Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979)

McCarthy, Randy J. and Skowronski, John J. and McLatchie, Neil Marvin and Pennington, Charlotte Rebecca and Warmelink, Lara Natasja and , Srull-Mazar RRR labs (2018) Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979). Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1 (3). pp. 321-336.

[img]
Preview
PDF (Srull_Wyer_RRR_ms_180423)
Srull_Wyer_RRR_ms_180423.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial.

Download (522kB)

Abstract

Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80% of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20% described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the primary analyses) of Srull and Wyer’s Experiment 1, each of which followed a preregistered and vetted protocol. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that the protagonist was seen as 0.08 scale points more hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.16]). The ambiguously hostile behaviors were seen as 0.08 points less hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% CI = [−0.18, 0.01]). Although the confidence interval for one outcome excluded zero and the observed effect was in the predicted direction, these results suggest that the currently used methods do not produce an assimilative priming effect that is practically and routinely detectable.

Item Type:
Journal Article
Journal or Publication Title:
Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
Additional Information:
The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1 (3), 2018, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2018 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science page: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/amp on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/
ID Code:
127316
Deposited By:
Deposited On:
13 Sep 2018 12:36
Refereed?:
Yes
Published?:
Published
Last Modified:
05 Jul 2020 06:37