Many Labs 5: Registered Replication of Albarracín et al. (2008), Experiment 5. Issue 3 (September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chartier, Christopher R.; Arnal, Jack D.; Arrow, Holly; Bloxsom, Nicholas G.; Bonfiglio, Diane B. V.; Brumbaugh, Claudia C.; Corker, Katherine S.; Ebersole, Charles R.; Garinther, Alexander; Giessner, Steffen R.; Hughes, Sean; Inzlicht, Michael; Lin, Hause; Mercier, Brett; Metzger, Mitchell; Rangel, Derek; Saunders, Blair; Schmidt, Kathleen; Storage, Daniel; Tocco, Carly
• Is Part Of: Advances in methods and practices in psychological science. Volume 3:Issue 3(2020)
• Page Start: 332
• Page End: 339
• Publication Date: 2020-09
• Subjects: replication -- priming -- open data -- open materials -- preregistered; Psychology -- Periodicals; Psychology -- Research -- Periodicals; 150
• DOI: 10.1177/2515245920945963
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2515-2459

Abstract

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.