Power to Detect What? Considerations for Planning and Evaluating Sample Size

Giner‐Sorolla, Roger; Montoya, Amanda Kay; Aberson, Christopher L.; Carpenter, Thomas P.; Lewis, Neil A.; Bostyn, Dries H.; Conrique, Beverly; Ng, Brandon; Reifman, Alan; Schoemann, Alexander M.; Soderberg, Courtney K.

doi:10.31234/osf.io/rv3kw

Cited by 24 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 141 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Past research on masculinity threats has observed medium to large effects (Bosson et al, 2009; Netchaeva et al, 2015; Vandello et al, 2008; Weaver et al, 2013). Thus, to remain conservative in our sample size determination, our power analysis was based on an effect of d = 0.50, and we opted for a power of 95% (e.g., Giner-Sorolla et al, 2020). A power analysis, conducted with G*Power (Faul et al, 2007), for a design examining the difference between two independent means with a t test (two-tailed) suggested a sample size of 210.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When and why do men negotiate assertively? It depends on specific threats to their masculinity and the negotiation topic.

Mazei¹,

Bear²,

Hüffmeier³

2023

Psychology of Men & Masculinities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We elucidate when and why men negotiate assertively. Threatening masculinity should increase men's willingness to negotiate assertively in salary negotiations, which are viewed as masculine, but not in negotiations about flexible working hours, which are viewed as feminine. In two experiments including men from Germany and the United States (U.S.; total N = 1,010), men were either threatened in terms of their masculinity or not. In Study 1, following the threat manipulation, men negotiated either salary or flexible working hours. The results from Study 1 revealed that threatened men (relative to nonthreatened men) reported more ambitious goals, intended to make more ambitious offers, and actually made more ambitious offers, but only when negotiating salary. In Study 2, men always negotiated salary, yet received different kinds of feedback involving threats to their masculinity. The results from Study 2 revealed that threatening feedback based on both men's prescriptions and men's proscriptions (e.g., a lack of assertiveness and pronounced weakness), in particular, led men negotiating salary to report more ambitious goals, intend to make more ambitious offers, and actually to make more ambitious offers. Altogether, our research revealed that men show heightened assertiveness when under a specific threat and negotiating a male-typed topic. An important question for future research is to what extent our findings generalize across different intersecting identities, demographics, and cultures. Public Significance StatementIn high-stakes and everyday negotiations, men often strongly assert themselves-a choice that can affect their own and other people's occupational life (e.g., when negotiating their pay or when representing an organization). Our two experiments illuminated in which situations men are particularly likely to negotiate assertively. Men made ambitious offers especially when they experienced a threat to their masculinity and when negotiating a topic that has a masculine connotation, such as salary (but not flexible working hours).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When and why do men negotiate assertively? It depends on specific threats to their masculinity and the negotiation topic.

Mazei¹,

Bear²,

Hüffmeier³

2023

Psychology of Men & Masculinities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effect‐size sensitivity analysis (as suggested by Giner‐Sorolla et al, 2019) using GPower (version 3.1.9.7, Faul et al, 2007) showed that the final analysis had 80% power to detect an interaction effect of η 2 = 0.028 between the experimental trustworthiness condition factor and the CM covariate when treating the conspiracy mentality covariate conservatively as a two level between‐subjects factor.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Don't trust anybody: Conspiracy mentality and the detection of facial trustworthiness cues

Frenken

2022

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conspiracy theories express mistrust in common explanations and epistemic authorities. Independent of concrete content, the extent of endorsing conspiracy theories has also shown associations with interpersonal mistrust. Arguing from an evolutionary and error‐management perspective, this increased interpersonal mistrust could either represent an enhanced sensitivity to untrustworthiness cues, or a limited ability to recognize trustworthiness, or non‐specific mistrust without differentiations between (un)trustworthiness cues. In two experimental studies (N = 563), we manipulated facial trustworthiness and tested the differentiation of trustworthiness evaluations as a function of conspiracy mentality. We found that conspiracy mentality was associated with a generalized tendency to perceive others as untrustworthy, independent of facial trustworthiness, speaking to non‐specific manifestations of mistrust. However, the association between conspiracy mentality and trust became non‐significant once age was accounted for in Study 1. We discuss how conspiracy mentality may be associated with an increased propensity to view the world as having malevolent intentions.

show abstract

“…All findings should be taken as preliminary and offering inspiration for further, focused studies. Statistical power is a serious limitation for studies in this context due to high variances and low likely effect sizes [45]. As a power sensitivity analysis, based on the variances in total points we observed, for example, a study of this size (~40 pairs in each condition) would be powered to detect a difference by condition of approximately 1230 points (this is the minimum detectable effect).…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Moving outside the board room: A proof-of-concept study on the impact of walking while negotiating

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Negotiation is a consequential activity that can exacerbate power differentials, especially for women. While traditional contexts can prime stereotypical gender roles and promote conditions that lead to performance differences, these can be mitigated by context shifts. This proof-of-concept study explores whether an easy-to-apply context shift, moving from seated indoors to walking outside, can help improve the quality of negotiated interactions. Here we examine walking’s effects on negotiation and relational outcomes as well as experienced emotions, moderated by gender. Design Same-gender pairs were randomly assigned to either sitting or walking as either candidate or recruiter negotiating a job offer. Participants Eighty-one pairs of graduate students or community members participated: sitting pairs: 27 women, 14 men; walking pairs: 23 women, 17 men. Intervention Participants negotiated either while seated (across from each other) or walking (side by side along a path). Measures We measured: negotiation performance (total points) and outcome equity (difference between negotiating party points); subjective outcomes of positive emotions, negative emotions, mutual liking, and mutual trust. With mixed effects models, we tested main effects of condition, gender, and interaction of condition x gender. Results Relative to sitting, walking was associated with: increased outcome equality for women, but decreased for men (B = 3799.1, SE = 1679.9, p = .027); decreased negative emotions, more for women than men (IRR = .83, 95% CI:[.69,1.00], p = .046); and greater mutual liking for both genders (W = 591.5, p-value = 0.027). No significant effects were found for negotiation point totals, positive emotions, or mutual trust. Conclusion This study provides a foundation for investigating easy-to-implement changes that can mitigate stereotyped performance differences in negotiation.

show abstract

Power to Detect What? Considerations for Planning and Evaluating Sample Size

Cited by 24 publications

References 141 publications

When and why do men negotiate assertively? It depends on specific threats to their masculinity and the negotiation topic.

When and why do men negotiate assertively? It depends on specific threats to their masculinity and the negotiation topic.

Don't trust anybody: Conspiracy mentality and the detection of facial trustworthiness cues

Moving outside the board room: A proof-of-concept study on the impact of walking while negotiating

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About