study session in the PAIR lab were restricted to men. Similarly, we made it so that 60% of the sessions for Heidi’s lab (randomly chosen) were restricted to men. IRB approval for these changes was requested on 9/14/15 and received on 9/15/15. These changes were implemented on 9/15/15. [1]: https://osf.io/2h6tf/ [2]: https://osf.io/s3hfr/