Independent Replication of Kenrick, Gutierres, and Goldberg (1989, JESP, Study 2)
Date created: | Last Updated:
: DOI | ARK
Creating DOI. Please wait...
Description: The main goal of the current project is to execute an independent (close) replication of Kenrick, Gutierres, & Goldbergs’ (1989) findings from Study 2. Consistent with research on gender differences in mating behaviors, Kenrick et al. (1989) found that males who are exposed to centerfolds report less love for their partner than those exposed to abstract art, whereas females’ ratings are not influenced by the type of prior stimuli. We will execute a high-powered (estimated power of .95) independent replication using approximately the same measures and manipulations. In the current study, attempts were made to minimize differences between the original study and the replication, however, several differences are worth noting. First, in the original study participants came into the lab in same-sex groups. However, in the current study participants will complete the questionnaires online through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and will be advised to be alone when they complete the study. Given that the original research was conducted in the late 1980’s, we are also using updated pictures of abstract art (control condition) and male/female nudes (experimental condition) as suggested by the original researcher. With regards to measures, no demographics were reported in the original manuscript, but we included a standard demographic questionnaire. The original manuscript also indicated using suspicion questions, though no exact items were reported. Therefore, the 3-item suspicion questionnaire included in our study was compiled by the current researchers, and may not reflect the exact wording used in the original study. Lastly, we added two attention check questions which were not included in the original study, though such checks are typical when using an MTurk sample. The primary goal is to determine whether Kenrick et al.’s (1989) findings generalize to a new sample of individuals, hence contributing to the question of whether the original findings reflect reproducible knowledge.