TY - JOUR
T1 - Many Labs 5
T2 - Registered Replication of Albarracín et al. (2008), Experiment 5
AU - Chartier, Christopher R.
AU - Arnal, Jack D.
AU - Arrow, Holly
AU - Bloxsom, Nicholas G.
AU - Bonfiglio, Diane B.V.
AU - Brumbaugh, Claudia C.
AU - Corker, Katherine S.
AU - Ebersole, Charles R.
AU - Garinther, Alexander
AU - Giessner, Steffen R.
AU - Hughes, Sean
AU - Inzlicht, Michael
AU - Lin, Hause
AU - Mercier, Brett
AU - Metzger, Mitchell
AU - Rangel, Derek
AU - Saunders, Blair
AU - Schmidt, Kathleen
AU - Storage, Daniel
AU - Tocco, Carly
N1 - Funding Information:
This project was supported by a grant from the Association for Psychological Science and from Arnold Ventures.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2020.
PY - 2020/9/1
Y1 - 2020/9/1
N2 - In Experiment 5 of Albarracín et al. (2008), participants primed with words associated with action performed better on a subsequent cognitive task than did participants primed with words associated with inaction. A direct replication attempt by Frank, Kim, and Lee (2016) as part of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P) failed to find evidence for this effect. In this article, we discuss several potential explanations for these discrepant findings: the source of participants (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk vs. traditional undergraduate-student pool), the setting of participation (online vs. in lab), and the possible moderating role of affect. We tested Albarracín et al.’s original hypothesis in two new samples: For the first sample, we followed the protocol developed by Frank et al. and recruited participants via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (n = 580). For the second sample, we used a revised protocol incorporating feedback from the original authors and recruited participants from eight universities (n = 884). We did not detect moderation by protocol; patterns in the revised protocol resembled those in our implementation of the RP:P protocol, but the estimate of the focal effect size was smaller than that found originally by Albarracín et al. and larger than that found in Frank et al.’s replication attempt. We discuss these findings and possible explanations.
AB - In Experiment 5 of Albarracín et al. (2008), participants primed with words associated with action performed better on a subsequent cognitive task than did participants primed with words associated with inaction. A direct replication attempt by Frank, Kim, and Lee (2016) as part of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P) failed to find evidence for this effect. In this article, we discuss several potential explanations for these discrepant findings: the source of participants (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk vs. traditional undergraduate-student pool), the setting of participation (online vs. in lab), and the possible moderating role of affect. We tested Albarracín et al.’s original hypothesis in two new samples: For the first sample, we followed the protocol developed by Frank et al. and recruited participants via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (n = 580). For the second sample, we used a revised protocol incorporating feedback from the original authors and recruited participants from eight universities (n = 884). We did not detect moderation by protocol; patterns in the revised protocol resembled those in our implementation of the RP:P protocol, but the estimate of the focal effect size was smaller than that found originally by Albarracín et al. and larger than that found in Frank et al.’s replication attempt. We discuss these findings and possible explanations.
KW - open data
KW - open materials
KW - preregistered
KW - priming
KW - replication
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85106951509&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/2515245920945963
DO - 10.1177/2515245920945963
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85106951509
SN - 2515-2459
VL - 3
SP - 332
EP - 339
JO - Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
JF - Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
IS - 3
ER -