Many Labs 5: Registered Replication of Albarracín et al. (2008), Experiment 7

Abstract

Albarracín et al. (2008, Experiment 7) tested whether priming action or inaction goals (vs. no goal) and then satisfying those goals (vs. not satisfying them) would be associated with subsequent cognitive responding. They hypothesized and found that priming action or inaction goals that were not satisfied resulted in greater or lesser responding, respectively, compared with not priming goals ( N = 98). Sonnleitner and Voracek (2015) attempted to directly replicate Albarracín et al.’s (2008) study with German participants ( N = 105). They did not find evidence for the 3 × 2 interaction or the expected main effect of task type. The current study attempted to directly replicate Albarracín et al. (2008), Experiment 7, with a larger sample of participants ( N = 1,690) from seven colleges and universities in the United States. We also extended the study design by using a scrambled-sentence task to prime goals instead of the original task of completing word fragments, allowing us to test whether study protocol moderated any effects of interest. We did not detect moderation by protocol in the full 3 × 2 × 2 design (pseudo- r2 = 0.05%). Results for both protocols were largely consistent with Sonnleitner and Voracek’s findings (pseudo- r2s = 0.14% and 0.50%). We consider these results in light of recent findings concerning priming methods and discuss the robustness of action-/inaction-goal priming to the implementation of different protocols in this particular context.

A Review of Multisite Replication Projects in Social Psychology: Is It Viable to Sustain Any Confidence in Social Psychology’s Knowledge Base?

“…There were multiple clear instances of manipulation failure: Cheung et al (2016), Buttrick et al (2020), Ijzerman et al (2020), Hagger et al (2016), Corker et al (2020), and DeJong et al (2009). These six replications constitute 17% of the total sample.…”

Multi-Site Replications in Social Psychology: Reflections, Implications, and Future Directions

“…The present finding that low participant engagement is a common problem with multi-site replications would be consistent with concluding that priming typically fails in these settings because participants are not sufficiently motivated for the primes to have their effect. As a further sign, Corker et al’s (2020) failure to replicate action priming effects with a thought-listing procedure noted that their participants across all labs and conditions generally listed far fewer thoughts than in the original. That indicates lower effort, consistent with the general pattern of low engagement.…”

Priming behavior: A meta-analysis of the effects of behavioral and nonbehavioral primes on overt behavioral outcomes.

“…Despite the theoretical importance of priming effects, their reliability is often questioned. Failed replications (e.g., Corker et al, 2020; Doyen et al, 2012; Harris et al, 2013) have raised skeptical voices like:So it all seems pretty clear. I have no reason to believe in this effect (i.e., money-priming effect).…”