This research examines how individuals with different affect regulation strategies cope with just-world threats. Our study demonstrated that individuals who poorly downregulate negative affect (a state-oriented style) more avidly attempt to defend a just world after this opportunity is offered via an authority figure when that belief of a just world was threatened than do individuals who successfully downregulate negative affect (an action-oriented style), after a filler task. Sizable differences thus exist in how individuals defend their just-world beliefs as a function of how people deal with their affective states.
Banerjee, Chatterjee, and Sinha (2012) recently reported that recalling unethical behavior led participants to see the room as darker and to desire more light-emitting products (e.g., a flashlight) compared to recalling ethical behavior. We replicated the methods of these two original studies with four high-powered replication studies (two online and two in the laboratory). Our results did not differ significantly from zero, 9 out of 10 of the effects were significantly smaller than the originally reported effects, and the effects were not consistently moderated by individual difference measures of potential discrepancies between the original and the replication samples. A meta-analysis that includes both the original and replication effects of moral recall on perceptions of brightness find a small, marginally significant effect (d = 0.14 CL95 −0.002 to 0.28). A meta-analysis that includes both the original and replication effects of moral recall on preferences for light-emitting products finds a small effect that did not differ from zero (d = 0.13 CL95 −0.04 to 0.29).
Conceptual representations of warmth have been shown to be related to people's perceptions of ambient temperature. Based on this premise, we hypothesized that merely thinking about personality traits related to communion (but not agency) influences physical experience of warmth. Specifically, the three studies revealed that (a) perceptions of temperature are influenced by both positive and negative attributes within the communion but not agency dimension, (b) the effect is stronger when traits indicate sociability rather than morality subdimension of communion, and (c) communion activation affects temperature perceptions independently of target's or self-perceptions.
Does physical warmth lead to caring and sharing? Research suggests that it does; physically warm versus cold conditions induce prosocial behaviors and cognitions. Importantly, previous research has not traced the developmental origins of the association between physical warmth and affection. The association between physical warmth and sharing may be captured in specific cognitive models of close social relations, often referred to as attachment styles. In line with this notion, and using a dictator game set-up, the current study demonstrates that children who relate to their friends with a secure attachment style are more generous toward their peers in warm than in cold conditions. This effect was absent for children who relate to friends with an insecure attachment style. Notably, however, these children not just always shared less: They allocated more stickers to a friend than to a stranger. These findings provide an important first step to understand how fundamental embodied relations develop early in life. We discuss broader implications for grounded cognition and person perception.
Shackelford and colleagues (2004) found that men, compared to women, are more distressed by sexual than emotional infidelity, and this sex difference continued into older age. We conducted four high-powered replications (total N = 1,952) of this effect and found different results. A meta-analysis of original and replication studies finds the sex difference in younger samples (though with a smaller effect size), and no effect among older samples. Furthermore, we found attitude toward uncommitted sex to be a mediator (although not consistently in the same direction) between participant sex and relative distress between sexual and emotional infidelity. We hypothesize that the discrepancies between the original and replication studies may be due to changing cultural attitudes about sex across time. Confirming this speculative interpretation requires further investigation.
Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effect – imagined contact reducing prejudice – showed weak support for replicability. And two effects – flag priming influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justification – did not replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect.
In: Klein , R A , Vianello , M , Hasselman , F , Adams , B G , Adams , R B , Alper , S , Aveyard , M , Axt , J R , Babalola , M T , Bahník , Š , Batra , R , Berkics , M , Bernstein , M J , Berry , D R , Bialobrzeska , O , Binan , E D , Bocian , K , Brandt , M J , Busching , R , Rédei , A C , Cai , H , Cambier , F , Cantarero , K , Carmichael , C L , Ceric , F , Chandler , J , Chang , J-H , Chatard , A , Chen , E E , Cheong , W , Cicero , D C , Coen , S , Coleman , J A , Collisson , B , Conway , M A , Corker , K S , Curran , P G , Cushman , F , Dagona , Z K , Dalgar , I , Dalla Rosa , A , Davis , W E , de Bruijn , M , De Schutter , L , Devos , T , de Vries , M , Doğulu , C , Dozo , N , Dukes , K N , Dunham , Y , Durrheim , K , Ebersole , C R , Edlund , J E , Eller , A , English , A S , Finck , C , Frankowska , N , Freyre , M , Friedman , M , Galliani , E M , Gandi , J C , Ghoshal , T , Giessner , S R , Gill , T , Gnambs , T , Gómez , Á , González , R , Graham , J , Grahe , J E , Grahek , I , Green , E G T , Hai , K , Haigh , M , Haines , E L , Hall , M P , Heffernan , M E , Hicks , J A , Houdek , P , Huntsinger , J R , Huynh , H P , Ijzerman , H , Inbar , Y , Innes-ker , Å H , Jiménez-leal , W , John , M , Joy-gaba , J A , Kamiloğlu , R G , Kappes , H B , Karabati , S , Karick , H , Keller , V N , Kende , A , Kervyn , N , Knežević , G , Kovacs , C , Krueger , L E , Kurapov , G , Kurtz , J , Lakens , D , Lazarević , L B , Levitan , C A , Lewis , N A , Lins , S , Lipsey , N P , Losee , J E , Maassen , E , Maitner , A T , Malingumu , W , Mallett , R K , Marotta , S A , Međedović , J , Mena-pacheco , F , Milfont , T L , Morris , W L , Murphy , S C , Myachykov , A , Neave , N , Neijenhuijs , K , Nelson , A J , Neto , F , Lee Nichols , A , Ocampo , A , O'donnell , S L , Oikawa , H , Oikawa , M , Ong , E , Orosz , G , Osowiecka , M , Packard , G , Pérez-sánchez , R , Petrović , B , Pilati , R , Pinter , B , Podesta , L , Pogge , G , Pollmann , M M H , Rutchick , A M , Saavedra , P , Saeri , A K , Salomon , E , Schmidt , K , Schönbrodt , F D , Sekerdej , M B , Sirlopú , D , Skorinko , J L M , Smith , M A , Smith-castro , V , Smolders , K C H J , Sobkow , A , Sowden , W , Spachtholz , P , Srivastava , M , Steiner , T G , Stouten , J , Street , C N H , Sundfelt , O K , Szeto , S , Szumowska , E , Tang , A C W , Tanzer , N , Tear , M J , Theriault , J , Thomae , M , Torres , D , Traczyk , J , Tybur , J M , Ujhelyi , A , Van Aert , R C M , Van Assen , M A L M , Van Der Hulst , M , Van Lange , P A M , Van 't Veer , A E , Vásquez- Echeverría , A , Ann Vaughn , L , Vázquez , A , Vega , L D , Verniers , C , Verschoor , M , Voermans , I P J , Vranka , M A , Welch , C , Wichman , A L , Williams , L A , Wood , M , Woodzicka , J A , Wronska , M K , Young , L , Zelenski , J M , Zhijia , Z & Nosek , B A 2018 , ' Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings ' , Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science , vol. 1 , no. 4 , pp. 443-490 . https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225
We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen's ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.