rpp_data_updates.csv

Study Num,Study Title (O),Authors (O),Journal (O),Volume (O),Issue (O),Pages (O),Project URL,Descriptors (O),Number of Authors (O),Number of Authors (R),1st author (O),"Citation Count, 1st author (O)",Institution 1st author (O),Senior author (O),"Citation count, senior author (O)",Institution senior author (O),1st author (R),"Citation count, 1st author (R)",Institution 1st author (R),Senior author (R),"Citation count, senior author (R)",Institution senior author (R),"Citation count, paper (O)","Institution prestige, 1st author (O)","Institution prestige, senior author (O)","Institution prestige, 1st author (R)","Institution prestige, senior author (R)",Number of Studies (O),Discipline (O),Number of research sites (O),Secondary data (O),Methodology expertise required (O),Opportunity for expectancy bias (O),Opportunity for lack of diligence (O),Surprising result (O),Exciting result (O),Internal conceptual replications (O),Successful conceptual replications (O),Internal direct replications (O),Successful direct replications (O),Feasibility (O),Status (R),Completion (R),Secondary (R),Contact Researcher (R),Study claim date (R),Analysis completion date (R),Coder's email (R),Replicated study number (R),Test statistic (O),N (O),Reported P-value (O),Calculated P-value (O),# Tails (O),Type of analysis (O),Type of effect (O),Description of effect (O),Effect size (O),Actual Power (O),80% power,90% power,95% power,Collect materials from authors,Planned Sample,Planned Power,Original Author's Assessment,OSC reviewer (O),Test statistic (R),N (R),P-value (R),Direction (R),# Tails (R),Type of analysis (R),Type of effect (R),Replicate (R),Power (R),Effect Size (R),OSC reviewer (R),Notes (R),Project audit complete (R),R check location (R),Degree (R),Year of highest degree (R),Current position (R),Domain expertise (R),Method expertise (R),Total publications (R),Peer-reviewed articles (R),Citations (R),Implementation quality (R),Data collection quality (R),Replication similarity (R),Differences (R),Effect similarity (R),Findings similarity (R),Difficulty of implimentation (R),Surprise of outcome (R),Dummy,Number of Research sites (R),Secondary data (R),Area of expertise (R),T_N..O.,T_Test.Statistic..O.,T_TestComparison..O.,T_df1..O.,T_df2..O.,T_Test.value..O.,T_p.comparison..O.,T_pval..O.,T_pval.recalc..O.,T_pval_USE..O.,T_sign..O.,T_r..O.,T_N..R.,T_Test.Statistic..R.,T_Test.Comparison..R.,T_df1..R.,T_df2..R.,T_Test.value..R.,T_p.comparison..R.,T_pval..R.,T_pval.recalc..R.,T_pval_USE..R.,T_sign..R.,T_r..R.,T_Comparison.effects..R.O.,Type of analysis (O),Type of analysis (R),,T_sign_O,T_sign_R,T_O_larger,T_N_O_for_tables,T_N_R_for_tables,Meta-analytic estimate (Fz),O within CI R,Meta-analysis significant
1,Tracing attention and the activation flow in spoken word planning using eye movements.,A Roelofs,JEPLMC,34,2,353-68,https://osf.io/qwkum/,"Association Learning, Attention, Color Perception, Computer Simulation, Eye Movements, Field Dependence-Independence, Humans, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Phonetics, Reaction Time, Reading, Semantics, Verbal Behavior",1,1,Roelofs,8005,Radboud University Nijmegen,Roelofs,8005,Radboud University Nijmegen,van Rijn,5100,University of Groningen,van Rijn,5100,University of Groningen,46,2.52,2.52,2.53,2.53,3,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.75,2.5,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,H van Rijn,7/25/14,1/7/15,M Kidwell,3,"F(1, 13) = 7.11",24,0.02,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,"interaction between task (picture naming, word reading) and relation (related, unrelated) effects of picture distractors on activation should be absent in word reading",__p^2 = 0.354,,18,23,27,Complete,27,0.95,1,M Barnett Cowan,"F(1,28) = 0.63",29,0.435,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,no,0.99,__p^2 = .02,E Cremata,,1,https://osf.io/64pz8/,PhD or equivalent,2003,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,High Expertise,120,48,5080,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Virtually identical,"The main difference between the original and the replication study is that in the replication the RTs are quite a bit slower. This can be explained by the fact that the participants in the original study were regularly participating in similar studies, whereas for our participants this was a new type of study. This difference in RT, with the replication-participants being slower, could well explain the lack of interference.",Somewhat similar,Moderately similar,Slightly challenging,Results were extremely surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,24,F,is,1,13,7.11,is,0.02,0.019394664,0.019394664,,0.594605285,29,F,is,1,28,0.63,is,0.435,0.434030725,0.434030725,,0.148340453,,ANOVA,Repeated measures ANOVA,,1,0,1,13,28,0.314156055,0,1
2,"Now you see it, now you don't: repetition blindness for nonwords","AL Morris, ML Still",JEPLMC,34,1,146-66,https://osf.io/rmvk5/,"Attentional Blink, Humans, Judgment, Memory, Short-Term, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reading, Semantics, Serial Learning, Verbal Learning",2,1,Morris,240,Iowa State University,Morris,240,Iowa State University,Goodbourn,48,University of Sydney,Goodbourn,48,University of Sydney,6,3.27,3.27,2.99,2.99,6,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.28,2.86,0,0,0,0,0,3,1,0,P Goodbourn,12/1/13,11/18/14,J Cohoon,6,"F(1, 23) = 13.71",24,<0.005,,2,RM ANOVA,main effect,"significant repetition blindness (RB) effect for nonwords. A one-way ANOVA of nonword items, using participants as cases and condition as a within-subjects factor will measure this effect",__p^2 = .374,0.95,16,20,24,Complete,24,0.95,1,B Lassetter,"F(1, 23) = 1.28",24,0.269,same,2,RM ANOVA,main effect,no,0.95,__p^2 = .051,J Chandler,,1,https://osf.io/qg9j7/,PhD or equivalent,2013,Post-doc or Research Scientist,Some Expertise,High Expertise,11,10,47,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Extremely similar,No differences likely to have altered the effect.,Somewhat similar,Very similar,Moderately challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,24,F,is,1,23,13.71,<,0.005,0.001173471,0.001173471,,0.611120054,24,F,is,1,23,1.28,is,0.269,0.269558068,0.269558068,,0.229604631,,RMANOVA,One-way repeated-measures ANOVA,,1,0,1,23,23,0.472239584,0,1
3,Working memory costs of task switching.,"B Liefooghe, P Barrouillet, A Vandierendonck, V Camos",JEPLMC,34,3,478-94,https://osf.io/4dvzb/,"Attention, Color Perception, Decision Making, Discrimination Learning, Functional Laterality, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Perceptual Masking, Psychomotor Performance, Psychophysics, Reaction Time, Size Perception",4,1,Liefooghe,1737,Ghent University,Vandierendonck,3191,Ghent University,Plessow,249,Dresden University of Technology,Pavel,3758,Dresden University of Technology,55,2.57,2.57,2.09,2.09,4,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.5,3,3,3,0,0,0,3,1,0,F Plessow,8/2/14,5/21/15,J Cohoon,4,"F(1, 24) = 5.29",25,<0.05,,2,MANOVA,main effect,expected low-switch lists with degraded stimuli to result in worse recall than low-switch lists with normal stimuli,__p^2 = 0.181,0.89,20,26,32,Complete,32,0.95,9,A van't Veer,"F(1, 31) = 1.506",32,0.229,opposite,,MANOVA,main effect,no,0.95,__p^2 = .046,J Cohoon,,1,https://osf.io/69b27/,PhD or equivalent,1980,Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,248,57,3751,was about the same quality as the original study,was better than the average study,Extremely similar,"1. We had to reprogram the experimental paradigm and did so as closely as possible to the original implementation by (a) following the details provided in the publication and (b) contacting the first author of the original study with remaining questions. Since the original task script, instructions etc. were not available anymore, small deviations are possible. 2. We implemented the study in German, whereas the original study was conducted in Dutch. This could impact the task, even though we consider this a minor issue.",Not at all similar,Moderately similar,Moderately challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,25,F,is,1,24,5.29,<,0.05,0.030449585,0.030449585,,0.424979665,32,F,is,1,31,1.506,is,0.229,0.228988827,0.228988827,,-0.215243835,,MANOVA,MANOVA,,1,0,1,24,31,0.073140202,0,0
4,Accelerated relearning after retrieval-induced forgetting: The benefit of being forgotten.,"BC Storm, EL Bjork, RA Bjork",JEPLMC,34,1,230-6,https://osf.io/8j9cg/,"Attention, Cues, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Mental Recall, Paired-Associate Learning, Practice (Psychology)",3,1,Storm,763,UCLA,Bjork,16509,UCLA,Callahan,12,UC Davis,Callahan,12,UC Davis,39,5.16,5.16,3.83,3.83,1,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4,4.33,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,S Callahan,7/11/14,1/1/15,M Kidwell,1,"F(1, 190) = 10.49",240,<0.001,,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,effect of relearning was significantly larger for non-practiced items from practiced categories than non-practiced items from non-practiced categories,__p^2 = 0.052,,148,196,240,Complete,196,0.9,1,A Rutchick,"F(1,268)=.01",270,0.94,opposite,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,no,0.96,__p^2 = 0.00003,M Kidwell,,1,https://osf.io/xsmzb/,Master's degree or equivalent,2011,PhD student,Some Expertise,Some Expertise,4,2,12,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,"These probably don't actually matter, but nevertheless: 1)I don't know how many different research assistants the original study used, but we used quite a few (too many to look at RA as a variable). 2)Our samples had different language backgrounds, which is why I measured language ability in so many different ways to exclude people who weren't fluent. 3)It being paper & pencil and speaking the responses aloud is significantly different than other studies my sample had done before, so I'm changes in technology/data collection may have also had an effect.",Not at all similar,Moderately similar,Moderately challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,Some data used was pre-existing,Social,240,F,is,1,190,10.49,<,0.001,0.00141669,0.00141669,,0.228739615,270,F,is,1,268,0.01,is,0.94,0.920419089,0.920419089,,-0.006108358,,ANOVA,mixed ANOVA,,1,0,1,190,268,0.092937316,0,1
5,The intermixed-blocked effect in human perceptual learning is not the consequence of trial spacing.,"C Mitchell, S Nash, G Hall",JEPLMC,34,1,237-42,https://osf.io/4xdkk/,"Attention, Color Perception, Discrimination Learning, Field Dependence-Independence, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Mental Recall, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Practice (Psychology), Psychophysics",3,1,Mitchell,1387,University of New South Wales,Hall,2242,University of York,Lakens,739,Eindhoven University of Technology,Lakens,739,Eindhoven University of Technology,36,2.52,2.86,1.97,1.97,2,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3,3.5,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,D Lakens,6/22/12,1/8/15,D Lakens,2,"F(1,31) = 8.38",32,X,,2,RM ANOVA,main effect,Performance on trials in which AX (or BX) was presented is expected to be better than that on trials in which CX was presented,dz = 0.51,0.8,26,35,44,Complete,48,0.99,9,J Matacotta,"F(1, 47) = 0.87",48,0.335,same,2,RM ANOVA,main effect,no,0.93,n_p^2 = 0.02,S Mackinnon,,1,https://osf.io/n539q/,PhD or equivalent,2010,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Slight Expertise,32,30,706,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,"Uncertainty about the instruction between the two blocks in the pre-exposure task. Now, the second set of stimuli appeared without instruction. The original author did not give feedback on the proposal.",Moderately similar,Moderately similar,Moderately challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,32,F,is,1,31,8.38,,,0.00689115,0.00689115,,0.461300742,48,F,is,1,47,0.87,is,0.335,0.355722382,0.355722382,,0.134811802,,repeated measures 2x2 ANOVA,within 2X2 ANOVA,,1,0,1,31,47,0.279055236,0,1
6,"A single-system account of the relationship between priming, recognition, and fluency.","CJ Berry, DR Shanks, RN Henson",JEPLMC,34,1,97-111,https://osf.io/atgp5/,"Adult, Attention, Cues, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Statistical, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Reading, Retention (Psychology), Serial Learning, Signal Detection, Psychological, Speech, Verbal Learning",3,2,Berry,232,University College London,Henson,22335,Medical Research Council,Meixner,34,Humboldt University of Berlin,BrÈning,0,Humboldt University of Berlin,37,4.13,2.12,2.86,2.86,4,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.66,4.33,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,J Meixner,8/7/14,10/7/14,M Kidwell,1,t(23) = 3.55,24,0.002,,2,dependent samples t-test,main effect,"Response times to misses were significantly faster than those to correct rejections, indicating that memory sources for priming and recognition are independent.",dz = 0.724,,17,23,27,Complete,30,0.95,1,J Matacotta,t(31) = 2.40,32,0.023,same,2,dependent samples t-test,main effect,yes,0.98,d = .424,J Goss,,1,https://osf.io/9ivaj/,Master's degree or equivalent,2014,PhD student,Slight Expertise,Some Expertise,1,1,0,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,- completely different stimulus material - German words instead of English words - length of words was 5 letters instead of 4 letters,Virtually identical,Very similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Behavioral neuroscience/Comparative,24,t,is,1,23,3.55,is,0.002,0.001706566,0.001706566,,0.594960462,32,t,is,1,31,2.4,is,0.023,0.02258934,0.02258934,,0.395843475,,dependent samples t-test,within-subject t test,,1,1,1,23,31,0.531502453,1,1
7,Modeling distributions of immediate memory effects: No strategies needed?,"CP Beaman, I Neath, AM Surprenant",JEPLMC,34,1,219-29,https://osf.io/6n3bm/,"Attention, Humans, Individuality, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Statistical, Phonetics, Psychomotor Performance, Semantics, Serial Learning, Verbal Learning",3,2,Beaman,1024,University of Reading,Beaman,1024,University of Reading,Kleinberg,0,University of Amsterdam,Kleinberg,0,University of Amsterdam,12,2.22,2.22,3.43,3.43,2,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,1.33,1.67,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,B Kleinberg,12/5/13,5/20/14,M Cohn,2,t(99) = 10.18,100,<0.05,,1,dependent samples t-test,main effect,Participants remembered the order of words better when the presented word lists contained only short words compared to lists that only contained long words.,d = 1.02,,10,13,15,Complete,15,0.95,1,C Anderson,t(14) = 0.496,15,0.314,same,1,dependent samples t-test,main effect,no,0.95,d = .13,M White,"Contact with original author was ideal. Data and additional material was supplied and question were replied to quickly. Original effect translated from F(1, 99) = 103.7, p < 0.05 to t",1,https://osf.io/pmhd7/,Bachelor's degree or equivalent,2014,Master's student,Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,2,2,0,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,Using as sample of students with different native languages (but this was discussed with and approved of by the original author).,Moderately similar,Moderately similar,Moderately challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Quantitative,100,t,is,1,99,10.18,<,0.05,4.43E-17,2.22E-17,,0.715143728,15,t,is,1,14,0.496,is,0.314,0.627590166,0.313795083,,0.131411981,,dependent samples t-test,paired sample t-test,,1,0,1,99,14,0.807985553,0,1
8,Stereotypes and retrieval-provoked illusory source recollections.,"CS Dodson, J Darragh, A Williams",JEPLMC,34,3,460-77,https://osf.io/c5pbg/,"Association Learning, Attention, Awareness, Humans, Illusions [psychology], Lawyers [psychology], Mental Recall, Physicians [psychology], Reading, Set (Psychology), Social Perception, Stereotyping",3,1,Dodson,1967,University of Virginia,Dodson,1967,University of Virginia,Calhoun-Sauls,0,Belmont Abbey College,Calhoun-Sauls,0,Belmont Abbey College,14,4.36,4.36,1.51,1.51,3,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3,3.75,2,2,0,0,0,1,1,0,A Calhoun Sauls,7/29/14,5/26/15,M Kidwell,3,"F(1, 37) = 17.03",39,<.001,,,ANOVA,interaction,more false judgments should be made regarding schema-consistent attributions in the neutral proportion condition and schema-inconsistent attributions in the conflicting proportion condition,__p^2 = .32,,22,28,32,Unavailable,32,0.95,1,J Goss,"F(1, 31) = .384",33,0.54,opposite,,ANOVA,interaction,no,0.95,__p^2 = 0.012,J Cohoon,,1,https://osf.io/dctav/,PhD or equivalent,1988,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Slight Expertise,1,0,0,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"The student research assistants that I have are both undergraduate students. I suspect that grad students were involved in the original study. As such they may be less skilled/comfortable with giving the instructions and interacting with participants. We were able to get what we think were the original materials, but not the training scripts that the research assistants used.",Not at all similar,Moderately similar,Extremely challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,48,F,is,1,37,17.03,<,0.001,0.000200441,0.000200441,,0.561422534,33,F,is,1,31,0.384,is,0.54,0.539998592,0.539998592,,-0.110614348,,2x2x2 ANOVA,2x2x2 ANOVA,,1,0,1,37,31,0.295827652,0,1
9,"Prime diagnosticity in short-term repetition priming: Is primed evidence discounted, even when it reliably indicates the correct answer?","CT Weidemann, DE Huber, RM Shiffrin",JEPLMC,34,2,257-81,https://osf.io/ne9dy/,"Attention, Choice Behavior, Color Perception, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Paired-Associate Learning, Reaction Time, Semantics",3,1,Weidemann,398,University of Pennsylvania,Shiffrin,30846,Indiana University,Miller,156,Willamette University,Miller,156,Willamette University,22,4.5,3.53,1.88,1.88,4,,,,,,,3,3,,,,,0,1,0,0,J Miller,7/25/14,,M Kidwell,4,"F(6, 228) = 46.09",118,<.01,,,RMANOVA,interaction,trial's prime type interacts with diagnosticity condition,__p^2 = 0.328,,120,152,180,Complete,152,0.9,1,B Lassetter,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,PhD or equivalent,2005,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,15,12,155,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,,,,Extremely challenging,,X,,,,118,F,is,6,228,46.09,<,0.01,9.61E-37,9.61E-37,,0.302242514,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
10,Across-notation automatic numerical processing.,"D Ganor-Stern, J Tzelgov",JEPLMC,34,2,430-7,https://osf.io/vmipw/,"Association Learning, Attention, Automatism [psychology], Comprehension, Discrimination (Psychology), Humans, Multilingualism, Paired-Associate Learning, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Problem Solving, Psychophysics, Reaction Time, Size Perception",2,1,Ganor-Stern,486,Achva Academic College,Tzelgov,3059,Achva Academic College,Shaki,701,Ariel University,Shaki,701,Ariel University,51,1.28,1.28,1.31,1.31,2,Cognitive,2,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.4,1.8,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,S Shaki,7/31/14,1/6/15,J Cohoon,2,"F(1, 28) = 26.69",32,<.001,,2,mixed ANOVA,main effect,comparative distance effect was shown when the task required numerical matching,__p^2 = 0.488,,16,20,20,Complete,20,0.95,1,B Kleinberg,"F(1, 29) = 45.27",32,0.001,same,2,mixed ANOVA,main effect,yes,0.95,MSE=3574.9,E Baranski,,1,https://osf.io/s5e3w/,PhD or equivalent,2002,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),High Expertise,High Expertise,40,31,653,was of much higher quality than the original study,was much better than the average study,Extremely similar,none,Extremely similar,Extremely similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,2,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,32,F,is,1,28,26.69,<,1.00E-03,1.76E-05,1.76E-05,,0.698586719,32,F,is,1,29,45.27,is,0.001,2.21E-07,2.21E-07,,0.780725807,,ANOVA,3x2x2 mixed ANOVA,,1,1,0,28,29,0.957541546,1,1
11,Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors.,"D Mirman, JS Magnuson",JEPLMC,34,1,65-79,https://osf.io/rvkc5/,"Association Learning, Attention, Humans, Inhibition (Psychology), Orientation, Reaction Time, Reading, Semantics",2,2,Mirman,1002,University of Connecticut,Magnuson,3289,University of Connecticut,Bosco,323,Virginia Commonwealth University,Bosco,323,Virginia Commonwealth University,56,3.16,3.16,2.38,2.38,2,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.7,3.2,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,F Bosco,6/26/12,9/24/12,F Bosco,2,"F(1, 21) = 17.3",22,<.001,,,RM ANOVA,main effect,"Words with many near neighbors (e.g., chicken) were associated with an increased level of processing (i.e., categorized more slowly) compared to words with few near neighbors (e.g., hyena",__p^2 = .452,,9,15,22,Complete,30,0.95,1,J Goss,"F (1, 29) = 8.064",30,0.008,same,,RM ANOVA,main effect,yes,0.99,__p^2 = .218,E LeBel,,1,https://osf.io/tjzqr/,PhD or equivalent,2011,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,10,7,316,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,"Replication relied on a sample of business students instead of a diverse undergraduate sample, as in the original study. Replication data were collected in a large computer lab with several students at a time (rather than one at a time, as in the original study).",Moderately similar,Somewhat similar,Not at all challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Industrial/organizational,22,F,is,1,21,17.3,<,0.001,0.000443918,0.000443918,,0.672084167,30,F,is,1,29,8.064,is,0.008,0.008168915,0.008168915,,0.466443576,,within 2x2 ANOVA,within 2x2 ANOVA,,1,1,1,21,29,0.63427333,1,1
12,When does between-sequence phonological similarity promote irrelevant sound disruption?,"JE Marsh, F Vachon, DM Jones",JEPLMC,34,1,243-8,https://osf.io/7rtcz/,"Attention, Humans, Mental Recall, Phonetics, Psychoacoustics, Semantics, Serial Learning, Speech Perception, Verbal Learning",3,1,Marsh,316,Cardiff University,Jones,8838,Cardiff University,Bell,455,Heinrich Heine University of DÈsseldorf,Bell,455,Heinrich Heine University of DÈsseldorf,12,3.07,3.07,1.79,1.79,1,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,1.75,2.75,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,R Bell,9/4/14,12/5/14,M Kidwell,1,"F(2, 92) = 3.13",48,<.05,,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,there is a _pronounced disruptive effect of between-sequence phonological similarity on the free recall of lists of end rhyming words.Ó ,d = .52,,46,80,118,Unavailable,80,0.9,1,A Laique,"F(2, 232) = 1.63",118,0.1986,same,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,no,0.95,_2 = .014,D Williams,,1,https://osf.io/pfmwj/,PhD or equivalent,2007,Post-doc or Research Scientist,High Expertise,High Expertise,37,36,452,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Moderately similar,"German words were used as stimulus material instead of English words (because a sample of German participants was tested instead of a sample of UK participants, as in the original study). Thus, new sets of target words and distractor words were generated based on German word norms.",Moderately similar,Moderately similar,Moderately challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,48,F,is,2,92,3.13,<,0.05,0.048407105,0.048407105,,0.178477629,118,F,is,2,232,1.63,is,0.1986,0.198165248,0.198165248,,0.08323764,,mixed ANOVA,2x3 mixed ANOVA,,1,0,1,92,232,,1,
13,Bidirectional associations in multiplication memory: Conditions of negative and positive transfer.,"JI Campbell, ND Robert",JEPLMC,34,3,546-55,https://osf.io/gxvd3/,"Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Mathematics, Mental Recall, Practice (Psychology), Problem Solving, Retention (Psychology), Transfer (Psychology)",2,1,Campbell,4075,University of Saskatchewan,Campbell,4075,University of Saskatchewan,Ricker,9,UC Riverside,Ricker,9,UC Riverside,11,1.95,1.95,3.17,3.17,3,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.5,3,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,A Ricker,7/16/14,1/6/15,J Cohoon,3,"F(2, 68) = 41.59",36,<.001,,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,"response times were faster when participants were given the same mathematical operation to practice and to test, relative to operational change or a new problem",__p^2 = 0.550,,8,10,10,Unavailable,36,0.99,1,M Perugini,"F(2, 68) = 41.603",36,0.0001,same,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,yes,0.99,__p^2 = 0.55,J Meixner,,1,https://osf.io/z75yu/,Master's degree or equivalent,2012,PhD student,Some Expertise,Some Expertise,2,2,9,was of slightly higher quality than the original study,was better than the average study,Moderately similar,"Sample: Math education and background of the sample (Original article conducted in Canada with a less diverse sample than that of replication sample collected in Southern California). Materials: The task was re-created by the original articles in Eprime, with directions that were ""As close as they remembered"" them being, since the exact wording was not included in the 2008 article and there was no appendix with examples.",Moderately similar,Slightly similar,Moderately challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Quantitative,36,F,is,2,68,41.59,<,0.001,1.59E-12,1.59E-12,,0.52450217,36,F,is,2,68,41.603,is,0.0001,1.58E-12,1.58E-12,,0.524539034,,2x3 mixed ANOVA,2 x 3 Mixed ANOVA,,1,1,0,68,68,,1,
14,Holistic processing of faces: Perceptual and decisional components.,"JJ Richler, I Gauthier, MJ Wenger, TJ Palmeri",JEPLMC,34,2,328-42,https://osf.io/93tkw/,"Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Cues, Decision Making, Discrimination (Psychology), Face, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Perceptual Distortion, Problem Solving, Psychophysics, Reaction Time",4,,Richler,878,Vanderbilt University,Gauthier,12542,Vanderbilt University,,,,,,,77,4.17,4.17,3.53,3.53,2,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.25,3.25,1,1,0,,0,2,0,0,,,,P Digiacomo,2,"F(2, 36) = 25.088",19,<.0001,,,3x2 repeated measures ANOVA,interaction,"interaction between misalignment and status, ""such that the difference between marginal c values based on status of the other part decreased with misalignment""",__p^2 = .477,,24,30,36,Complete,36,0.95,1,S Bahnik,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,19,F,is,2,36,25.088,<,0.0001,1.50E-07,1.50E-07,,0.539560135,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
15,The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency.,"JR Schmidt, D Besner",JEPLMC,34,3,514-23,https://osf.io/bscfe/,"Attention, Color Perception, Conflict (Psychology), Cues, Discrimination Learning, Humans, Mental Recall, Probability Learning, Reaction Time, Reading, Semantics",2,1,Schmidt,409,University of Waterloo,Besner,11136,University of Waterloo,Cloud,30,Lock Haven University,Cloud,30,Lock Haven University,92,2.98,2.98,1.44,1.44,2,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3,3.33,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,M Cloud,7/6/14,12/12/14,J Cohoon,2,t(94) = 1.929,95,0.028,,1,dependent samples t-test,main effect,Low contingency trials produced significantly more errors than the medium contingency trials,d = 0.198,0.61,172,300,436,Complete,300,0.9,1,B Lassetter,t(241) = 3.955,242,0.0001,same,1,dependent samples t-test,main effect,yes,0.99,d = .255,L Lazarevic,,1,https://osf.io/ktgnq/,PhD or equivalent,1984,Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Some Expertise,5,5,7,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,"Participants were offered either a course credit slip or a $5 Amazon e-card for participation, while participants in the original study were only offered course credit. Also, we attached to the bottom of the computer monitor an index card that provided a review of ink color and keyboard key matches. There was no indication that such a hint was available to the original study participants.",Virtually identical,Virtually identical,Not at all challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Behavioral neuroscience/Comparative,95,t,is,1,94,1.929,is,0.028,0.056747409,0.028373705,,0.195136354,242,t,is,1,241,3.955,is,0.0001,1.01E-04,5.05E-05,,0.24687812,,dependent samples t-test,paired sample t-test,,1,1,0,94,241,0.236888799,1,1
16,Age of acquisition and word frequency effects in picture naming: A dual-task investigation.,"K Dent, RA Johnston, GW Humphreys",JEPLMC,34,2,282-301,,"Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Language Development, Male, Mental Recall, Neural Networks (Computer), Pattern Recognition, Visual, Phonetics, Pitch Discrimination, Reaction Time, Refractory Period, Psychological, Semantics, Verbal Behavior, Verbal Learning",3,,Dent,,,,,,,,,,,,45,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,2,"F1(2, 82) = 5.53",42,<.01,,,ANOVA 2x2 repeated,main effect,in 2A: AoA effect was significant at stimulus onset asynchryony of 900ms,__p^2 = 0.119,,16,20,24,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,42,F,is,2,82,5.53,<,0.01,0.005585769,0.005585769,,0.24377044,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
17,The ultimate sampling dilemma in experience-based decision making.,K Fiedler,JEPLMC,34,1,186-203,https://osf.io/hp27x/,"Adult, Bias (Epidemiology), Choice Behavior, Cognition, Computer Simulation, Decision Making, Decision Theory, Feedback, Psychological, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male",1,2,Fiedler,8862,University of Heidelberg,Fiedler,8862,University of Heidelberg,Gl_ckner,2029,University of G_ttigen,Gl_ckner,2029,University of G_ttigen,28,2.69,2.69,2.08,2.08,2,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.75,2.5,2,2,0,0,0,1,1,0,A Gloeckner,7/28/14,1/8/15,M Kidwell,2,"F(2, 76) = 8.67",39,<.001,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,The tendency to underestimate the frequency of positive and to overestimate the frequency of negative observations increased from the provider with the smallest to the provider with the highest overall frequency due to differential regression effects,__p^2 = 0.186,,28,37,45,Complete,45,0.95,1,G Jahn,"F(1.58, 72.4) = 19.48",47,0.00003,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,yes,0.97,__p^2 = .28,J Chandler,,1,https://osf.io/4m8ir/,PhD or equivalent,2006,Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,80,50,2002,was about the same quality as the original study,was better than the average study,Virtually identical,none,Virtually identical,Virtually identical,Very challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,39,F,is,2,76,8.67,<,0.001,0.000405826,0.000405826,,0.304772411,47,F,is,1.58,72.4,19.48,is,0.00003,1.37E-06,1.37E-06,,0.434510306,,RMANOVA,repeated measures anova,,1,1,0,76,72.4,,1,
18,Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: A megastudy.,"K Lemh_fer, T Dijkstra, H Schriefers, RH Baayen, J Grainger, P Zwitserlood",JEPLMC,34,1,31-Dec,,"Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Multilingualism, Perceptual Masking, Phonetics, Practice (Psychology), Reaction Time, Reading, Regression Analysis, Semantics, Verbal Learning, Vocabulary",6,,Lemh_fer,,,,,,,,,,,,87,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,t(60368) = 2.18,80,<.03,,,mixed effects regression model,,"""words that are cognates in the participant's native language elicited shorter response latencies than noncognates""",_ = -.011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,80,t,is,1,60368,2.18,<,0.03,0.029261311,0.029261311,,0.008872296,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
19,How to say no: Single-and dual-process theories of short-term recognition tested on negative probes.,K Oberauer,JEPLMC,34,3,439-59,https://osf.io/gcj7x/,"Adolescent, Adult, Association Learning, Attention, Color Perception, Cues, Discrimination Learning, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Orientation, Reaction Time, Serial Learning",1,7,Oberauer,5974,University of Bristol,Oberauer,5974,University of Bristol,Bosch,0,Radboud University Nijmegen,Neijenhuijs,0,Radboud University Nijmegen,11,2.69,2.69,2.52,2.52,3,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.67,3,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,K Neijenhuijs,6/19/14,3/1/15,J Cohoon,3,"F(1, 31) = 14.2",32,<.001,,2,RM ANOVA,main effect,"""Accuracies on new probes were significantly lower for long lists"" than for short lists",__p^2 = .31,,21,26,32,Unavailable,30,0.94,1,B Lassetter,"F(1,19)=3.661",21,0.071,same,2,RM ANOVA,main effect,no,0.8,__p^2 = .162,J Cohoon,,1,https://osf.io/vhzi6/,Bachelor's degree or equivalent,2013,Master's student,Some Expertise,Slight Expertise,1,0,0,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,Participants in the original were German students in their last year of high school in Germany. Participants in the replication are German students in their first year of university in the Netherlands.,Moderately similar,Slightly similar,Moderately challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,32,F,is,1,31,14.2,<,0.001,0.000692486,0.000692486,,0.560499145,21,F,is,1,19,3.661,is,0.071,0.070889711,0.070889711,,0.401939168,,repeated measures ANOVA,Repeated Measures ANOVA,,1,0,1,31,19,0.555710273,1,1
20,"Intentional forgetting is easier after two ""shots"" than one.","L Sahakyan, PF Delaney, ER Waldum",JEPLMC,34,2,408-14,https://osf.io/bzdr2/,"Attention, Humans, Inhibition (Psychology), Intention, Mental Recall, Paired-Associate Learning, Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Verbal Learning",3,2,Sahakyan,791,"University of North Carolina, Greensboro",Sahakyan,299,"University of North Carolina, Greensboro",Fiedler,299,MPI for Collective Goods,Fiedler,299,MPI for Collective Goods,21,2.84,2.84,3.02,3.02,3,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.17,3.67,2,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,S Fiedler,1/1/12,8/21/12,S Fiedler,3,"F(1,94) = 4.97",96,<.05,,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,"interaction between context strength and condition, ""showing that there was significant directed forgetting of spaced items but not of massed items""",_^2=.05,,78,102,126,Complete,102,0.9,1,F Renkewitz,"F(1, 106) = 0.04",108,0.84,same,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,no,0.92,__p^2 = .0004,F Renkewitz,,1,https://osf.io/2hasj/,PhD or equivalent,2013,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Moderate Expertise,12,9,292,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,Participants will be tested in groups of twelve in the MPI Decision Lab. Each seat is separated by privacy shields whereas the participants in the original study were tested individually. In the original study all the responses were spoken whereas in our replication the responses will be provided by key press. Additionally to the procedure of the original study we will ask participants in the forgetting condition to commit for trying to forget after finishing list 1. In the end we will additionally ask what they did in order to forget the 1st list. All changes are endorsed by the first author of the original study,Somewhat similar,Somewhat similar,Not at all challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,96,F,is,1,94,4.97,<,0.05,0.028172412,0.028172412,,0.224092029,108,F,is,1,106,0.04,is,0.84,0.841863775,0.841863775,,0.019422053,,mixed ANOVA,mixed ANOVA,,1,0,1,94,106,0.117373161,0,0
21,Semantic effects in naming perceptual identification but not in delayed naming: Implications for models and tasks.,"LH Wurm, SR Seaman",JEPLMC,34,2,381-98,,"Attention, Comprehension, Concept Formation, Decision Making, Humans, Judgment, Memory, Short-Term, Perceptual Distortion, Psychoacoustics, Psycholinguistics, Reaction Time, Semantics, Speech Perception, Verbal Behavior",2,,Wurm,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,4,B(444) = -.0643,12,<.05,,,polynomial regression,interaction,"significant, negative, nonlinear (quadratic) Danger x Usefulness interaction in the regression analysis for variables predicting noisy naming latency",SE = .0288,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,12,B,is,,,-0.0643,<,0.05,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
22,How does bilingualism improve executive control? A comparison of active and reactive inhibition mechanisms.,"LS Colzato, MT Bajo, W van den Wildenberg, D Paolieri, S Nieuwenhuis, W La Heij, B Hommel",JEPLMC,34,2,302-12,https://osf.io/p9thw/,"Adult, Attention, Color Perception, Cues, Female, Functional Laterality, Humans, Inhibition (Psychology), Male, Multilingualism, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time",7,1,Colzato,2307,Leiden University,Hommel,14579,Leiden University,Kappes,91,London School of Economics and Political Science,Kappes,91,London School of Economics and Political Science,176,2.6,2.6,4.1,4.1,3,Cognitive,2,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.5,4.5,1,1,0,0,0,3,1,0,H Kappes,8/28/14,11/25/14,M Kidwell,3,"F(3, 93) = 5.23",18,0.002,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,"bilingual participants were significantly less successful than monolinguals at reporting the T2 target when it lagged a successfully identified T1 target by 2 items (i.e., at lag 3)",MSE = .009,,18,24,28,Complete,38,0.99,1,J Galak,"F(2.33, 90) = .38",32,0.72,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,no,0.97,_2 = .01,L Lazarevic,,1,https://osf.io/kb59n/,PhD or equivalent,2012,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),No Expertise,Slight Expertise,14,11,102,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"Monolingual participants in the replication study speak English, whereas monolingual participants in the original study spoke Spanish. Bilingual participants in the replication study are bilingual in English plus one of eight other languages, whereas bilingual participants in the original study were bilingual in Dutch plus one of two other languages. Bilingual participants in the replication study acquired their second language at varied ages, whereas bilingual participants in the original study reportedly acquired both languages from birth.",Somewhat similar,Moderately similar,Very challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,18,F,is,3,93,5.23,is,0.002,0.002218001,0.002218001,,0.219359299,32,F,is,2.33,90,0.38,is,0.72,0.716617946,0.716617946,,0.064661345,,ANOVA,Repeated-measures,,1,0,1,93,90,,0,
23,How does bilingualism improve executive control? A comparison of active and reactive inhibition mechanisms.,"LS Colzato, MT Bajo, W van den Wildenberg, D Paolieri, S Nieuwenhuis, W La Heij, B Hommel",JEPLMC,34,2,302-12,,"Adult, Attention, Color Perception, Cues, Female, Functional Laterality, Humans, Inhibition (Psychology), Male, Multilingualism, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time",7,,Colzato,2307,,,,,,,,,,,176,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,,,,,,,,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
24,Priming addition facts with semantic relations.,"M Bassok, SF Pedigo, AT Oskarsson",JEPLMC,34,2,343-52,https://osf.io/sqim7/,"Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Mathematics, Mental Recall, Paired-Associate Learning, Problem Solving, Reaction Time, Semantics",3,3,Bassok,5489,University of Washington,Bassok,5489,University of Washington,Hung,0,University of Hong Kong,Tsang,0,University of Hong Kong,50,4.04,4.04,2.53,2.53,2,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4,2.67,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,C Hung,8/19/13,1/23/15,C Hung,1,"F(1, 152) = 23.176",154,<.001,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,"""the difference between response latencies to sum and neutral targets...would be larger when the cue digits are primed with categorical primes than when they are primed with unrelated primes or with functionally related primes""",X,,55,72,89,Complete,86,0.95,1,J Arnal,"F(1, 48) = 4.22",49,0.045,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,yes,0.76,"MSE = 9,999",J Matacotta,power was estimated based on small/medium effect size,1,https://osf.io/25vhj/,PhD or equivalent,2014,Post-doc or Research Scientist,Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,17,17,0,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,"Native English speakers were recruited in the original study while only university students who speak fluent English are sampled in the replication, though this difference does not result much difference in the actual outcome from the original findings.",Extremely similar,Very similar,Very challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,154,F,is,1,152,23.176,<,0.001,3.54E-06,3.54E-06,,0.363732358,49,F,is,1,48,4.22,is,0.045,0.045417099,0.045417099,,0.284274426,,2x2 ANOVA (repeated measures),2x2 ANOVA (repeated measures),,1,1,1,152,48,0.360088936,1,1
25,Learning correct responses and errors in the Hebb repetition effect: two faces of the same coin.,"M Couture, D Lafond, S Tremblay",JEPLMC,34,3,524-32,https://osf.io/k9gp6/,"Adult, Attention, Discrimination Learning, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Practice (Psychology), Probability Learning, Retention (Psychology), Serial Learning",3,3,Couture,170,Laval University,Tremblay,2809,Laval University,Roebke,0,Wright State University,Roebke,0,Wright State University,15,1.59,1.59,1.79,1.79,1,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,1.5,1.5,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,M Roebke,7/11/14,4/6/15,M Kidwell,1,"F(3, 48) = 9.14",24,<.001,,2,mixed ANOVA,main effect,"""probability of producing a given response should increase as a function of the number of times the same response had previously been recalled,Ó even for errors",d = 1.51,,X,X,X,Complete,48,X,9,H Fuchs,"F(3, 59) = 5.681",63,0.002,same,,ANOVA,main effect,yes,X,__p^2 = .224,C Soderberg,,1,https://osf.io/3zg7e/,Master's degree or equivalent,2013,PhD student,Slight Expertise,Slight Expertise,0,2,0,was of slightly higher quality than the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Extremely similar,none,Extremely similar,Very similar,Not at all challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Industrial/organizational,24,F,is,3,48,9.14,<,0.001,6.83E-05,6.83E-05,,0.348120689,63,F,is,3,59,5.681,is,0.002,0.001737041,0.001737041,,0.2733272,,ANOVA,,,1,1,1,48,63,,1,
26,Contextual effects on reading aloud: Evidence for pathway control.,"M Reynolds, D Besner",JEPLMC,34,1,50-64,https://osf.io/hasfu/,"Attention, Humans, Phonetics, Reaction Time, Reading, Semantics, Speech, Writing",2,2,Reynolds,462,Trent,Besner,11136,University of Waterloo,Lai,127,University of Virginia,Lai,127,University of Virginia,16,1.87,2.98,4.36,4.36,5,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Strong expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.75,3.25,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,C Lai,1/1/12,2/22/14,Calvin Lai,5,"F(1, 94) = 2.5",16,>0.1,,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,no delay in response when switching between pronouncing regular words and nonwords,_^2 = .026,,8,8,8,Complete,20,0.99,1,E Gilbert,"F (1, 92) = 1.95",20,0.17,same,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,yes,0.95,n^2=.021,C Eggleston,Power calculations assume arbitrary effect size of f = .40,1,https://osf.io/yscmg/,Master's degree or equivalent,2012,PhD student,Slight Expertise,Slight Expertise,7,4,122,was about the same quality as the original study,was better than the average study,Virtually identical,Subjective differences in coding of voice responses.,Extremely similar,Extremely similar,Moderately challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,16,F,is,1,94,2.5,>,0.1,0.117205428,0.117205428,,0.160955695,20,F,is,1,92,1.95,is,0.17,0.165946909,0.165946909,,0.14406846,,mixed 2x2 ANOVA,mixed ANOVA,,0,0,1,94,92,0.153816698,1,1
27,On the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency in lexical decision: Evidence for opposing interactive influences revealed by RT distributional analyses.,"MJ Yap, DA Balota, CS Tse, D Besner",JEPLMC,34,3,495-513,https://osf.io/ahpik/,"Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Decision Making, Discrimination Learning, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Recall, Phonetics, Reaction Time, Reading, Semantics",4,1,Yap,2514,Washington University,Balota,16500,Washington University,Chartier,20,Ashland University,Chartier,20,Ashland University,50,3.61,3.61,1.54,1.54,4,Cognitive,4,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.5,2.33,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,C Chartier,7/8/14,1/9/15,M Kidwell,4,"F(1, 31) = 5.17",32,0.03,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,"significant interaction between stimulus quality and word frequency where there is ""a larger frequency effect for degraded words.""",__p^2 = .143,,X,68,85,Complete,68,0.9,1,A Calhoun Sauls,"F(1,70)=11.783",71,0.001,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,yes,0.92,__p^2 = .144,L Cramblet Alvarez,,1,https://osf.io/nuab4/,PhD or equivalent,2013,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),No Expertise,No Expertise,4,4,20,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Very similar,none foreseen,Extremely similar,Extremely similar,Moderately challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,32,F,is,1,31,5.17,is,0.03,0.030057008,0.030057008,,0.378068955,71,F,is,1,70,11.783,is,0.001,0.001007522,0.001007522,,0.379573968,,ANOVA,repeated measures 2x2 anova,,1,1,0,31,70,0.399029332,1,1
28,Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis.,"N Janssen, W Schirm, BZ Mahon, A Caramazza",JEPLMC,34,1,249-56,https://osf.io/uhpyr/,"Attention, Conflict (Psychology), Field Dependence-Independence, Humans, Inhibition (Psychology), Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reaction Time, Reading, Semantics",4,2,Janssen,567,Harvard University,Caramazza,25000,Harvard University,Galak,502,Carnegie Mellon University,Galak,502,Carnegie Mellon University,72,6.74,6.74,4.72,4.72,2,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,1.5,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,J Galak,1/1/12,11/15/12,J Galak,1,"F(1,31) = 4.1",32,<.06,,,RM ANOVA,main effect,significantly slower average reaction time for the semantically related word-picture pairs than semantically unrelated word-picture pairs,d=0.74,,60,80,98,Complete,100,0.8,1,S Koleva,"F1(1, 90) = .97",91,0.33,same,,RM ANOVA,main effect,no,0.94,__p^2 = .011,S Koleva,"Sample Size was estimated based off of Delayed Naming Condition effect size. The required sample size is 50 for just this condition. Since authors never conducted analysis on entire sample, this number was doubled. to account for this issue.",1,https://osf.io/iwaqf/,PhD or equivalent,2009,Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Moderate Expertise,15,13,489,was of moderately higher quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,"There are two major differences from the original plan: power estimate and recruitment procedure. Due to an error made by the replicating author, the required sample size for 80%, 90%, and 95% power was significantly overestimated. Whereas the original report required 96, 148, and 182 for 80%, 90%, and 95% power, respectively, the correct power analysis only requires 60, 80, and 98 participants, respectively. Data collection ran until no more participants were willing to take the study (i.e. subject pool was exhausted) resulting in power of approximately 93.5%. Due to the fact that participants must complete the experiment one at a time (as opposed to in a group lab setting), the original data collection plan was changed significantly. Rather than recruit participants from a public setting, participants were recruited via a university subject pool. Prospective participants were informed that the experiment involves speaking into a microphone, that they must be native English speakers, and that the experiment will last approximately 30 minutes. Because the subject pool is made up of university students, Janssens original concern about age is mitigated. Accordingly, participants completed the experiment one-at-a-time in a small lab room where there were no distractions and noise was minimized.",Not at all similar,Slightly similar,Extremely challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,32,F,is,1,31,4.1,<,0.06,0.051569634,0.051569634,,0.341773488,91,F,is,1,90,0.97,is,0.33,0.327320513,0.327320513,,0.103261105,,within 2x2 ANOVA,within 2x2 ANOVA,,1,0,1,31,90,0.167278065,0,0
29,Multidimensional visual statistical learning.,"NB Turk-Browne, PJ Isola, BJ Scholl, TA Treat",JEPLMC,34,2,399-407,https://osf.io/ujhlw/,"Association Learning, Color Perception, Discrimination Learning, Humans, Motion Perception, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Perceptual Masking, Probability Learning, Problem Solving, Psychophysics",4,2,Turk-Brown,1740,Yale University,Scholl,6204,Yale University,Ostkamp,0,University of OsnabrÈck,J_kel,394,University of OsnabrÈck,61,6.56,6.56,1.68,1.68,5,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Strong expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.25,3.25,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,L Ostkamp,8/24/12,12/13/13,L Ostkamp,4b,t(7) = 2.892,8,0.023,,,dependent samples t-test,main effect,whether visual statistical learning could be feature-based over colors of objects; expects an above-chance recall rate in the test phase of the experiment for trials containing real triplets from the familiarization phase. A t-test of the recall rate should be significantly different from 0 (as in the original experiment),__p^2 = .09,0.69,10,13,15,Complete,15,0.95,1,G Nilsonne,t(14) = 3.708,15,0.002,same,,dependent samples t-test,main effect,yes,0.95,d = .957,C Pernet,,1,https://osf.io/gpvrm/,PhD or equivalent,2007,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Some Expertise,19,7,394,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly worse than the average study,Extremely similar,"The stimulus size was slightly larger in the replication, because of differences in the screen size and the resolution. The different locale of the replication: Participants were German students instead of U.S.; the instruction were translated from English into German.",Virtually identical,Very similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,8,t,is,1,7,2.892,is,0.023,0.023249789,0.023249789,,0.73782079,15,t,is,1,14,3.708,is,0.002,0.002339966,0.002339966,,0.703904904,,dependent samples t-test,t-test,,1,1,1,7,14,0.897318879,1,1
30,Processing idiomatic expressions: Effects of semantic compositionality.,"P Tabossi, R Fanari, K Wolf",JEPLMC,34,2,313-27,,"Adult, Comprehension, Female, Humans, Judgment, Language, Male, Psycholinguistics, Reading, Semantics",3,,Tabossi,,,,,,,,,,,,39,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,3,"F(1, 25) = 15.85",26,0.0005,,,ANOVA,main effect,"idiomatic expressions have quicker response times than controls, across expression types",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,26,F,is,1,25,15.85,is,0.0005,0.000519937,0.000519937,,0.62290039,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
31,The impact of stimulus and response variability on SR correspondence effects.,"P WÈhr, R Biebl, U Ansorge",JEPLMC,34,3,533-45,https://osf.io/sgw43/,"Adolescent, Adult, Association Learning, Attention, Conflict (Psychology), Female, Functional Laterality, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Orientation, Pitch Discrimination, Psychomotor Performance, Psychophysics, Reaction Time, Sound Localization",3,1,WÈhr,900,Friedrich-Alexander University,Ansorge,1933,OsnabrÈck University,Chan,0,University of Hong Kong,Chan,0,University of Hong Kong,15,,1.68,2.53,2.53,6,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,3,0,0,K Chan,2/11/14,,J Cohoon,6,"F(1, 23) = 37.11",24,<.001,,,ANOVA,main effect,"response times ""were faster when the numbers of stimuli and responses corresponded than when they did not",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,24,F,is,1,23,37.11,<,0.001,3.26E-06,3.26E-06,,0.785727789,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
32,Accounting for occurrences: A new view of the use of contingency information in causal judgment.,PA White,JEPLMC,34,1,204-18,https://osf.io/rhbqj/,"Association Learning, Causality, Humans, Judgment, Likelihood Functions, Probability Learning, Problem Solving",1,2,White,1472,Cardiff University,White,1472,Cardiff University,MÈller,65,University of Erfurt,Renkewitz,65,University of Erfurt,11,3.07,3.07,1.65,1.65,5,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.5,2.33,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,F Renkewitz,5/31/12,11/17/12,F Renkewitz,3,"F(1, 36) = 22.88",37,<.001,,,RM ANOVA,main effect,examines information that influences causal judgments; A+ instances should tend to raise judgment of A and lower judgment of B as causes for the outcome,__p^2 = .427,,3,4,4,Complete,37,0.95,1,G Jahn,"F(1, 37) =11.12",38,0.002,same,,RM ANOVA,main effect,yes,0.99,__p^2 = .15,G Jahn,Power calculations assume a correlation of r = .5 between repeated measures,1,https://osf.io/ygh35/,PhD or equivalent,2004,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Moderate Expertise,25,11,609,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"We conducted the experiment computer-based, not as a paper-pencil test. The experiment was run at a German University, not in UK. - I have no idea if any of these differences altered the effect (and the key effects were extremely similar in both studies).",Extremely similar,Very similar,Moderately challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,37,F,is,1,36,22.88,<,0.001,2.91E-05,2.91E-05,,0.623367433,38,F,is,1,37,11.12,is,0.002,0.001950822,0.001950822,,0.480717115,,within 2x3 ANOVA,within 2x3 ANOVA,,1,1,1,36,37,0.625750439,1,1
33,Multiple roles for time in short-term memory: Evidence from serial recall of order and timing.,S Farrell,JEPLMC,34,1,128-45,https://osf.io/swrhy/,"Association Learning, Attention, Discrimination Learning, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reading, Serial Learning, Speech Perception, Time Perception",1,2,Farrell,1830,University of Bristol,Farrell,1830,University of Bristol,Olsson,0,MIT,Saxe,8175,MIT,27,2.69,2.69,6.42,6.42,3,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Strong expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,1.5,4.33,2,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,R Saxe,1/1/12,5/24/12,R Saxe,2,t(39) = 3.77,40,0.001,,,paired sample t-test,main effect,t instructing participants to group items induces a temporal gap between the groups both when trying to recall the order of the items and when trying to recall the timing of the items,d=0.6,,24,32,39,Complete,40,0.95,1,X,t(39) = 2.08,40,0.044,same,,paired sample t-test,main effect,yes,0.95,d = .37,J Grange,,1,https://osf.io/nmpdc/,PhD or equivalent,2003,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Moderate Expertise,110,76,8089,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,Methodology is unlikely to account for differences.,Very similar,Very similar,Moderately challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive neuroscience,40,t,is,1,39,3.77,is,0.001,0.000541079,0.000541079,,0.516812354,40,t,is,1,39,2.08,is,0.044,0.04414462,0.04414462,,0.315999964,,paired sample t-test,paired sample t-test,,1,1,1,39,39,0.449588828,1,1
34,Complement coercion is not modulated by competition: Evidence from eye movements.,"S Frisson, B McElree",JEPLMC,34,1,11-Jan,,"Attention, Comprehension, Eye Movements, Humans, Reading, Semantics, Writing",2,,Frisson,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,F<.01,40,"""not significant""",,,ANOVA,interaction,no interaction between coercion and preference for the total reading time analyses,X,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,40,F,<,,,0.01,not significant,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
35,Reading aloud: spelling-sound translation uses central attention.,"S O'Malley, MG Reynolds, JA Stolz, D Besner",JEPLMC,34,2,422-9,https://osf.io/tv82z/,"Attention, Humans, Mental Recall, Phonetics, Reaction Time, Reading, Refractory Period, Psychological, Semantics, Verbal Behavior, Verbal Learning",4,1,O'Malley,157,University of Waterloo,Besner,11136,University of Waterloo,Goldinger,4771,Arizona State University,Goldinger,4771,Arizona State University,17,2.98,2.98,3.59,3.59,1,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3,3.33,0,,0,,0,1,0,0,S Goldinger,7/27/14,,M Kidwell,1,"beta hat = 25.1, t(4123) = 5.9",48,<.001,,,mixed effect model,main effect,"when reading aloud following presentation of pseudophomophones, a main effect of repetition indicated additive effects on response time",X,,19,24,29,Complete,48,0.99,9,B Lassetter,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,PhD or equivalent,1992,Professor (or equivalent),High Expertise,High Expertise,68,56,4723,was of much higher quality than the original study,,,,,,Moderately challenging,,X,,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,48,t,is,1,4123,5.9,<,0.001,3.93E-09,3.93E-09,,0.091499705,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
36,An attention-based associative account of adjacent and nonadjacent dependency learning.,"S Pacton, P Perruchet",JEPLMC,34,1,80-96,https://osf.io/vmz2e/,"Association Learning, Attention, Field Dependence-Independence, Humans, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Problem Solving, Reproducibility of Results",2,1,Pacton,1341,Paris Descartes University,Perruchet,5255,University of Burgundy,Jahn,515,University of Greifswald,Jahn,515,University of Greifswald,72,2.25,1.65,1.5,1.5,5,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3,3.5,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,G Jahn,7/22/12,11/21/12,G Jahn,4b,"F(1, 20) = 20.79",24,<.01,,,mixed ANOVA,main effect,number of correct responses differed only as a function of the type of dependency,__p^2 = .51,,8,8,8,No response,24,0.95,9,F Renkewitz,"F(1, 20)=17.35",24,0.00048,same,,mixed ANOVA,main effect,yes,0.99,__p^2 = .46,F Renkewitz,,1,https://osf.io/3kn4c/,PhD or equivalent,2001,Professor (or equivalent),High Expertise,High Expertise,46,19,509,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"Generating the materials (symbol sequences) involves randomness, therefore the original and the replication materials are not identical (original materials could not be obtained).",Extremely similar,Extremely similar,Moderately challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,24,F,is,1,20,20.79,<,0.01,0.000190422,0.000190422,,0.713921386,24,F,is,1,20,17.35,is,0.00048,0.00047793,0.00047793,,0.681560537,,mixed ANOVA,mixed ANOVA,,1,1,1,20,20,0.863579432,1,1
37,Orienting attention in visual working memory reduces interference from memory probes.,"T Makovski, R Sussman, YV Jiang",JEPLMC,34,2,369-80,https://osf.io/0pxro/,"Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Color Perception, Cues, Discrimination Learning, Female, Humans, Inhibition (Psychology), Male, Memory, Short-Term, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychophysics, Reaction Time, Retention (Psychology)",3,1,Makovski,578,Harvard University,Jiang,6598,Harvard University,Moore,1167,Elmhurst College,Moore,1167,Elmhurst College,116,6.74,6.74,1.78,1.78,3,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,1.67,3,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,K Moore,6/22/12,4/15/13,K Moore,3,"F(1,11) = 4.8",12,<.05,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,"For both the shape and color conditions, there will be an effect of cue type (retro cue better than simultaneous cue) on recall at all set sizes except for set size 1.",__p^2 = .3037,,23,30,36,Complete,18,0.69,1,original authors,"F(1,17)=2.37",18,0.142,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,yes,0.69,__p^2 = .122,J Cohoon,,1,https://osf.io/saq6x/,PhD or equivalent,2010,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,High Expertise,16,12,1155,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"We used the original authors' scripts. The only differences were the room and the undergraduate population tested. The room might have had different lighting or monitor settings, but the timing was precise (the most important variable). The settings seemed about the same, and the results worked out about the same as well.",Moderately similar,Extremely similar,Slightly challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,12,F,is,1,11,4.8,<,0.05,0.05088911,0.05088911,,0.551178255,18,F,is,1,17,2.37,is,0.142,0.142093022,0.142093022,,0.349791589,,ANOVA,repeated measures ANOVA,,1,0,1,11,17,0.463231604,1,1
38,Binding of multidimensional context information as a distinctive characteristic of remember judgments.,"T Meiser, C Sattler, K Weisser",JEPLMC,34,1,32-49,,"Association Learning, Attention, Awareness, Humans, Judgment, Mental Recall, Orientation, Reading, Retention (Psychology), Sex Factors, Speech Perception, Stochastic Processes, Verbal Learning, Voice",3,,Meiser,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,3,r = .041,205,0.854,,,zero order correlation,correlation,no evidence of a positive correlation of individual source memory estimates for location and voice in the sample with high source memory for location and medium source memory for voice.,r = .041,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,205,r,is,,,0.041,is,0.854,0.55986211,0.55986211,,0.041,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
39,Decision making and learning while taking sequential risks.,TJ Pleskac,JEPLMC,34,1,167-85,https://osf.io/38ges/,"Adolescent, Adult, Association Learning, Bayes Theorem, Choice Behavior, Culture, Decision Making, Decision Theory, Female, Gambling [psychology], Health Behavior, Humans, Individuality, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Risk-Taking, Stochastic Processes, Substance-Related Disorders [psychology]",1,4,Pleskac,848,Indiana University,Pleskac,848,Indiana University,Forsell,1,Stockholm School of Economics,Johannesson,15770,Stockholm School of Economics,40,3.53,3.53,2.2,2.2,1,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.5,4.25,0,0,0,0,0,3,1,0,E Forsell,8/20/14,11/26/14,J Cohoon,1,z = 3.10,68,<.05,,,Test of contrast of 4 correlated correlations.,main effect,comparison of correlations between ART and drug use in sunny versus cloudy conditions; a successful replication would find that the learning process hinders the diagnosticity of the ART in identifying individuals at increased risk of using hazardous drugs.,X,,60,80,99,Complete,72,0.87,9,B Lassetter,z = 1.25,153,0.21,same,2,Test of contrast of 4 correlated correlations.,main effect,no,0.87,X,A Laique,were unable to calculate power,1,https://osf.io/scqrd/,PhD or equivalent,1991,Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Some Expertise,200,150,15633,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,"The procedure, materials and analysis was identical to the original study. The average drug use and the variation in the drug use was lower than in the original study, and it cannot be ruled out that this has affected the results.",Slightly similar,Somewhat similar,Moderately challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,behavioral/experimental economics,68,z,is,,,3.1,<,0.05,0.001935206,0.001935206,,0.366615713,153,z,is,,,1.25,is,0.21,0.211299547,0.211299547,,0.101709161,,Test of contrast of 4 correlated correlations.,Comparison of difference between pairs of 2 correlations.,,1,0,1,68,153,,,
40,Body-and environmental-stabilized processing of spatial knowledge.,"W Mou, X Li, TP McNamara",JEPLMC,34,2,415-21,,"Adult, Female, Humans, Imagination, Kinesthesis, Male, Mental Recall, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychophysics, Social Environment, Space Perception, Walking",3,,Mou,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,5,"F(1, 23) = 0.36",24,>.05,,,ANOVA,main effect,insignificant main effect of A-I distance in pointing latency,MSE = 0.81,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,24,F,is,1,23,0.36,>,0.05,0.554372267,0.554372267,,0.124140883,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
41,Power and affordances: When the situation has more power overpowerful than powerless individuals,A Guinote,JPSP,94,2,237-52,https://osf.io/rx9ph/,"Attitude, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Power (Psychology)",1,1,Guinote,1284,University of Kent,Guinote,1284,University of Kent,Stienberg,53,Miami University,Steinberg,53,Miami University,96,2.61,2.61,2.94,2.94,6,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4,3,1,1,0,,0,1,0,0,M Steinberg,3/6/14,,J Cohoon,6,"F(1, 68) = 4.14",72,<.05,,,ANOVA 2x2,interaction,"significant interaction between information and power: ""powerful participants spent more time reading situation relevant information compared with situation irrelevant information""",__p^2 = 0.0574,,134,178,218,Complete,134,0.8,1,F Bosco,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,72,F,is,1,68,4.14,<,0.05,0.045782735,0.045782735,,0.239558785,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
42,A new taxonomy of Dutch personality traits based on a comprehensive and unrestricted list of descriptors.,"B De Raad, DP Barelds",JPSP,94,2,347-64,,"Ethnic Groups, Humans, Netherlands, Personality, Social Perception, Vocabulary",2,,De Raad,,,,,,,,,,,,48,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,3,r = .50,1466,X,,,factor analysis,congruence coefficient,ninth factor (fearlessness) has a low congruence coefficient between the corresponding factors after rotation meaning it does not replicate the first 8 factors' strong congruence coefficients,r = .50,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,1466,r_c,is,,,0.5,,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
43,The rejection of moral rebels: Resenting those who do the right thing.,"B Monin, PJ Sawyer, MJ Marquez",JPSP,95,1,76-93,https://osf.io/pz0my/,"Adult, Character, Culture, Defense Mechanisms, Female, Humans, Imagination, Judgment, Male, Morals, Prejudice, Rejection (Psychology), Self Concept, Social Conformity, Social Desirability, Social Perception, Social Responsibility",3,2,Monin,2351,Stanford University,Monin,2351,Stanford University,Holubar,0,Stanford University,Frank,1965,Stanford University,88,6.54,6.54,6.54,6.54,4,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.75,3.75,3,2,0,0,0,1,1,1,T Holubar,1/1/12,3/15/12,S Fiedler,4,"F(2, 64) = 10.17",67,<.01,,,"ANOVA, omnibus",main effect,participants who self affirm rated moral rebels as highly as they rated obedient confederates,__p^2 = 0.241,,36,45,54,Complete,54,0.95,X,M Frank,"F(2, 72) = 1.97",75,0.1469,same,2,"ANOVA, omnibus",main effect,no,0.99,_^2 = 0.052,M Frank,,1,https://osf.io/27gpt/,PhD or equivalent,2010,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Moderate Expertise,80,32,1995,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,Data were collected on MTurk.,Not at all similar,Somewhat similar,Not at all challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Developmental,67,F,is,2,64,10.17,<,0.01,0.000146111,0.000146111,,0.347251138,75,F,is,2,72,1.97,is,0.1469,0.146902278,0.146902278,,0.161063754,,"ANOVA, omnibus",ANOVA,,1,0,1,64,72,,0,
44,Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit.,"BK Payne, MA Burkley, MB Stokes",JPSP,94,1,16-31,https://osf.io/rc6mv/,"Adolescent, Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Analysis of Variance, Attitude, Behavioral Research [methods], Cognition, Emotions, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Prejudice, Psychological Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Social Conformity, Social Perception, Truth Disclosure",3,1,Payne,3452,"UNC, Chapel Hill",Payne,3452,"UNC, Chapel Hill",Vianello,493,University of Padua,Vianello,493,University of Padua,165,4.25,4.25,1.97,1.97,4,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3,4,3,3,0,0,0,1,1,0,M Vianello,1/1/12,4/21/12,M Vianello,4,t(67) = 3.08,70,<.01,,,hierachical multiple linear regression,correlation,looking for a significant change in R^2; relationship between authors' direct and indirect procedures is moderated by percieved pressure to respond in a socially desirable manner ,_R^2=.09,,82,109,134,Complete,134,0.95,2,K Ratliff,t(176)= 2.016,180,0.045,same,,hierachical multiple linear regression,correlation,yes,0.99,_R^2 = .016,K Ratliff,(K. Payne sent all materials not available in the paper on Jan.31.12),1,https://osf.io/u23g9/,PhD or equivalent,2006,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),High Expertise,Moderate Expertise,38,26,367,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,Italian sample vs US sample (original).,Somewhat similar,Very similar,Slightly challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,both social and I&O psych,70,t,is,1,67,3.08,<,0.01,0.003000884,0.003000884,,0.352175067,180,t,is,1,176,2.016,is,0.045,0.045320778,0.045320778,,0.150236955,,hierachical multiple linear regression,hierachical multiple linear regression,,1,1,1,67,176,0.210684749,0,1
45,Are individuals' reputations related to their history of behavior?,"C Anderson, A Shirako",JPSP,94,2,320-33,,"Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Social Behavior, Social Perception",2,,Anderson,,,,,,,,,,,,80,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,0,,,,M Kidwell,3,beta = .34,39,<.05,,,moderated multiple regression,interaction,"""the relation between cooperative behavior and reputaitons for cooperativeness depended upon individuals' social connectedness""",_ = .34,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,39,beta,is,,,0.34,<,0.05,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
46,"The developmental psychometrics of big five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20.","CJ Soto, OP John, SD Gosling, J Potter",JPSP,94,4,718-37,https://osf.io/kez47/,"Adolescent, Adult, Child, Comprehension, Data Collection, Extraversion (Psychology), Female, Humans, Informed Consent, Internet, Language Development, Male, Patient Selection, Personality Development, Personality Inventory [statistics & numerical data], Psychometrics [statistics & numerical data], Reproducibility of Results, Self Concept, Vocabulary",4,1,Soto,1792,"UC, Berkeley",John,36658,"UC, Berkeley",Soderberg,2,Center for Open Science,Soderberg,2,Center for Open Science,132,5.61,5.61,3.07,3.07,1,Social,1,Some of both,Strong expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.75,2.75,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,C Soderberg,7/15/14,12/18/14,M Kidwell,1,"F(21, 230025) = 118.15",230047,<.001,,1,Levenes test for equality of variance,main effect,younger respondents show greater individual differences (variance) in their acquiescent response tendencies than older respondents.,X,,103,108,125,Complete,571143,0.99,1,A Laique,"F(21, 455304) = 261.93",455326,2.2 x 10-16,same,,Levenes test for equality of variance,interaction,yes,0.99,X,L Lazarevic,,1,https://osf.io/3y9sj/,PhD or equivalent,2014,Post-doc or Research Scientist,Slight Expertise,Some Expertise,3,2,2,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,none,Virtually identical,Extremely similar,Not at all challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,All data used was pre-existing,Social,230047,F,is,21,230025,118.15,<,0.001,0,0,,0.022542373,455326,F,is,21,455304,261.93,is,2.20E-16,0,0,,0.023841537,,Levenes test for equality of variance,levene's test for homogeneity of variance,,1,1,0,230025,455304,,0,
47,Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model.,"CK De Dreu, M Baas, BA Nijstad",JPSP,94,5,739-56,https://osf.io/9zg6x/,"Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Arousal, Concept Formation, Creativeness, Female, Humans, Imagination, Individuality, Male, Models, Psychological, Personality Inventory, Philosophy, Problem Solving",3,1,De Dreu,17538,University of Amsterdam,De Dreu,17538,University of Amsterdam,Cohoon,0,Center for Open Science,,,Center for Open Science,278,3.43,3.43,3.07,3.07,4,Social,,,,,,2.86,3.43,,,,,0,2,0,0,J Cohoon,2/28/15,,M Kidwell,4,z=2.45,546,<.015,,,Sobel test,mediation,cognitive flexibility mediates the effects of positive activating moods on creative fluency and originality.,X,,975,1300,1600,Complete,1600,0.95,2,S Bowman,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,546,z,is,,,2.45,<,0.015,0.014285621,0.014285621,,0.104753853,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
48,Terror management and adults' attachment to their parents: The safe haven remains.,"CR Cox, J Arndt, T Pyszczynski, J Greenberg, A Abdollahi, S Solomon",JPSP,94,4,696-717,https://osf.io/5tbxf/,"Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Adult Children [psychology], Attitude to Death, Defense Mechanisms, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Recall, Middle Aged, Object Attachment, Parent-Child Relations, Self Efficacy, Social Support",6,6,Cox,1071,"University of Missouri, Columbia",Pyszcynski,22870,"University of Colorado, Colorado Springs",Wissink,0,Tilburg University,Zeelenberg,8494,Tilburg University,74,2.62,2.62,3.03,3.03,6,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.5,4.5,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,J Wissink,10/23/14,3/3/15,J Cohoon,6,t(92)= -2.22,100,0.03,,,independent samples t-test,main effect,participants who scored low on avoidance but high on anxiety demonstrated an increased relative preference for a parent after MS as opposed to dental pain,pr^2 = 0.224,,30,39,48,Complete,100,0.99,9,A Laique,t(192) = -.73,200,0.47,opposite,2,Multiple regression,Simple slope effect,no,0.99,f2 = .05,E Baranski,effect size calculated from a partial R2 of .009165051,1,https://osf.io/fg2u9/,PhD or equivalent,1996,Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,High Expertise,200,85,8529,was of slightly lower quality than the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Very similar,1) We did not randomize the order of relationships in the cellphone task. 2) We did not include relationship status as a control variable.,Not at all similar,Slightly similar,Slightly challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,100,t,,1,92,-2.22,is,0.03,0.028875522,0.028875522,,0.225490086,200,t,is,1,192,-0.725548,is,0.47,0.468999328,0.468999328,,-0.052290282,,independent samples t-test,Multiple regression,,1,0,1,92,192,0.038588034,0,0
49,Increasing and decreasing motor and cognitive output: A model of general action and inaction goals.,"D Albarracn, IM Handley, K Noguchi, KC McCulloch, H Li, J Leeper, RD Brown, A Earl, WP Hart",JPSP,95,3,510-23,https://osf.io/vy1bc/,"Attention, Awareness, Cues, Culture, Decision Making, Feeding Behavior, Female, Goals, Humans, Internal-External Control, Judgment, Male, Mental Recall, Persuasive Communication, Problem Solving, Psychomotor Performance, Semantics, Set (Psychology)",9,3,Albarracn,5096,University of Illinois,Albarracn,5096,University of Illinois,Kim,4,Stanford University,Frank,1965,Stanford University,46,3.85,3.85,6.54,6.54,7,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.57,3.28,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,S Kim,1/1/12,3/15/12,J Cohoon,5,"F(1, 34) = 5.68",36,0.02,,,ANOVA,main effect,participants primed with action words performed better (i.e. solved more number of problems correctly) than participants primed with inaction words did,__p^2 = 0.143,,54,70,86,Complete,86,0.95,4,M Frank,"F(1, 86) = .08",88,0.77,opposite,2,ANOVA,main effect,no,0.96,_^2 = .00096,M Frank,,1,https://osf.io/gtewj/,PhD or equivalent,2010,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Some Expertise,80,32,1995,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,It was conducted on MTurk.,Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Not at all challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Developmental,36,F,is,1,34,5.68,is,0.02,0.022889441,0.022889441,,0.378345294,88,F,is,1,86,0.08,is,0.77,0.777977082,0.777977082,,-0.030485538,,ANOVA,ANOVA,,1,0,1,34,86,0.0893739,0,0
50,Increasing and decreasing motor and cognitive output: A model of general action and inaction goals.,"D Albarracn, IM Handley, K Noguchi, KC McCulloch, H Li, J Leeper, RD Brown, A Earl, WP Hart",JPSP,95,3,510-23,https://osf.io/rgm6p/,"Attention, Awareness, Cues, Culture, Decision Making, Feeding Behavior, Female, Goals, Humans, Internal-External Control, Judgment, Male, Mental Recall, Persuasive Communication, Problem Solving, Psychomotor Performance, Semantics, Set (Psychology)",9,2,Albarracn,5096,University of Illinois,Albarracn,5096,University of Illinois,Voracek,6853,Stanford University,Voracek,6853,Stanford University,46,3.85,3.85,6.54,6.54,7,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.75,3,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,C Sonnleitner,10/13/14,1/9/15,J Cohoon,7,"F(2, 92) = 4.36",98,0.02,,,between ANOVA,interaction,"interaction of prime and task displaying the anticipated patterns; a greater number of thoughts were listed when participants were assigned to an action goal, rather than an inaction goal",__p^2 = 0.087,,105,136,165,Unavailable,165,0.95,4,F Cheung,"F(2, 99) = 2.601",105,0.085,same,,between ANOVA,interaction,no,0.82,__ = .049,J Matacotta,,1,https://osf.io/256xy/,PhD or equivalent,2003,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,324,310,6714,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,none,Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Not at all challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Personality,98,F,is,2,92,4.36,is,0.02,0.015520906,0.015520906,,0.208058463,109,F,is,2,103,2.601,is,0.0791,0.079067813,0.079067813,,0.155043132,,3x2 between ANOVA,two-way ANOVA,,1,0,1,92,103,,1,
51,The cost of lower self-esteem: Testing a self-and social-bonds model of health.,"DA Stinson, C Logel, MP Zanna, JG Holmes, JJ Cameron, JV Wood, SJ Spencer",JPSP,94,3,412-28,https://osf.io/wdhc5/,"Adolescent, Ego, Female, Health Status, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Models, Psychological, Self Concept, Social Behavior, Stress, Psychological [psychology], Students [psychology]",7,1,Stinson,403,University of Waterloo,Zanna,24873,University of Waterloo,Anderson,550,Schenectady County Community College,Anderson,550,Schenectady County Community College,83,2.98,2.98,1.43,1.43,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.16,3.67,1,1,0,,0,1,0,0,C Anderson,8/8/14,,J Cohoon,2,CI = -.63 to -.01,203,<.01,,,mediation analyses,confidence intervals,interpersonal stress and number of friends explains the associations between self esteem changes and health problems,X,,181,241,296,Complete,241,0.9,1,A Rutchick,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,PhD or equivalent,2002,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Some Expertise,6,5,588,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Moderately similar,"Recruitment of sample mostly from online sources rather than a classroom. Inclusion of students at more than one institution, therefore lack of communication among and common culture of participants.",Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Moderately challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,203,,is,,,,<,0.01,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
52,Affective incoherence: When affective concepts and embodied reactions clash.,"DB Centerbar, S Schnall, GL Clore, ED Garvin",JPSP,94,4,560-78,https://osf.io/l8srm/,"Affect, Attention, Comprehension, Concept Formation, Conflict (Psychology), Cues, Culture, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Mental Recall, Motivation, Reading, Retention (Psychology)",4,7,Centerbar,671,University of Massachusetts Medical School,Clore,25989,University of Virginia,Brown,23,Georgia Gwinnett College,Brown,23,Georgia Gwinnett College,35,2.91,4.36,1.42,1.42,5,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.12,3.25,4,4,0,0,0,1,1,0,B Brown,11/9/12,8/26/13,S Mackinnon,5,"F(1, 131) = 5.79",133,<.02,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,affective coherence (as opposed to affective incoherence) produced a linear increase in cognitive complexity across three participant-generated narratives,_^2 = -.04,,64,86,104,Complete,104,0.95,1,J Crusius,"F(1, 111) = .99",113,0.322,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,no,0.95,_2 = .014,M Penuliar,,1,https://osf.io/g29pw/,PhD or equivalent,2007,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Some Expertise,2,2,21,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Extremely similar,"The participants in the original study were college undergraduates from the University of Virginia, whereas our participants were also undergraduates from Georgia Gwinnett College. Unlike the University of Virginia, Georgia Gwinnett College is an open access institution with a diverse student population (in ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age, and preparedness of college). For example, the sample from UVA had an average age of 19.17 years. Our sample from GGC had an average age of 21.35 years.",Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Developmental,133,F,is,1,131,5.79,<,0.02,0.017513309,0.017513309,,0.20573686,113,F,is,1,111,0.99,is,0.322,0.321906461,0.321906461,,0.094021673,,repeated measures 2x3 ANOVA,repeated measures 2x3 ANOVA,,1,0,1,131,111,0.15627525,1,1
53,Individual differences in the regulation of intergroup bias: The role of conflict monitoring and neural signals for control.,"DM Amodio, PG Devine, E Harmon-Jones",JPSP,94,1,60-74,https://osf.io/wkgpq/,"African Americans, Analysis of Variance, Cognition, Conflict (Psychology), European Continental Ancestry Group, Evoked Potentials, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Inhibition (Psychology), Models, Psychological, Motivation, Neuropsychology, Prejudice, United States",3,3,Amodio,5439,NYU,Harmon-Jones,12887,Texas A&M University,Johnson,0,University of Southern California,Graham,3015,University of Southern California,136,5.19,3.45,4.05,4.05,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,Extreme expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4.67,3,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,J Graham,8/15/12,1/1/14,T Hayes,2,"F(1, 31) = 5.14",48,0.03,,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,"low-prejudice participants whose non-prejudiced responses were motivated by internal (but not external) factors exhibited better control on a stereotype-inhibition task than did participants motivated by a combination of internal and external factors, and that these group differences were specific to response control in the domain of prejudice",__p^2 = .16,0.99,14,18,20,Complete,20,0.95,1,C Pernet,"F(1, 73) = 0.432",75,0.513,same,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,no,0.99,__p^2 = 0.006,C Pernet,,1,https://osf.io/9gky5/,PhD or equivalent,2010,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,50,30,2909,was about the same quality as the original study,was better than the average study,Extremely similar,"sample, year of data collection",Slightly similar,Somewhat similar,Slightly challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,48,F,is,1,31,5.14,is,0.03,0.030503191,0.030503191,,0.377126878,75,F,is,1,73,0.432,is,0.513,0.513076239,0.513076239,,0.076700677,,mixed 2x2 ANOVA,mixed 2x2 ANOVA,,1,0,1,31,73,0.170926407,0,0
54,Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures.,"DP Schmitt, A Realo, M Voracek, J Allik",JPSP,94,1,168-82,,"Biological Evolution, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Female, Gender Identity, Humans, Male, Personality [genetics], Psychological Theory, Sex, Social Conditions, Social Values, Socioeconomic Factors, Women's Rights",4,,Schmitt,,,,,,,,,,,,431,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,"F(5, 35) = 8.42",41,0.00003,,,multiple regression,variance explained,4 predictors combined with HDI explain a majority of the variance in cross-cultural sex differences in personality,R = .74,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,41,F,is,5,35,8.42,is,0.00003,2.62E-05,2.62E-05,,0.330467577,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
55,Left frontal cortical activation and spreading of alternatives: Tests of the action-based model of dissonance.,"E Harmon-Jones, C Harmon-Jones, M Fearn, JD Sigelman, P Johnson",JPSP,94,1,15-Jan,https://osf.io/su6bm/,"Analysis of Variance, Attitude, Biofeedback, Psychology, Brain Mapping, Cognitive Dissonance, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Prefrontal Cortex [physiology]",5,2,Harmon-Jones,12887,Texas A&M University,Harmon-Jones,12887,Texas A&M University,Gable,1296,University of Alabama,Gable,1296,University of Alabama,103,3.45,3.45,2.91,2.91,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,Extreme expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.5,3.75,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,P Gable,7/25/14,1/10/15,M Kidwell,2,"F(2, 54) = 3.19",57,<.05,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,"action-oriented mindset resulted in attitude changes from pre- to post-decision to both chosen and rejected alternatives, while the positive-nonaction and neutral mindsets only resulted in changes in the rejected alternative",__p^2 = 0.11,0.84,84,108,132,Complete,108,0.9,1,B Kleinberg,"F(2, 68) = .3",71,0.74,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,no,0.7,__p^2 = 0.01,M van Assen,,1,https://osf.io/79ctv/,PhD or equivalent,2010,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,High Expertise,38,32,1268,was of slightly lower quality than the original study,was slightly worse than the average study,Moderately similar,"One difference between the original and replication is that the replication needed to rely on multiple experimenters instead of a single experimenter. Based on personal communication with the original author, the original study was most likely conducted using a single female experimenter in order to reduce variance introduced by multiple experimenters. Because of the required sample size and time constraints of the replication project, it was necessary to use five female experimenters.",Moderately similar,Moderately similar,Extremely challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,57,F,is,2,54,3.19,<,0.05,0.049036287,0.049036287,,0.229852265,71,F,is,2,68,0.3,is,0.74,0.741793627,0.741793627,,0.066130007,,3x2x2 within participants ANOVA,ANOVA,,1,0,1,54,68,,1,
56,A social functional approach to emotions in bargaining: when communicating anger pays and when it backfires.,"E van Dijk, GA van Kleef, W Steinel, I van Beest",JPSP,94,4,600-14,https://osf.io/xtsq6/,"Adult, Anger, Communication, Deception, Dominance-Subordination, Emotions, Fear, Female, Goals, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Motivation, Negotiating, Power (Psychology), Rejection (Psychology)",4,2,van Dijk,4910,Leiden University,van Dijk,4910,Leiden University,Voracek,6853,University of Vienna,Voracek,6853,University of Vienna,97,2.6,2.6,2.51,2.51,3,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3,3.67,0,0,0,0,0,5,1,0,A Slowik,10/13/14,1/11/15,J Cohoon,3,"F(1, 99) = 16.62",103,<.0001,,,ANOVA,main effect,"when consequences of rejection are low, do participants make lower offers to angry recipients than happy ones?",__p^2 = 0.1433,,49,65,80,Complete,103,0.98,2,F Cheung,t(38) = -0.260,83,0.796,opposite,2,t-test,main effect,no,0.95,d=0.082,J Matacotta,,1,https://osf.io/cxwev/,PhD or equivalent,2003,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,324,310,6714,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,"The sample consisted mainly of students, who participated voluntarily (as in the original study). We conducted the study in Austria, so Materials were in German - not in Dutch. We were provided with an English version by the original author. In our replication only 4 participants, participated simultaneously. In the original study there were groups of 8 participants. Moreover we had dummy participants (a total of 13), who came in, if a participant who signed up wouldnŠt show up on time. We didnŠt have a lab with closed cubicles as in the original study (Cubicles didnŠt have a back door). In the original study participants typed their offer after the instruction was presented on the screen and additionally were asked to write their offer on a sheet of paper that allegedly was given to the connected participant. The original author suggested to drop this second step.",Not at all similar,Very similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Personality,103,F,is,1,99,16.62,<,0.0001,9.23E-05,9.23E-05,,0.379139495,83,t,is,1,38,-0.26,is,0.796,0.796267394,0.796267394,,-0.042140104,,ANOVA,t-test,,1,0,1,99,38,0.278127509,0,1
57,I want to be creative: exploring the role of hedonic contingency theory in the positive mood-cognitive flexibility link,"ER Hirt, EE Devers, SM McCrea",JPSP,94,2,214-30,,"Adult, Affect, Cognition, Creativeness, Female, Humans, Male, Psychological Theory",3,2,Hirt,1600,Indiana University,Hirt,1600,Indiana University,Chu,0,Green Neuro Lab,Lam,0,Green Neuro Lab,105,3.53,3.53,,,3,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,Slightly surprising,Somewhat exciting and important,0,,0,,0,1,0,0,P Chu,1/31/14,,J Cohoon,3,t(53) = -2.20,55,0.032,,2,independent samples t-test,main effect,"""participants in the happy mood-freezing condition gave significantly less creative responses on average than those in the happy nonmood-freezing condition""",d = -0.593,,90,118,146,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,55,t,is,1,53,-2.2,is,0.032,0.032188467,0.032188467,,0.289273426,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
58,Walking on eggshells: How expressing relationship insecurities perpetuates them.,"EP Lemay, MS Clark",JPSP,95,2,420-41,https://osf.io/ke43j/,"Adult, Affect, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Models, Psychological, Object Attachment, Questionnaires, Rejection (Psychology), Self Concept, Sexual Partners [psychology], Social Desirability, Social Perception, Spouses [psychology]",2,1,Lemay,986,Yale University,Clark,12819,Yale University,Baranski,0,UC Riverside,Baranski,0,UC Riverside,40,6.56,6.56,3.17,3.17,5,Social,1,Collected themselves,Strong expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.33,2.67,4,4,0,0,0,1,1,0,E Baranski,7/15/14,12/20/14,M Kidwell,5,"F(1, 182) = 5.24",186,<.05,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,"participants believed that the confederates expressions were happier than their private feelings, more so in the vulnerable condition than in the control conditions",__p^2 = 0.028,,278,370,456,Complete,300,0.85,9,G Nilsonne,"F(1, 278) = .376",280,0.54,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,no,0.86,__p^2 = .001,L Lazarevic,,1,https://osf.io/nhsdq/,Some graduate school,2011,PhD student,Slight Expertise,No Expertise,0,0,0,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,none,Somewhat similar,Very similar,Very challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Personality,186,F,is,1,182,5.24,<,0.05,0.023221684,0.023221684,,0.167288593,280,F,is,1,278,0.376,is,0.54,0.540253118,0.540253118,,0.03675175,,ANOVA,repeated measures 2x2 ANOVA,,1,0,1,182,278,0.088976761,0,0
59,How the head liberates the heart: Projection of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion.,"EP Lemay, MS Clark",JPSP,94,4,647-71,https://osf.io/h84qd/,"Adolescent, Adult, Communication, Data Collection, Female, Friends [psychology], Humans, Internet, Interpersonal Relations, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Marriage, Middle Aged, Projection, Questionnaires, Self Concept, Social Support, Spouses [psychology]",2,3,Lemay,986,Yale University,Clark,12819,Yale University,Marigold,409,University of Waterloo,Marigold,409,University of Waterloo,66,6.56,6.56,2.98,2.98,5,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2,3,4,4,0,0,0,1,1,0,D Marigold,7/22/14,2/19/15,J Cohoon,5,b = .68,153,<.001,,2,multilevel model,regression,participants own responsiveness was a significant predictor of their perception of their partners' responsiveness,level 1 R2 = .68,,60,90,120,Complete,153,0.99,9,B Kleinberg,b=.70,216,0.0001,same,,multilevel model,regression,yes,0.99,b=.72,J Matacotta,,1,https://osf.io/wb4vd/,PhD or equivalent,2008,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Moderate Expertise,7,6,407,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,Different sample. Ours was primarily psychology undergraduates.,Virtually identical,Extremely similar,Moderately challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,153,b,is,,,0.68,<,0.001,NA,,,NA,216,b,is,,,0.72,is,0.001,,,,,,multilevel model,multilevel model,,1,1,0,153,216,,,
60,Unraveling the role of forgiveness in family relationships.,"GR Maio, G Thomas, FD Fincham, KB Carnelley",JPSP,94,2,307-19,,"Adolescent, Adult, Attitude, Cross-Sectional Studies, Family [psychology], Family Relations, Female, Humans, Male, Persuasive Communication, Social Behavior",4,,Maio,,,,,,,,,,,,53,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,T = 1.97,342,<.05,,,Wilcoxon's signed-rank test for matched pairs,main effect,the set of obtained associations (as standardized betas) with forgiveness over time in the parent-to-parent relationship was significantly stronger than the same associations with forgiveness over time in the parent-to-child relationship,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,342,T,is,,,0.97,<,0.05,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
61,Poignancy: Mixed emotional experience in the face of meaningful endings.,"H Ersner-Hershfield, JA Mikels, SJ Sullivan, LL Carstensen",JPSP,94,1,158-67,https://osf.io/sq8k9/,"Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aging [psychology], Analysis of Variance, Emotions, Female, Human Development, Humans, Imagination, Male, United States",4,3,Ersner-Hershfield,919,Stanford University,Carstensen,21330,Stanford University,Talhelm,31,University of Virginia,Talhelm,31,University of Virginia,80,6.54,6.54,4.36,4.36,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Strong opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2,2.75,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,T Talhelm,1/1/12,8/1/14,T Talhelm,2,t(108) = -2.34,110,<.05,,2,independent-samples t-test,main effect,significant difference between the extent of mixed emotions reported by graduates reminded that they were experiencing their last day as students versus graduates who were not reminded.,d = .45,0.65,158,210,260,Complete,210,0.9,1,X,t(220) = 0.07,222,0.94,opposite,2,independent-samples t-test,main effect,no,0.99,d = -.01,W Vanpaemel,,1,https://osf.io/qedt9/,PhD or equivalent,2015,PhD student,Slight Expertise,Slight Expertise,9,7,165,was of slightly lower quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,"The biggest difference was that we approached graduating seniors BEFORE their graduation ceremony, whereas the original authors did so AFTER the ceremony. We did not discover this difference until afterwards.",Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Moderately challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,110,t,is,1,108,-2.34,<,0.05,0.021121432,0.021121432,,0.219666896,222,t,is,1,220,0.07,is,0.94,0.944257246,0.944257246,,-0.004719346,,independent-samples t-test,independent-samples t-test,,1,0,1,108,220,0.070123335,0,0
62,Culture and the cognitive and neuroendocrine responses to speech.,HS Kim,JPSP,94,1,32-47,,"Analysis of Variance, Asian Americans [psychology], Asian Continental Ancestry Group [psychology], Cognition [physiology], Cross-Cultural Comparison, European Continental Ancestry Group [psychology], Far East [ethnology], Female, Games, Experimental, Humans, Hydrocortisone [metabolism], Male, Problem Solving [physiology], Reaction Time, Saliva [metabolism], Speech [physiology], Stress, Psychological [ethnology], United States",1,,Kim,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,3,"F(3, 42) = 2.9",47,0.04,,,ANCOVA,interaction,"East Asian Americans have higher cortisol levels in the talking condition than in the silence condition, while European Americans have comparable or lower cortisol levels in the talking condition vs the silence condition",__p^2 = .07,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,47,F,is,3,42,2.9,is,0.04,0.046042837,0.046042837,,0.239163565,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
63,1/f noise and effort on implicit measures of bias.,J Correll,JPSP,94,1,48-59,https://osf.io/fejxb/,"African Americans, Behavioral Research [statistics & numerical data], Bias (Epidemiology), European Continental Ancestry Group [psychology], Fourier Analysis, Humans, Prejudice, Reaction Time, Regression Analysis, Stereotyping",1,1,Correll,2379,University of Chicago,Correll,2379,University of Chicago,LeBel,839,Western University,LeBel,839,Western University,42,4.71,4.71,1.99,1.99,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.5,4.25,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,E LeBel,1/1/12,10/20/12,E LeBel,2,"F(1, 68) = 5.52",71,<.02,,,between ANOVA using planned orthogonal contrasts,contrast,participants instructed to use race and avoid race exhibited less 1/f noise (as reflected in PSD slopes) than participants in the control condition,d=.56,,126,168,207,Complete,144,0.85,1,M Brandt,"F(1,145) = .794",148,0.374,same,,between ANOVA using planned orthogonal contrasts,contrast,no,0.86,d = .16,F Bosco,,1,https://osf.io/476wy/,PhD or equivalent,2011,Post-doc or Research Scientist,High Expertise,High Expertise,22,22,830,was of much higher quality than the original study,was much better than the average study,Extremely similar,Nationality of sample (Canadian undergraduates rather than American undergraduates),Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Slightly challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,71,F,is,1,68,5.52,<,0.02,0.021711499,0.021711499,,0.274010238,148,F,is,1,145,0.794,is,0.374,0.374369532,0.374369532,,0.073797292,,between ANOVA using planned orthogonal contrasts,between ANOVA using planned orthogonal contrasts,,1,0,1,68,145,0.139744999,0,1
64,The effect of global versus local processing styles on assimilation versus contrast in social judgment.,"J F_rster, N Liberman, S Kuschel",JPSP,94,4,579-99,https://osf.io/mxryb/,"Association Learning, Attention, Concept Formation, Dominance, Cerebral, Female, Field Dependence-Independence, Generalization (Psychology), Gestalt Theory, Humans, Judgment, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Self Concept, Social Identification, Social Perception, Time Perception",3,1,F_rster,7354,University of Amsterdam,Liberman,12768,Tel Aviv University,Reinhard,49,University of Virginia,Reinhard,49,University of Virginia,113,3.43,2.95,4.36,4.36,5,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3,3,4,4,0,0,0,1,1,0,D Reinhard,8/15/14,1/6/15,J Cohoon,1,"F(2, 76) = 21.57",82,<.0001,,,ANOVA,interaction,processing style (global versus local versus control) did influence the impact of the prime (agressive versus neutral) on participants ratings of Johns behavior (how agressive),__p^2 = .362,,21,27,31,Complete,128,0.95,2,B Kleinberg,"F(2, 65) = 0.865",71,0.426,same,,ANOVA,interaction,no,0.99,__p^2 = 0.0259,L Lazarevic,,1,https://osf.io/h2r9c/,Master's degree or equivalent,2014,PhD student,Some Expertise,Some Expertise,4,4,45,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,We used different stimuli to induce the cognitive processing style.,Slightly similar,Slightly similar,Moderately challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,82,F,is,2,76,21.57,<,0.0001,3.81E-08,3.81E-08,,0.425496777,71,F,is,2,65,0.865,is,0.426,0.425841059,0.425841059,,0.11385379,,ANOVA,ANOVA,,1,0,1,76,65,,0,
65,Not so innocent: Does seeing one's own capacity for wrongdoing predict forgiveness?,"JJ Exline, RF Baumeister, AL Zell, AJ Kraft, CV Witvliet",JPSP,94,3,495-515,https://osf.io/imrx2/,"Adolescent, Adult, Anger [physiology], Attitude, Empathy, Female, Group Processes, Guilt, Humans, Individuality, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Mental Recall [physiology], Motivation, Sex Factors, Social Behavior, Social Perception, Students [psychology]",5,2,Exline,3624,Case Western Reserve University,Baumeister,84112,Florida State University,Lin,0,Stanford University,Frank,1965,Stanford University,81,2.68,3.66,6.54,6.54,7,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.6,4,3,3,0,0,0,3,1,0,S Lin,1/1/12,5/10/12,M Frank,7,"F(1, 41) = 9.40",45,<.01,,,ANOVA,interaction,subtle priming (simply asking participants questions about their empathic understanding and personal capability of similar transgressions) can reduce mens feelings of vengefulness (but not women's),__p^2 = .186,,37,48,59,Complete,140,0.99,1,S Gripshover,"F(1, 131)=.018",135,0.89,same,,ANOVA,interaction,no,0.99,__p^2= .001,S Koleva,,1,https://osf.io/jfigk/,PhD or equivalent,2010,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Some Expertise,80,32,1995,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,The population was more asian/asian-american. ,Somewhat similar,Moderately similar,Not at all challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Developmental,45,F,is,1,41,9.4,<,0.01,0.003830676,0.003830676,,0.431865646,135,F,is,1,131,0.018,is,0.89,0.893478732,0.893478732,,0.011721165,,2x2 ANOVA,2x2 ANOVA,,1,0,1,41,131,0.117713724,0,0
66,Not so innocent: Does seeing one's own capacity for wrongdoing predict forgiveness?,"JJ Exline, RF Baumeister, AL Zell, AJ Kraft, CV Witvliet",JPSP,94,3,495-515,https://osf.io/imrx2/,"Adolescent, Adult, Anger [physiology], Attitude, Empathy, Female, Group Processes, Guilt, Humans, Individuality, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Mental Recall [physiology], Motivation, Sex Factors, Social Behavior, Social Perception, Students [psychology]",5,,Exline,3624,Case Western Reserve University,Baumeister,84112,Florida State University,,,,,,,81,2.68,3.66,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,,,,,,,,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
67,"Benevolent cognitions as a strategy of relationship maintenance:"" Don't sweat the small stuff"".... But it is not all small stuff.","JK McNulty, EM O'Mara, BR Karney",JPSP,94,4,631-46,,"Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Attitude, Beneficence, Cognition, Female, Humans, Illusions, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Marriage [psychology], Personal Satisfaction, Problem Solving",3,,McNulty,,,,,,,,,,,,94,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,"X^2(1, N=251) = 3.16",251,0.07,,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,interaction,attributions and problems everity predicted initial satisfaction marginally more strongly on the QMI for wives than for husbands,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,251,Chi2,is,1,,3.16,is,0.07,0.075463183,0.075463183,,0.112203571,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
68,Why people are reluctant to tempt fate.,"JL Risen, T Gilovich",JPSP,95,2,293-307,https://osf.io/sg3su/,"Culture, Female, Humans, Intuition, Judgment, Male, Motivation, Negativism, Probability, Social Environment",2,2,Risen,795,University of Chicago,Gilovich,16229,Cornell University,Mathur,55,Stanford University,Frank,1965,Stanford University,59,4.71,5.56,6.54,6.54,6,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4,5.33,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,M Mathur,1/1/12,3/15/12,M Mathur,6,"F(1, 116) = 4.15",122,<.05,,,ANOVA,interaction,"significant interaction between behavior and load, such that the presence of cognitive load increased the effect of tempting fate vs. not",__p^2 = 0.035,,230,300,400,Complete,230,0.8,2,M Frank,"F(1, 222) = 0.002",226,0.961,same,,ANOVA,interaction,No,0.8,__p^2= .000,M Frank,,1,https://osf.io/itc9q/,PhD or equivalent,2010,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Slight Expertise,80,32,1995,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Somewhat similar,"The main differences from the original study are in the sampling frame (Turkers rather than undergraduates) and questionnaire administration (online rather than on paper). The original questionnaire wording and format will be replicated exactly. The authors raised the concern that the scenario given in the questionnaire (about to being in a lecture class) may be more relatable to undergraduates than to other, non-student demographics. If so, theoretically, the effect of tempting fate could be attenuated. Potentially, also, our subjects could exhibit floor or ceiling effects not seen in the original sample if they perceive a substantially lower or higher baseline probability of being called on in class. An additional problem suggested by the authors is the possibility that an online environment may not allow adequate control of cognitive load, since participants are likely to have more environmental distractions than they would in a traditional lab setting. Rand (2011) echo this concern in a review on the strengths and limitations of using crowdsourcing for psychology research.",Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Not at all challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Developmental,122,F,is,1,116,4.15,<,0.05,0.043910406,0.043910406,,0.185849827,226,F,is,1,222,0.002,is,0.961,0.964369609,0.964369609,,0.003001488,,2x2 ANOVA,ANOVA,,1,0,1,116,222,0.066331436,0,0
69,The nonverbal expression of pride: Evidence for cross-cultural recognition.,"JL Tracy, RW Robins",JPSP,94,3,516-30,https://osf.io/qthf2/,"Adult, Affect [physiology], Africa, Western, Aged, Anger [physiology], Cross-Cultural Comparison, Emotions [physiology], Ethnic Groups [psychology], Facial Expression, Fear [psychology], Female, Happiness, Humans, Italy, Male, Middle Aged, Nonverbal Communication [psychology], Recognition (Psychology) [physiology], Self Concept, Shame, Social Behavior, Students, United States",2,1,Tracy,4719,University of British Columbia,Robins,16532,UC Davis,Sullivan,271,Coventry University,Sullivan,271,Coventry University,131,3.67,3.83,1.92,1.92,4,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.6,3.4,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,G Sullivan,6/3/14,1/27/15,J Cohoon,4,X,211,<.05,,2,binomial test,binomial test,"participants recognized conveyed emotions as pride at an above chance level, no matter what culture the target represented",Av. Proportion = 0.78,,96,114,150,Complete,211,0.99,1,B Kleinberg,X,333,0.05,same,2,binomial test,binomial test,yes,0.99,Av. proportion 0.77,C Christopherson,,1,https://osf.io/k7huw/,PhD or equivalent,2000,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Some Expertise,60,45,264,was of moderately higher quality than the original study,was better than the average study,Moderately similar,"Our sample had many more international than local caucasian students from the United Kingdom. This meant greater cultural diversity as we had caucasian, asian, african and arabic participants. Consideration of the ethnic group of the participants in the design of a future study could address issues such as whether particular ethnic groups not only recognize but evaluate the expressions labelled as pride by Tracy and Robins (and recognised by an American student sample) as pride and not arrogance or contempt (or happiness/self-satisfaction). The other key variation was that we presented the experiment materials on a desktop computer screen rather than using a large projector onto a screen. Once identified participants could move to the next image rather than be required to watch each static image for 30 seconds (which may have been done because the images were presented to groups by Tracy & Robins?). The size of image may have made specific differences slightly more difficult to judge. However, many people are used to judging emotions and recognizing them reading online newspapers, for example. It also wasn't clear from the Tracy and Robins (2008) study 4 whether they presented the images on the projector to random groups (e.g., in a lab class type setting) rather than individuals. If the former was the case, then our study has the advantage of randomizing order and target ethnicity and gender to individuals rather than blocks of participants.",Virtually identical,Moderately similar,Moderately challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,2,No data used was pre-existing,Social,211,Chi,,,,,<,0.05,0.000001,0.000001,,NA,333,Chi,,333,,,is,0.05,0.000001,0.000001,,,,binomial test,binomial test,,1,1,1,211,333,,,
70,Does depression interfere with effort mobilization? Effects of dysphoria and task difficulty on cardiovascular response.,"K Brinkmann, GH Gendolla",JPSP,94,1,146-57,,"Adult, Analysis of Variance, Arousal, Attention, Blood Pressure, Depression [physiopathology], Efficiency, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Memory, Motivation, Reaction Time",2,,Brinkmann,,,,,,,,,,,,46,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,2,"F(1, 60) = 5.17",64,<.03,,,ANOVA,interaction,interaction between dysphoria and task difficulty on systolic blood pressure: dysphoric participants had higher SPB activity in the easy task condition and lower SPB activity in the difficult task condition as compared to the nondysphoric participants.,__p^2 = .077,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,64,F,is,1,60,5.17,<,0.03,0.026571937,0.026571937,,0.281657559,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
71,On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability.,"KE Stanovich, RF West",JPSP,94,4,672-95,https://osf.io/7ux8p/,"Adolescent, Adult, Aptitude, Cognition, Culture, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Probability Learning, Problem Solving, Thinking",2,1,Stanovich,44032,University of Toronto,Stanovich,44032,University of Toronto,Baranski,0,UC Riverside,Baranski,0,UC Riverside,291,3.82,3.82,3.17,3.17,8,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.71,3,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,E Baranski,7/15/14,1/9/15,J Cohoon,8,t(373) = 4.40,375,<.001,,2,independent samples t-test,main effect,participants who answered correctly were more often of higher cognitive ability (measured via SAT scores) and those participants who answered incorrectly were more often of lower cognitive ability,d = 0.493,,132,176,216,No response,216,0.95,9,G Nilsonne,t(175) = .973,177,0.332,same,2,independent samples t-test,main effect,no,0.9,d = 0.15,J Hodsoll,,1,https://osf.io/jv4tw/,Some graduate school,2011,PhD student,Slight Expertise,Some Expertise,0,0,0,was of moderately lower quality than the original study,was slightly worse than the average study,Moderately similar,"The original authors asked participants to report their math, verbal and total SAT scores separately whereas the replication authors only asked for the participants' total SAT score. Because of the various versions of the test, participants may be reporting total scores off different scales. The switch from a 1800 scale scale to a 2400 point scale of the SAT occurred in 2005 and so it is highly unlikely that any of the participants took the exam on a 1800 point scale. Indeed, there was only 2 participants who were old enough to possibly have taken the 2400 point version.",Somewhat similar,Moderately similar,Slightly challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Personality,375,t,is,1,373,4.4,<,0.001,1.41E-05,1.41E-05,,0.222131584,177,t,is,1,175,0.973,is,0.332,0.331896286,0.331896286,,0.073353737,,independent samples t-test,t-test,,1,0,1,373,175,0.177326523,0,1
72,Opening the mind to close it: Considering a message in light of important values increases message processing and later resistance to change.,"KL Blankenship, DT Wegener",JPSP,94,2,196-213,https://osf.io/2gx4k/,"Attitude, Cognition, Humans, Mental Processes, Persuasive Communication, Thinking",2,1,Blankenship,377,"CSU, Fresno",Wegener,12699,Purdue University,Lemm,377,Western Washington University,Lemm,377,Western Washington University,37,2.46,4.43,1.89,1.89,6,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.32,3.18,5,5,3,3,0,1,1,0,K Lemm,1/1/12,6/6/12,K Lemm,5a,"F(1, 257) = 11.58",261,0.002,,,ANOVA,interaction,interaction between value importance and argument quality on attitude: people who focus on important values in persuasive messages are more sensitive to argument quality compared to people who focus on unimportant values.,__p^2 = .042,,177,236,292,Complete,236,0.9,9,G Sandstrom,"F(1, 247) = .49",251,0.49,same,,ANOVA,interaction,no,0.92,__p^2 = .002,G Sandstrom,,1,https://osf.io/4vuhw/,PhD or equivalent,2000,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Some Expertise,14,9,206,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Extremely similar,"The study concerns a fictitious country petitioning to join the European Union. Data for the original study were collected in the mid-2000s when the European economy was strong and many countries were interested in joining the EU. Data for the replication study were collected in 2012, when the EU economy was faltering. Participants who follow world news may have thought it strange or unrealistic that a small country would be trying to join the EU at that time. To determine whether awareness of the EU economic situation might influence the results, I added a brief survey at the end of the study, after all measures from the original study were completed. Reported knowledge of the EU economy did not moderate any of the reported effects in the replication.",Slightly similar,Moderately similar,Not at all challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,261,F,is,1,257,11.58,is,0.002,0.000773087,0.000773087,,0.207643072,251,F,is,1,247,0.49,is,0.49,0.48458607,0.48458607,,0.04449582,,2x2 ANOVA,2x2 ANOVA,,1,0,1,257,247,0.129271284,0,1
73,Distinguishing between silent and vocal minorities: Not all deviants feel marginal.,"KR Morrison, DT Miller",JPSP,94,5,871-82,https://osf.io/nhwv5/,"Conflict (Psychology), Culture, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Individuality, Male, Motivation, Personal Satisfaction, Social Conformity, Social Dominance, Social Identification",2,1,Morrison,550,Stanford University,Miller,10520,Stanford University,Motyl,641,University of Virginia,Motyl,641,University of Virginia,25,6.54,6.54,4.36,4.36,3,Social,6,Some of both,Slight expertise required,Strong opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,1.33,2.33,2,2,0,0,0,1,1,0,M Motyl,8/15/12,12/23/14,M Motyl,3,"X^2(1, N=37) = 3.85",37,<.05,,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,main effect,bumper stickers representing descriptive deviants were more popular than bumper stickers representing prescriptive deviants,cramer's v = .322,0.499,87,117,145,Complete,145,0.95,1,R Giner-Sorolla,"X^2(1, N=120) = 4.80",120,0.028,same,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,main effect,yes,0.9,phi = .20,J Hodsoll,,1,https://osf.io/hau4p/,PhD or equivalent,2014,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),High Expertise,Moderate Expertise,40,20,616,was about the same quality as the original study,was better than the average study,Very similar,"We collected data in a state with very different political leanings than the original study... and, we collected data in different types of communities.",Very similar,Very similar,Not at all challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,4,No data used was pre-existing,Social,37,Chi2,is,1,,3.85,<,0.05,0.049745991,0.049745991,,0.322574106,120,Chi2,is,1,,4.8,is,0.028,0.028459737,0.028459737,,0.2,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,Chi Square,,1,1,1,37,120,,1,
74,"Personality as manifest in word use: Correlations with self-report, acquaintance report, and behavior.","LA Fast, DC Funder",JPSP,94,2,334-46,,"Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Language, Male, Personality, Self Concept, Social Behavior, Social Perception, Verbal Behavior",3,,Fast,,,,,,,,,,,,110,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,X,X,181,X,,,correlation,correlation,X,X,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,181,,,,,,,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
75,"Every time you go away: Changes in affect, behavior, and physiology associated with travel-related separations from romantic partners.","LM Diamond, AM Hicks, KD Otter-Henderson",JPSP,95,2,385-403,,"Adaptation, Psychological [physiology], Adult, Affect [physiology], Anxiety, Separation, Behavior [physiology], Circadian Rhythm [physiology], Emotions [physiology], Family Characteristics, Female, Humans, Hydrocortisone [metabolism], Interpersonal Relations, Love, Male, Middle Aged, Object Attachment, Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological [complications], Travel",5,,Diamond,,,,,,,,,,,,107,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,beta = 0.12,42 couples,<.05,,,"linear regression, beta coefficient",beta correlation,"during the separation episode itself, higher levels of anxiety were associated with higher levels of cortisol",_ = 0.12,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,42,b,is,,,0.12,<,0.05,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
76,Modeling support provision in intimate relationships.,"M Iida, G Seidman, PE Shrout, K Fujita, N Bolger",JPSP,94,3,460-78,,"Adaptation, Psychological [physiology], Adult, Affect [physiology], Emotions [physiology], Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Love, Male, Models, Psychological, Self Disclosure, Sex Factors, Sexual Partners [psychology], Social Support, Stress, Psychological [psychology]",5,,Iida,,,,,,,,,,,,76,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,2,t(195) = 4.64,196,<.01,,,dependent samples t-test,main effect,recipients' morning anxiety predicted an increase in the likelihood of support provision,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,196,t,is,1,195,4.64,<,0.01,6.38E-06,6.38E-06,,0.315325682,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
77,Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un) accomplished goal actions affect motivation.,"M Koo, A Fishbach",JPSP,94,2,183-95,https://osf.io/nr7d9/,"Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Attitude, Charities [economics], Female, Fund Raising [ethics], Goals, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Social Control, Informal",2,1,Koo,283,University of Chicago,Fishbach,4272,University of Chicago,Kidwell,0,Center for Open Science,Dodson,1,University of Virginia,124,4.71,4.71,4.36,4.36,4,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4.33,4.67,3,3,0,0,0,1,1,0,M Kidwell,7/8/14,3/3/15,J Cohoon,4,"F(1, 242) = 10.47",246,<.01,,,ANOVA,interaction,"emphasizing ""to-date"" information to people who have not donated money to a cause and emphasizing ""to-go"" information for people who have donated money will increase donations to an HIV/AIDS initiative",__p^2 = 0.041,,184,245,303,Complete,246,0.9,1,B Lassetter,_ hat = 0.4695,768703,0.758,opposite,,logistic regression,interaction,no,0.99,OR = 0.159,,Logistic regression was used due to lack of usable data,1,https://osf.io/p5i9j/,Master's degree or equivalent,2012,PhD student,Some Expertise,Moderate expertise,1,0,,was about the same quality as the original study,was worse than the average study,Virtually identical,"We collected data using a different charitable organization than the original, as requested by the original author",Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Not at all challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,246,F,is,1,242,10.47,<,0.01,0.001382678,0.001382678,,0.203642514,768703,beta,is,,,0.4695,is,0.758,,0.758,,,,ANOVA,zero-inflated model,,1,0,,242,,,,
78,"Integrating dispositions, signatures, and the interpersonal domain.","MA Fournier, DS Moskowitz, DC Zuroff",JPSP,94,3,531-45,,"Adult, Affect [physiology], Aged, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Personality [physiology], Self Disclosure, Social Behavior, Social Perception",3,,Fournier,,,,,,,,,,,,99,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,** stability estimate = .24,50,<.01,,two,one sample t-test,main effect,the behavioral signature was shown to be a moderately stable facet of personality organization dominance had the lowest of the four significant stability estimates,,,42,56,68,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,50,,is,,,0.24,<,0.01,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
79,Neurocognitive underpinnings of face perception: Further evidence of distinct person and group perception processes.,"MA Z_rate, CJ Stoever, MK MacLin, CJ Arms-Chavez",JPSP,94,1,108-15,https://osf.io/rt34x/,"African Americans, Cognitive Science, Face, Female, Functional Laterality, Group Processes, Hispanic Americans, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Reaction Time, Social Perception, Stereotyping, United States",4,1,Z_rate,1549,"University of Texas, El Paso",Z_rate,1549,"University of Texas, El Paso",Rutchick,293,"California State University, Northridge",Rutchick,293,"California State University, Northridge",11,2.3,2.3,2.37,2.37,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4,2.71,0,,0,,0,2,0,0,A Rutchick,8/22/12,,M Kidwell,1,"F(1,61) = 4.34",63,0.0413,,,2x2x2x2x2 ANOVA,interaction,"""for trained African American targets, responses were slower in the left hemisphere condition than in the right hemisphere condition""",f(U) = 0.266,,28,35,41,,188,0.99,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,63,F,is,1,61,4.34,is,0.0413,0.041425181,0.041425181,,0.257724259,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
80,The effects of an implemental mind-set on attitude strength.,"MD Henderson, Y de Liver, PM Gollwitzer",JPSP,94,3,396-411,https://osf.io/79dey/,"Adult, Attitude, Behavior [physiology], Decision Making [physiology], Female, Goals, Humans, Self Concept, Set (Psychology), Students [psychology], Task Performance and Analysis",3,2,Henderson,879,University of Chicago,Gollwitzer,23373,NYU,Lane,633,Bard College,Lane,633,Bard College,27,4.71,5.19,2.5,2.5,5,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3,3,3,3,0,0,0,1,1,0,K Lane,1/1/12,10/1/13,K Lane,5,"F(2, 43) = 3.36",46,<.05,,,ANOVA,main effect,participants in the one-sided focus condition had less ambivalence than participants in the two-sided focus condition.,__p^2 = 0.135,,63,69,90,Complete,63,0.8,1,K Lemm,"F (2, 67) = 1.70",70,0.19,same,,ANOVA,main effect,no,0.84,_^2 = .048,M Cohn,Exclusion criteria in the original study yielded a sample of 70 participants with usable data.,1,https://osf.io/b2ejv/,PhD or equivalent,2006,Associate Professor (or equivalent),High Expertise,Some Expertise,11,3,715,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly worse than the average study,Somewhat similar,"The sample. Although both studies used college populations, they differed greatly in baseline measures of attitude strength (as reflected by the mean in the control condition).",Somewhat similar,Somewhat similar,Not at all challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,46,F,is,2,43,3.36,<,0.05,0.044070981,0.044070981,,0.259958534,70,F,is,2,67,1.7,is,0.19,0.190467907,0.190467907,,0.15539539,,ANOVA,one-way ANOVA,,1,0,1,43,67,,1,
81,A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation.,"N Shnabel, A Nadler",JPSP,94,1,116-32,https://osf.io/xse7q/,"Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Conflict (Psychology), Cooperative Behavior, Emotions, Female, Humans, Israel, Male, Models, Psychological, Negotiating, Power (Psychology), Role, Social Perception",2,1,Shnabel,506,Tel Aviv University,Nadler,4609,Tel Aviv University,Gilbert,0,Harvard University,Gilbert,0,Harvard University,138,2.95,2.95,6.74,6.74,4,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2,3.33,2,2,0,0,0,1,1,0,E Gilbert,1/1/12,1/1/14,E Gilbert,4,"F(1, 90) = 6.98",94,<.05,,,between ANOVA,interaction,"message x role interaction in after condition; participants in the perpetrator condition would indicate a need for social acceptance and be more likely to reconcile after their sense of moral acceptance was restored, whereas participant in the victim condition would indicate a need for power and would be more likely to reconcile after their sense of power was restored",__p2 = .07,,107,142,175,Complete,107,0.8,2,C Lai,"F(1, 137) = 1.43",141,0.235,opposite,,between ANOVA,interaction,no,0.89,__p^2 = .010,A Aarts,,1,https://osf.io/5bwva/,Master's degree or equivalent,2012,PhD student,Slight Expertise,High Expertise,7,3,5,was of slightly lower quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"Materials - the study vignette was edited to be more applicable to younger, American participants (rather than slightly older Israeli participants). The revised materials may not have had the same psychological effect as the original materials. Age and nationality also may have mattered, since the original study had older participants from Israel who may have had more experience thinking about conflict.",Not at all similar,Very similar,Slightly challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,94,F,is,1,90,6.98,<,0.05,0.009719762,0.009719762,,0.268278965,141,F,is,1,137,1.43,is,0.235,0.233830099,0.233830099,,-0.101637251,,between 2x2 ANOVA,between subjects ANOVA,,1,0,1,90,137,0.047134162,0,0
82,The face of success: inferences from chief executive officers' appearance predict company profits.,"NO Rule, N Ambady",PS,95,5,1019-28,https://osf.io/r5gpv/,"Adolescent, Adult, Awareness, Cues, Face, Female, Hair, Heterosexuality [psychology], Homosexuality, Male [psychology], Humans, Judgment, Male, Nonverbal Communication, Sexual Behavior, Social Perception, Stereotyping, Young Adult",2,3,Rule,1545,Tufts University,Ambady,12216,Tufts University,Talhelm,31,University of Virginia,Talhelm,31,University of Virginia,141,3.74,3.74,4.36,4.36,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.75,4,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,C Eggleston,1/1/12,12/1/14,T Talhelm,1,r(41) = .30,50,<.05,,,partial correlation,correlation," composite ratings of both power and leadership correlated with company profits, even after controlling for CEO age, CEO attractiveness, and the affect CEOs were displaying in the pictures",r = .30,0.56,85,113,139,Complete,50,0.56,9,X,r(41) = .27,50,0.086,same,2,partial correlation,correlation,no,0.56,r = .27,J Chandler,"Increasing the power for the Rule and Ambady study is complicated because the key correlations are for aggregated ratings of CEOs. Thus, the study uses the CEOs as _subjects.Ó The actual participants (college undergraduates) are used to create an average rating of power (and other variables) for each CEO. Increasing the number of undergraduates would make those ratings more reliable, but it would not increase the sample size of the CEOs, which is the key for the power analysis. If we want to increase statistical power, we would have to add more CEOs, which would make the materials different from the original study. That study would not be a direct replication. Because the goal of the reproducibility project is to do direct replications, we decided not to add new pictures of CEOs. However, a replication with more pictures of CEOs from different companies would be an additional useful type of replication.",1,https://osf.io/2bu9s/,PhD or equivalent,2015,PhD student,Some Expertise,Some Expertise,9,7,165,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Extremely similar,The original authors didn't have the scale anchor wordings for a few control variables. That's a minor difference and unlikely to change the effect.,Extremely similar,Virtually identical,Slightly challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,Some data used was pre-existing,Social,50,r,is,41,,0.3,<,0.05,0.033841139,0.033841139,,0.3,50,r,is,41,,0.27,is,0.086,0.057685184,0.086,,0.27,,partial correlation,simple correlation,,1,0,1,47,41,0.293191713,1,1
83,The face of success: inferences from chief executive officers' appearance predict company profits.,"NO Rule, N Ambady",PS,95,5,1019-28,,"Adolescent, Adult, Awareness, Cues, Face, Female, Hair, Heterosexuality [psychology], Homosexuality, Male [psychology], Humans, Judgment, Male, Nonverbal Communication, Sexual Behavior, Social Perception, Stereotyping, Young Adult",2,,Rule,,,,,,,,,,,,141,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,,,,,,,,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
84,Selective exposure and information quantity: How different information quantities moderate decision makers' preference for consistent and inconsistent information.,"P Fischer, S Schulz-Hardt, D Frey",JPSP,94,2,231-44,https://osf.io/v8vft/,"Adolescent, Adult, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Processes, Middle Aged",3,1,Fischer,1539,University of Exeter,Frey,10023,"Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich",Ratliff,800,University of Florida,Ratliff,800,University of Florida,65,2.54,2.53,3.4,3.4,4,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3,4,3,3,0,0,0,1,1,0,K Ratliff,1/1/12,1/1/13,K Ratliff,4,"X^2(1, N=52) = 13.18",52,0.001,,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,interaction,"interaction between information qulity and information selection: decision-makers prefer inconsistent information when choosing between two pieces of information (one consistent, one inconsistent), but prefer consistent information when choosing between more pieces of information ",d = 1.1653,,55,73,90,Complete,435,0.99,1,M Vianello,"X^2(1, N=150) = 7.10",150,0.008,same,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,interaction,yes,0.99,d = .46,M Vianello,"Report includes a power analysis that was far off: I estimated that we'd need 430 participants to obtain 95% power. However, I then consulted with Sean Mackinnon and re-did the analysis G*Power based on his suggestion, coming up with the numbers we see here",1,https://osf.io/bajxq/,PhD or equivalent,2009,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Some Expertise,21,17,787,was of slightly lower quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Somewhat similar,"Different language, implementation online rather than in-lab",Very similar,Very similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,52,Chi2,is,1,,13.18,is,0.001,0.000282953,0.000282953,,0.503449638,150,Chi2,is,1,,7.1,is,0.008,0.007708395,0.007708395,,0.217562252,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,2x2 chi square,,1,1,1,52,150,,1,0
85,Selective exposure and information quantity: How different information quantities moderate decision makers' preference for consistent and inconsistent information.,"P Fischer, S Schulz-Hardt, D Frey",JPSP,94,2,231-44,,"Adolescent, Adult, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Processes, Middle Aged",3,,Fischer,1539,University of Exeter,,,"Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich",,,,,,,65,2.54,2.53,6.54,6.54,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,,,,,,,,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
86,Self-regulation and selective exposure: The impact of depleted self-regulation resources on confirmatory information processing.,"P Fischer, T Greitemeyer, D Frey",JPSP,94,3,382-95,https://osf.io/j8bpa/,"Adolescent, Adult, Cognition [physiology], Decision Making [physiology], Ego, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Self Concept, Students [psychology]",3,1,Fischer,1539,University of Exeter,Frey,10023,"Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich",Galliani,80,University of Padua,Galliani,80,University of Padua,86,2.54,2.53,1.97,1.97,4,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.5,3,3,3,0,0,0,1,1,0,E Galliani,1/1/12,5/28/12,E Galliani,2,"F(2, 82) = 4.05",85,0.02,,,between ANOVA,main effect,reduced self regulation resources are associated with increased biases in confirmatory information processing,__p^2 =.09,,102,132,162,Complete,132,0.9,1,M Vianello,"F(2, 137) = 1.99",140,0.14,same,,between ANOVA,main effect,no,0.9,_2 = .03,M Vianello,,1,https://osf.io/7htc9/,PhD or equivalent,2005,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Moderate Expertise,27,9,78,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,Italian sample vs German sample (original study),Not at all similar,Slightly similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were extremely surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Industrial/organizational,85,F,is,2,82,4.05,is,0.02,0.02102091,0.02102091,,0.212014281,140,F,is,2,137,1.99,is,0.14,0.140627311,0.140627311,,0.118808574,,one way ANOVA,one way ANOVA,,1,0,1,82,137,,1,
87,The space between us: Stereotype threat and distance in interracial contexts.,"PA Goff, CM Steele, PG Davies",JPSP,94,1,91-107,https://osf.io/abxcj/,"African Americans, Analysis of Variance, European Continental Ancestry Group [psychology], Humans, Male, Prejudice, Social Distance, Stereotyping, United States",3,5,Goff,1196,Pennsylvania State University,Steele,26670,Stanford University,Kelso,101,Adams State University,Kelso,101,Adams State University,165,4.08,6.54,1.4,1.4,4,Social,1,Collected themselves,Extreme expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Extreme opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4,4,2,2,0,0,0,3,1,0,K Kelso,9/11/12,12/23/14,J Cohoon,4,"F(1, 51) = 9.46",55,<.01,,,between ANOVA,interaction,"interaction between conversation type and learning condition: when learning goals were absent, participants sat closer to one another when they discussed love and relationships than when they discussed racial profiling",__p^2 = .16,,44,58,71,Unavailable,71,0.95,9,B Lassetter,"F(1, 47)= .008",51,0.928,same,,between ANOVA,interaction,no,0.86,__p^2 = .002,M Kidwell,,1,https://osf.io/xfj5w/,PhD or equivalent,1994,Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Slight Expertise,1,1,1,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,none,Not at all similar,Somewhat similar,Moderately challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,55,F,is,1,51,9.46,<,0.01,0.003371756,0.003371756,,0.395559206,51,F,is,1,47,0.008,is,0.928,0.929110139,0.929110139,,0.013045451,,between 2x2 ANOVA,2x2 ANOVA,,1,0,1,51,47,0.224154101,0,1
88,"Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences.","PA Goff, JL Eberhardt, MJ Williams, MC Jackson",JPSP,94,2,292-306,,"Adolescent, Adult, African Continental Ancestry Group [history], Civil Rights, Dehumanization, European Continental Ancestry Group, History, 19th Century, History, 20th Century, Humans, Male, Prejudice, Questionnaires, Stereotyping, United States",4,,Goff,,,,,,,,,,,,245,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,6,"F(1, 151) = 4.61",153,<.05,,,ANCOVA,main effect,"controlling for number of mentions, blacks are mentioned in articles as being more apelike than whites",__p^2 = .03,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,153,F,is,1,151,4.61,<,0.05,0.033382483,0.033382483,,0.172120148,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
89,Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?,"PW Eastwick, EJ Finkel",JPSP,94,2,245-64,https://osf.io/ng6cc/,"Adult, Choice Behavior, Empathy, Female, Humans, Love, Male, Marriage [psychology], Questionnaires, Sexual Behavior [psychology]",2,2,Eastwick,1248,Northwestern University,Finkel,4655,Northwestern University,Selterman,36,University of Maryland,Selterman,36,University of Maryland,202,4.42,4.42,3.41,3.41,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Extreme expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.67,3.67,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,D Selterman,8/17/12,3/4/14,S Mackinnon,1,t(26) = 0.72,163,0.48,,,Meta-analytic summary of interaction effects in 14 multilevel models,interaction,"non-significant, 2-way interaction between gender (moderator) and earning prospects (X) in predicting romantic interest (Y)",r = .04,,275,380,480,Complete,275,0.8,1,J Goss,t(26) = 0.15,304,0.87,same,,Meta-analytic summary of interaction effects in 14 multilevel models,interaction,yes,0.8,r = .01,J Arnal,original test statistic was not reported and is calculated with the original data and replication's analyses; power calculations based on medium-small effect sie (r=.2); replication's power is a conservative estimate,1,https://osf.io/x3hbe/,PhD or equivalent,2011,Faculty (non-tenure track) full-time lecturer,High Expertise,Slight Expertise,14,7,36,was of slightly lower quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Moderately similar,"a) We recruited participants with an incentive of extra credit in psychology courses; we could not offer monetary compensation as in the original design; b) We were constrained by technological capacities of internet servers at Maryland and therefore, instead of using a customized website for storing survey data and communication between participants, we used individualized Qualtrics surveys for pre and post-event follow ups. We also instructed participants to create anonymous emails for communication with potential partners in the study; c) Being that participants were allowed to sign up for events up until 24 hours in advance, they were given the pre-event survey to complete 1-4 days before the event rather than 6-13 days before the event as in the original study; d) The speed dating events were held in two spacious auxiliary rooms on the Maryland campus (ordinarily used for social events), with comfortable seating, lighting, and music, rather than an art gallery as in the original study (which was not available to us); e) One of the relationship initiation outcomes in the follow up surveys (_I am eager to get to know [name] betterÓ) was dichotomous (_Yes/NoÓ) in our study, but continuous on a 1-9 scale in the original study; f) Due to human error, one of the 4 items assessing the degree to which participants rated their ideal partners and dates/matches as _personableÓ was missing from our follow-up surveys. We do not believe that any of these differences are substantial.",Virtually identical,Virtually identical,Very challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,163,t,is,1,26,0.72,is,0.48,0.477948177,0.477948177,,0.139816632,304,t,is,1,26,0.15,is,0.87,0.881922196,0.881922196,,0.0294047,,Meta-analytic summary of interaction effects in 14 multilevel models,Meta-analytic summary of interaction effects in 14 multilevel models,,0,0,1,26,26,0.085075863,1,0
90,Nuestra culpa: Collective guilt and shame as predictors of reparation for historical wrongdoing.,"R Brown, R Gonz_lez, H Zagefka, J Manzi, S Cehajic",JPSP,94,1,75-90,,"Adolescent, Chile, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Guilt, Homicide [psychology], Humans, Indians, South American, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Mass Behavior, Race Relations [psychology], Regression Analysis, Shame",5,,Brown,,,,,,,,,,,,113,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,3,F_change = 21.04,193,<.001,,,regression,increase in variance explained,"after regressing reparation attitudes onto guilt and shame, adding reputation management increased the variance explained",deltaR^2 = .065,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,193,F_change,is,,,21.04,<,0.001,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
91,All in the mind's eye? Anger rumination and reappraisal.,"RD Ray, FH Wilhelm, JJ Gross",JPSP,94,1,133-45,,"Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anger [physiology], Emotions [physiology], Female, Humans, Mental Recall, Obsessive Behavior [physiopathology], Reaction Time, Social Perception, Sympathetic Nervous System [physiopathology], Thinking, United States",3,,Ray,,,,,,,,,,,,168,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,2,"F(1, 105) = 12.53",116,0.001,,,nested repeated measures ANOVA,main effect,rumination lead to more sympathetic nervous system activation than reappraisal,__p^2 = .11,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,116,F,is,1,105,12.53,is,0.001,0.00059829,0.00059829,,0.326513519,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
92,Expect the unexpected: Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an intergroup forecasting error.,"RK Mallett, TD Wilson, DT Gilbert",JPSP,94,2,265-77,,"Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Social Perception",3,,Mallett,,,,,,,,,,,,62,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,4,"F(1, 73) = 7.13",81,0.009,,,2x2x2 between ANOVA,interaction,people underestimate the positivity of their interactions with outgroup members as compared to ingroup members,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,81,F,is,1,73,7.13,is,0.009,0.00933879,0.00933879,,0.298295838,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
93,Balancing connectedness and self-protection goals in close relationships: A levels-of-processing perspective on risk regulation.,"SL Murray, JL Derrick, S Leder, JG Holmes",JPSP,94,3,429-59,https://osf.io/cxmf6/,"Adolescent, Adult, Conflict (Psychology), Courtship [psychology], Female, Goals, Humans, Intention, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Models, Psychological, Questionnaires, Rejection (Psychology), Risk Reduction Behavior, Self Concept, Students [psychology], Trust [psychology]",4,4,Murray,5349,"University at Buffalo, The State University of New York",Holmes,11286,University of Waterloo,Sinclair,323,Mississippi State University,Sinclair,323,Mississippi State University,117,2.84,2.98,2.62,2.62,8,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,1.4,2.6,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,C Sinclair,8/12/14,3/17/15,M Kidwell,8,t(83) = 3.05,91,<.01,,,hierarchical regression analyses,interaction,"_when primed with approach goals, lows in the partner criticism condition believed their partner regarded them significantly more negatively than did controls,Ó",sr^2 = .07,,73,96,119,Complete,73,0.8,2,A Laique,t(68) = -1.124,76,0.265,opposite,,hierarchical regression analyses,interaction,no,0.81,beta = -.231,J Cohoon,,1,https://osf.io/9ue7j/,PhD or equivalent,2004,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Some Expertise,22,13,334,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Very similar,"We recruited couples from the community in addition to the university and thus paid some participants instead of just awarding credit. However, the overwhelming majority of our participants were still students. Plus, per the recommendation of the committee we took out the avoidant priming condition. Otherwise, we used the same materials as were provided but for one exception where we added a scale because when we were going through the script at the end the script said to tell the participant assigned to the video condition that we had an extra measure for them to complete, as we couldn't determine what that extra measure was in the materials we included a rejection sensitivity scale. There was a single-item that asked how many faults they thought their partner listed, but this was just at the end of the post-manipulation survey and so was administered in conjunction with those materials. We added an item to the note coding scheme because we had a decent number of couple members simply volunteer to take their partner's place for the video that we added it to coding but that would not have affected administration.",Somewhat similar,Somewhat similar,Moderately challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,91,t,is,1,83,3.05,<,0.01,0.003071238,0.003071238,,0.317462994,76,t,is,1,68,-1.124,is,0.265,0.2649653,0.2649653,,-0.1351,,hierarchical regression analyses,hierarchical regression analyses,,1,0,1,83,68,0.119839749,0,0
94,"Self-handicapping, excuse making, and counterfactual thinking: Consequences for self-esteem and future motivation.",SM McCrea,JPSP,95,2,274-92,https://osf.io/mua6d/,"Affect, Decision Making, Defense Mechanisms, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Motivation, Self Concept, Social Responsibility, Thinking",1,1,McCrea,828,University of Konstanz,McCrea,828,University of Konstanz,Chartier,20,Ashland University,Chartier,20,Ashland University,51,2.09,2.09,1.54,1.54,5,Social,1,Collected themselves,Strong expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2,3,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,C Chartier,3/20/14,1/6/15,J Cohoon,5,t(26) = 1.87,28,<.05,,1,independent samples t-test,main effect,participants in the control condition outperformed participants in the self handicap condition during a task in which they answered mathematical questions,d = .736,,48,66,82,Complete,66,0.91,1,A Calhoun Sauls,t(59)=2.325,61,0.01175,same,1,independent samples t-test,main effect,yes,0.88,d = .197,J Goss,,1,https://osf.io/7pdh8/,PhD or equivalent,2013,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Slight Expertise,4,4,20,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Extremely similar,Sample difference. Original conducted in Germany. Replication conducted in small town Ohio.,Very similar,Moderately similar,Slightly challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,28,t,is,1,26,1.87,<,0.05,0.072784038,0.036392019,,0.344312999,61,t,is,1,59,2.325,is,0.01175,0.023531667,0.011765834,,0.28970838,,independent samples t-test,independent samples t test,,1,1,1,26,59,0.316539921,1,1
95,"Interindividual-intergroup discontinuity in the domain of correspondent outcomes: the roles of relativistic concern, perceived categorization, and the doctrine of mutual assured destruction.","ST Wolf, CA Insko, JL Kirchner, T Wildschut",JPSP,94,3,479-94,https://osf.io/sgd4c/,"Choice Behavior [physiology], Competitive Behavior [physiology], Conflict (Psychology), Cooperative Behavior, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Individuality, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Motivation, Social Perception, Students [psychology]",4,2,Wolf,246,"UNC, Chapel Hill",Insko,7405,"UNC, Chapel Hill",Loureiro,20,University of Maryland,Loureiro,20,University of Maryland,16,4.25,4.25,3.41,3.41,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4.5,3,1,1,0,,0,1,0,0,M Dugas,9/6/13,,M Dugas,2,"F(1, 33) = 6.12",41,<.05,,,ANOVA,interaction,the discontinuity effect existed when payoffs for mutual competition were moderately low (low PC-JC) and disappeared when the payoffs for mutual competition were extremely low (high PC-JC),d = .86,,90,119,147,Complete,92,0.82,1,A Lapka,,,,,,,,,,,,"First author did not respond to inquiries about original materials, but the fourth author provided a set of generic materials that formed the basis of the target study and could be easily adapted to our needs.",,,Master's degree or equivalent,2014,PhD student,Some Expertise,Some Expertise,4,3,10,,,,,,,,,X,1,,Social,41,F,is,1,33,6.12,<,0.05,0.01868282,0.01868282,,0.395527139,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
96,Placing the face in context: Cultural differences in the perception of facial emotion.,"T Masuda, PC Ellsworth, B Mesquita, J Leu, S Tanida, E Van de Veerdonk",JPSP,94,3,365-81,,"Attention [physiology], Cultural Diversity, Emotions [physiology], Eye Movements [physiology], Facial Expression, Female, Humans, Japan, Judgment [physiology], Male, Social Perception, Students [psychology], United States",6,,Masuda,,,,,,,,,,,,237,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,1,,,,J Cohoon,2,"F(1, 47) = 9.72",49,<.001,,,2x3 ANOVA,main effect,Japanese look more at surrounding context than westerners during the emotion judgment task,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,49,F,is,1,47,9.72,<,0.001,0.003107906,0.003107906,,0.413966332,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
97,Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions.,"V Purdie-Vaughns, CM Steele, PG Davies, R Ditlmann, JR Crosby",JPSP,94,4,615-30,https://osf.io/etg7c/,"Adolescent, Adult, African Continental Ancestry Group [psychology], Cues, Cultural Diversity, Female, Hierarchy, Social, Humans, Judgment, Male, Organizational Culture, Prejudice, Rejection (Psychology), Social Identification, Social Values, Stereotyping, Trust",5,1,Purdie-Vaughns,2400,Yale,Steele,26670,Stanford University,Schmidt,110,UVA Wise,Schmidt,110,UVA Wise,240,6.56,6.54,2.34,2.34,3,Social,3,Collected themselves,No expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.6,3.4,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,K Schmidt,8/4/14,2/13/15,M Kidwell,2,"F(1, 73) = 12.19",90,0.001,,,ANOVA,interaction,"A high fairness cue created lower expectations of threatening identity contingencies and higher trust in comparison to a low fairness cue, but only for African American and not White professionals",__p^2 = .1431,,50,65,80,No response,80,0.95,9,F Bosco,"F(1,1486)=2.03",1490,0.154,opposite,2,ANOVA,interaction,No,0.99,__p^2 = .001,J Cohoon,,1,https://osf.io/5vdrg/,PhD or equivalent,2014,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Moderate Expertise,5,4,114,was about the same quality as the original study,was better than the average study,Very similar,online versus in person implementation,Moderately similar,Moderately similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,90,F,is,1,73,12.19,is,0.001,0.000819277,0.000819277,,0.378274916,1490,F,is,1,1486,2.03,is,0.154,0.154430586,0.154430586,,-0.036935346,,ANOVA,Least squares ANOVA,,1,0,1,73,1486,-0.016836682,0,0
98,Conceptualizing and assessing self-enhancement bias: A componential approach,"VS Kwan, OP John, RW Robins, LL Kuang",JPSP,94,6,1062-77,,"Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Self Concept, Social Adjustment, Social Desirability",4,,Kwan,,,,,,,,,,,,71,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,4,r = .91,102,<.01,,,correlation,correlation,"controlling for target effect, social comparison index is highly correlated with SRM index",r = .91,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,102,r,is,,,0.91,<,0.01,3.61E-52,3.61E-52,,0.91,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
99,How attributional ambiguity shapes physiological and emotional responses to social rejection and acceptance.,"WB Mendes, B Major, S McCoy, J Blascovich",JPSP,94,2,278-91,,"Adult, Affect, Discrimination (Psychology), Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Rejection (Psychology), Social Behavior, Social Desirability",4,,Mendes,,,,,,,,,,,,151,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,"F(1, 102) = 6.43",104,<.05,,,between 2x2 ANOVA,interaction,significant participant x evaluator race interaction for cardiac output: rejection from a same race partner decreased cardiac output but rejection from a different race partner increaced cardiac output,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,104,F,is,1,102,6.43,<,0.05,0.012738074,0.012738074,,0.243517826,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
100,Mr. Grimace or Ms. Smile,"A Santos, C Rondan, DB Rosset, D Da Fonseca, C Deruelle",PS,19,1,70-6,,"Adolescent, Adult, Asperger Syndrome [diagnosis], Attention, Autistic Disorder [diagnosis], Discrimination Learning, Emotions, Facial Expression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Visual",5,,Santos,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,"F(1, 40) = 11.3",42,<.001,,,between 2x2 ANOVA,interaction,"Group x Task interaction for high pass choices: on the gender task ""groups did not differ in the number of high pass choices, whereas on the emotion task, the control group showed a greater high pass bias than the ASD group""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,42,F,is,1,40,11.3,<,0.001,0.001715568,0.000857784,,0.469332403,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
101,Happiness is a personal (ity) thing,"A Weiss, TC Bates, M Luciano",PS,19,3,205-10,,"Adult, Female, Happiness, Health Surveys, Humans, Individuality, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Genetic, Personality [genetics], Personality Inventory [statistics & numerical data], Phenotype, Psychometrics, Quality of Life [psychology], Statistics as Topic, Twins [genetics]",3,,Weiss,,,,,,,,,,,,198,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,deltaX^2(14) = 19.99,1946,>.05,,,five factor model,change in model fit,"eliminating dominance effects still leaves a good model fit (specifying that ""all genetic influences on subjective well being originated from a general genetic factor that also influenced the five personality domains and from genetic factors for the five personality domains"")",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the authors expected this change in model fit to be insignificant this would confirm their hypothesis. they report p > .05,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,1946,DeltaChi2,is,14,,19.99,>,0.05,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
102,The negative consequences of threat: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of the neural mechanisms underlying women's underperformance in math,"AC Krendl, JA Richeson, WM Kelley, TF Heatherton",PS,19,2,168-75,,"Adult, Affect, Fear, Female, Gyrus Cinguli [anatomy & histology], Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mathematics, Prefrontal Cortex [anatomy & histology], Reaction Time",4,,Krendl,,,,,,,,,,,,73,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,t(13) = 5.64,14,<.001,,,dependent samples t-test,main effect,"threatened, but not control Ps, recruit heightened vACC activation over time",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,28,t,is,1,13,5.64,<,0.001,8.06E-05,8.06E-05,,0.842545902,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
103,Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent,"AD Galinsky, WW Maddux, D Gilin, JB White",PS,19,4,378-84,,"Adult, Cognition, Empathy, Female, Humans, Male, Negotiating, Social Perception",4,,Galinsky,,,,,,,,,,,,231,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,0,,,,M Kidwell,3,"F(2, 72) = 4.51",146,0.014,,,ANOVA,main effect,dyads in the perspective taking condition achieved higher joint gain than control dyads,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,146,F,is,2,72,4.51,is,0.014,0.014277405,0.014277405,,0.23593488,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
104,"Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle).","AL Alter, DM Oppenheimer",PS,19,2,161-7,https://osf.io/kegmc/,"Adult, Distance Perception, Environment, Female, Humans, Male, Perception, Questionnaires, Visual Perception",2,1,Alter,1369,Princeton,Oppenheimer,2818,Princeton,Foster,2249,University of South Alabama,Foster,2249,University of South Alabama,109,6.51,6.51,2.18,2.18,3,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2,3,2,2,0,0,0,1,1,0,J Foster,1/1/12,11/1/12,J Foster,2,"X^2(1, N=236) = 3.83",236,0.05,,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,main effect,"primed participants (conceptually fluent participants) preferred concrete descriptions of the prime later, moreso than conceptually disfluent participants",phi = .13,,465,622,769,Complete,465,0.8,1,M Yates,"X^2(1, N = 1146) = .387",1146,0.53,same,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,main effect,no,0.99,Phi = .02,M Yates,,1,https://osf.io/5axfe/,PhD or equivalent,2005,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Slight Expertise,39,30,2201,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Somewhat similar,"Replication was conducted online whereas original study was conducted in person. However, in-person component of original study simply involved handing out paper-pencil survey to participants.",Slightly similar,Slightly similar,Not at all challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Personality,236,Chi2,is,1,,3.83,is,0.05,0.050342933,0.050342933,,0.127392361,1146,Chi2,is,1,,0.387,is,0.53,0.533880559,0.533880559,,0.018376516,,2x2 chi square,2x2 chi square,,1,0,1,236,1146,,1,
105,"Night and day, you are the one: on circadian mismatches and the transference effect in social perception.","AW Kruglanski, A Pierro",PS,19,3,296-301,https://osf.io/4bv5f/,"Adolescent, Adult, Arousal, Character, Circadian Rhythm, Female, Humans, Individuality, Interpersonal Relations, Judgment, Male, Mental Recall, Social Perception, Transference (Psychology), Wakefulness",2,1,Kruglanski,23195,University of Maryland,Kruglanski,23195,University of Maryland,McElroy,566,Florida State University,McElroy,566,Florida State University,37,3.41,3.41,3.66,3.66,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.75,3.25,0,,0,,0,3,0,0,T McElroy,8/4/14,,J Cohoon,1,"F(1, 38) = 9.47",42,0.01,,,2x2 ANOVA,interaction,"interaction between similarity condition and circadian matching: transference was higher for the similar condition than non similar condition during circadian mismatch, but not during match",__p^2 = .199,,34,35,55,Complete,65,0.98,9,B Lassetter,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,42,F,is,1,38,9.47,is,0.01,0.00386326,0.00386326,,0.446647979,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
106,More than meets the eye: the role of language in binding and maintaining feature conjunctions.,"B Dessalegn, B Landau",PS,19,2,189-95,https://osf.io/iajp5/,"Child, Preschool, Cognition, Cues, Female, Humans, Language, Male",2,1,Dessalegn,190,Johns Hopkins,Landau,6864,Johns Hopkins,Fitneva,382,Queens University,Fitneva,382,Queens University,52,5.29,5.29,2.96,2.96,4,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2,3.33,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,S Fitneva,9/16/13,12/1/14,S Fitneva,4,"F(1, 34) = 5.8",36,<.05,,2,ANOVA,main effect,"directional language (e.g., to the left) helps children bind color and shape information to a greater extent than relational language alone ( e.g., next to)",d = 0.82,0.62,44,60,74,Complete,45,0.8,1,J Hartshorne,t(45) = 1.534,47,0.132,same,2,independent samples t-test,main effect,no,0.8,d = .48,J Goss,,1,https://osf.io/qmupg/,PhD or equivalent,2003,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,30,8,374,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,none,Very similar,Very similar,Not at all challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Developmental,36,F,is,1,34,5.8,<,0.05,0.021595498,0.021595498,,0.381744212,47,t,is,1,45,1.534,is,0.132,0.132031044,0.132031044,,-0.222920955,,ANOVA,2 independent group t-test,,1,0,1,34,45,0.0427698,0,0
107,Nonconscious goal pursuit in novel environments: The case of implicit learning.,"B Eitam, RR Hassin, Y Schul",PS,19,3,261-7,https://osf.io/edcr7/,"Achievement, Awareness, Cues, Goals, Humans, Mental Recall, Motivation, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Problem Solving, Reaction Time, Serial Learning, Social Environment, Unconscious (Psychology), Verbal Learning",3,2,Eitam,206,The Hebrew University,Hassin,2448,The Hebrew University,Prenoveau,297,Loyola University Maryland,Kirkhart,108,Loyola University Maryland,66,2.48,2.48,2.71,2.71,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Strong opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4.33,3.33,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,J Prenoveau,2/28/13,10/27/14,J Prenoveau,2,t(84) = 2.09,86,prep = .92,,2,independent samples t-test,main effect,goal primed participants learned more than participants in the control group,d = .45,,158,210,258,Complete,158,0.8,1,F Bosco,t(156) = -1.318,158,0.189,opposite,2,independent samples t-test,main effect,no,0.8,d = -0.21,A Fedor,,1,https://osf.io/bvgyq/,PhD or equivalent,1997,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Some Expertise,12,10,105,was of slightly higher quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"The most glaring difference between the original study and the replication study _ that may have been a factor in the failure to replicate the primary finding of the original study _ was culture. The original study was conducted in Israel with participants from that country and with stimulus materials presented in Hebrew _ probably the participants native language. Although the replication authors used a translator fluent in both Hebrew and English languages, these linguistic and cultural differences are still potentially significant factors in moderating the results of this replication study. Even though every effort was made to assure equivalency between the original Hebrew words and the English words used in the replication, it is still possible that the cultural meaning of the achievement words was more profound in the context of the Hebrew language in the Israeli culture relative to the English language in the American culture. Similarly, although participants in both studies were enrolled in an institution of higher learning, the sample from the original study was somewhat older (M = 23.9 years) than the participants in the replication study (M = 19.65, SD = 1.1). In addition, the proportion of female participants was higher in the replication study (74.8% vs. 60.5%). Although implicit learning and priming are typically less affected by demographic variables, such as age and gender, it is possible that the cultural differences described above and these other demographic variables together could be important moderating factors that affected the failure to replicate the primary finding from the original study. For example, given that all participants were students in an institution of higher learning, being older, and possibly more mature and/or focused, the participants in the original study may have been more affected by the priming condition than those in the replication study.",Not at all similar,Slightly similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Clinical,86,t,is,1,84,2.09,prep,0.92,0.039641746,0.039641746,,0.222330235,158,t,is,1,156,-1.318,is,0.189,0.189435742,0.189435742,,-0.104941786,,independent samples t-test,Independent samples t-test,,1,0,1,84,156,0.01025516,0,0
108,Talking about walking: Biomechanics and the Language of Locomotion,"BC Malt, S Gennari, M Imai, E Ameel, N Tsuda, A Majid",PS,19,3,232-40,,"Adult, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Exercise Test, Female, Humans, Judgment, Language, Male, Psycholinguistics, Running [psychology], Semantics, Walking [psychology]",6,,Malt,,,,,,,,,,,,53,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,2,r = .99,91,X,,,correlation,correlation,"typicality judgments show that the gait term ""walk"" shares goodness-of-example gradients",r = .99,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,91,r,is,,,0.99,,,4.49E-136,4.49E-136,,0.99,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
109,Stored word sequences in language learning,"C Bannard, D Matthews",PS,19,3,241-8,,"Attention, Child, Preschool, Female, Generalization (Psychology), Humans, Language Development, Male, Mental Recall, Reaction Time, Retention (Psychology), Semantics, Serial Learning, Speech Perception",2,,Bannard,,Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology,Matthews,,"Max Planck Child Study Centre, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester",,,,,,,168,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,0,,,,M Kidwell,1,t(19) = 1.923,20,0.035,,1,paired sample t test,trend,children more easily and accurately repeat high-frequency than low-frequency stimuli pair combinations,__p^2 = 0.156 ,,35,48,60,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,38,t,is,1,19,1.923,is,0.035,0.069598815,0.034799408,,0.403632537,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
110,Perceptual mechanisms that characterize gender differences in decoding women's sexual intent,"C Farris, TA Treat, RJ Viken, RM McFall",PS,19,4,348-54,https://osf.io/7dyp5/,"Adult, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Intention, Male, Models, Psychological, Pilot Projects, Sex Factors, Sexual Behavior, Social Perception",4,3,Farris,378,Indiana University,McFall,5836,Indiana University,Attwood,449,Bristol University,Munafo,10998,Bristol University,37,3.53,3.53,2.86,2.86,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.8,3.2,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,M Munafo,1/28/14,2/1/15,J Cohoon,1,"F(1, 278) = 123.38",280,<.001,,2,general linear model,interaction,"male participants were less sensitive to the distinction between friendliness and sexual interest than women, suggesting that gender differences are due to perceptual insensitivity in men",__p^2 = .326,,19,24,29,Complete,144,0.99,1,A Laique,"F(1, 142) = 1.19",144,0.28,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,no,0.99,__p^2 = 0.008,L Cramblet Alvarez,,1,https://osf.io/ihcrs/,PhD or equivalent,1999,Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,High Expertise,400,250,10759,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly worse than the average study,Very similar,"Studies were collected at different geographical locations (US and UK). This may be important as the outcome is a social variable. It may be noteworthy that the data were also in a different range to the original study. The calculation method was verified directly with the authors, so we do not think this is due to inaccuracies in the sensitivity calculation.",Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Biological Psychology / Psychopharmacology,280,F,is,1,278,123.38,<,0.001,5.76E-24,5.76E-24,,0.554427187,144,F,is,1,142,1.19,is,0.28,0.277177119,0.277177119,,0.091162691,,general linear model,Repeated measures ANOVA,,1,0,1,278,142,0.444846205,0,1
111,Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment.,"C Janiszewski, D Uy",PS,19,2,121-7,https://osf.io/aaudl/,"Humans, Judgment, Mathematics",2,1,Janiszewski,6591,University of Florida,Janiszewski,6591,University of Florida,Chandler,1532,University of Michigan,Chandler,1532,University of Michigan,53,3.4,3.4,4.61,4.61,5,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2,4,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,J Chandler,1/1/12,5/31/12,J Chandler,4,"F(1, 55) = 6.88",59,prep = .947,,,ANOVA,main effect,increased anchor precision leads to decreased adjustment by participants,_2 = .02,,65,87,107,Complete,120,0.99,1,C Smith,"F(1,116) = 6.28",120,0.014,same,,ANOVA,main effect,yes,0.99,n_p^2 = .05,C Smith,Power calculations assume a correlation of r = .5 between repeated measures; Data had already been collected when requirement to get original authors assessment was added.,1,https://osf.io/8qc4x/,PhD or equivalent,2010,Private sector researcher,Moderate Expertise,High Expertise,19,12,1532,was of slightly higher quality than the original study,was better than the average study,Virtually identical,"Data was collected in a dining hall, participants may have been distracted.",Somewhat similar,Extremely similar,Slightly challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,59,F,is,1,55,6.88,prep,0.947,0.011256115,0.011256115,,0.333441051,120,F,is,1,116,6.23,is,0.014,0.013965691,0.013965691,,0.225764222,,2x2 ANOVA,2x2 ANOVA,,1,1,1,55,116,0.26709769,1,1
112,Action dynamics reveal parallel competition in decision making,"C McKinstry, R Dale, MJ Spivey",PS,19,1,22-4,https://osf.io/d0n81/,"Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Choice Behavior, Conflict (Psychology), Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Set (Psychology), Thinking",3,3,McKinstry,233,University of Memphis,Spivey,8475,Cornell University,Feather,91,MIT,Saxe,8175,MIT,103,2.39,5.56,6.42,6.42,1,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.6,3.2,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,R Saxe,1/1/12,5/29/12,R Saxe,1,"F(1, 9) = 8.7",141,<.05,,,ANOVA,main effect,Sample entropy was higher for middle-truth-value questions than for low- and high-truth-value questions,r = -0.7,,X,X,X,Complete,53,X,1,X,"F(1, 9) = 11.6",51,0.01,same,,ANOVA,main effect,yes,X,r = -0.75,C Anderson,power cannot be calculated,1,https://osf.io/8hurj/,PhD or equivalent,2003,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Moderate Expertise,110,76,8108,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,I don't think there were relevant methodological differences.,Somewhat similar,Moderately similar,Very challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive neuroscience,141,F,is,1,9,8.7,<,0.05,0.016232104,0.016232104,,0.701088742,51,F,is,1,9,11.6,is,0.01,0.007800372,0.007800372,,0.750404422,,ANOVA,ANOVA,,1,1,0,9,9,0.921659312,1,1
113,Prescribed optimism: Is it right to be wrong about the future?,"DA Armor, C Massey, AM Sackett",PS,19,4,329-31,https://osf.io/qlzap/,"Affect, Attitude, Coercion, Forecasting, Humans, Time Perception",3,4,Armor,2061,San Diego State University,Massey,250,Yale University,van 't Veer,77,Tilburg University,Brandt,77,Tilburg University,32,3.02,6.56,3.03,3.03,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.2,3,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,B Lassetter,4/7/13,3/18/14,M Brandt,1,t(124) =10.36,125,prep > .99,,,single sample t-test,main effect,"among accurate, optimistic, or pessimistic predictions, participants are most likely to recommend optimisitic predictions",d =.93,,12,15,18,Complete,96,0.99,1,G Nilsonne,t(175) = 15.64,177,1.00E-12,same,,single sample t-test,main effect,yes,0.99,d = 1.18,G Nilsonne,"Original paper reports 127 participants - because df = 124, replicators assumed that a participant was excluded due to missing data. N was changed to reflect 126 participants in the original study.",1,https://osf.io/esa3j/,PhD or equivalent,2012,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Moderate Expertise,31,21,432,was about the same quality as the original study,was better than the average study,Extremely similar,Some data were collected in the Netherlands,Virtually identical,Extremely similar,Slightly challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,2,No data used was pre-existing,Social,126,t,is,1,124,10.36,prep >,9.90E-01,1.69E-18,1.69E-18,,0.681152182,177,t,is,1,175,15.64,is,0.00E+00,4.59E-35,4.59E-35,,0.763508789,,single sample t-test,one sample t test,,1,1,0,124,175,0.932798141,0,1
114,Age-related changes in the episodic simulation of future events,"DR Addis, AT Wong, DL Schacter",PS,19,1,33-41,https://osf.io/yaeu7/,"Adult, Aged, Aging [psychology], Female, Humans, Imagination, Life Change Events, Male, Mental Recall, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Word Association Tests",3,1,Addis,6138,Harvard University,Schacter,64583,Harvard University,Vasquez,2,"University of the Republic, Uruguay",Vasquez,2,"University of the Republic, Uruguay",248,6.74,6.74,1.36,1.36,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.8,3.6,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,A Vasquez,8/5/14,1/8/15,M Kidwell,1,"F(1,30) = 14.49",32,prep = .99,,,RM ANOVA,main effect,"Older adults produced fewer internal details, but more external details than young adults",__p^2= 0.326,,22,26,32,Complete,32,0.95,9,F Cheung,"F (1,30) = 22.27",32,0.0001,same,2,RM ANOVA,main effect,yes,0.95,__p^2= 0.426,C Christopherson,,1,https://osf.io/gfn65/,PhD or equivalent,2014,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Some Expertise,16,5,2,was of slightly higher quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"- language of participants (suggested by authors). Our interviews were done in spanish (vs english of original study - we found in the pilot interviews that participants found too vague the instruction to talk about ""next weeks"", maybe due to semantic differences (i.e. it could range from yesterday/tomorrow to three months from present), We reasoned that fact could harm the interpretation of results and that could produce a difference with time distance of events generated by participants in the original study, so we specified in the instructions for the near future/past events conditions, a period of two week from the present, although we admited answers within a one-month period.",Extremely similar,Very similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,2,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,32,F,is,1,30,14.49,prep,0.99,0.000647885,0.000647885,,0.570693584,32,F,is,1,30,22.27,is,0.0001,5.14E-05,5.14E-05,,0.652730428,,repeated measures ANOVA,repeated measures ANOVA,,1,1,0,30,30,0.714296079,1,1
115,Preschoolers' perspective taking in word learning: do they blindly follow eye gaze?,"E Nurmsoo, P Bloom",PS,19,3,211-5,https://osf.io/aczvt/,"Attention, Child, Preschool, Comprehension, Female, Humans, Language Development, Male, Personal Construct Theory, Semantics, Verbal Learning, Visual Perception",2,9,Nurmsoo,271,Yale University,Bloom,15271,Yale University,Brown,23,Georgia Gwinnett College,Brown,23,Georgia Gwinnett College,22,6.56,6.56,1.42,1.42,2,Cognitive,2,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.8,3.8,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,B Brown,9/9/13,2/28/15,M Kidwell,1,t(31) = 3.23,32,prep = .97,,,dependent samples t-test,main effect,Older children selected the correct object more frequently than would be expected by chance in _whereÓ trials,d = .571,,16,20,24,Complete,24,0.95,1,E Gilbert,t(7) = -1.426,8,0.197,opposite,2,dependent samples t-test,main effect,no,0.9,d = .286,J Cohoon,,1,https://osf.io/ewtn6/,PhD or equivalent,2007,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Slight Expertise,2,2,21,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,Participant demographics (gender split and mean age) may differ slightly from original sample. There are no other known differences from the original study.,Slightly similar,Slightly similar,Slightly challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,2,No data used was pre-existing,Developmental,32,t,is,1,31,3.23,prep,0.97,0.00292708,0.00292708,,0.501799075,8,t,is,1,8,-1.426,is,0.197,0.191700924,0.191700924,,-0.450187899,,dependent samples t-test,independent samples t-test,,1,0,1,31,8,0.355586013,0,1
116,Measuring the crowd within: Probabilistic representations within individuals.,"E Vul, H Pashler",PS,19,7,645-7,https://osf.io/ivfu6/,"Crowding, Humans, Models, Statistical",2,4,Vul,2785,MIT,Pashler,17561,UC San Diego,Steegen,5,University of Leuven,Vanpaemel,461,University of Leuven,122,6.42,4.08,2.35,2.35,1,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.67,4.33,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,W Vanpaemel,6/10/13,5/23/14,J Cohoon,1,t(172) = 3.94,173,<.01,,2,dependent samples t-test,main effect,Averaging two guesses within one person provides a more accurate answer than either guess alone,d = 0.47,,38,50,61,Complete,48,0.89,1,X,t(139) = 4.02,140,0.001,same,2,dependent samples t-test,main effect,yes,0.99,d = .34,E Vul,,1,https://osf.io/8twa9/,PhD or equivalent,2007,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Slight Expertise,37,13,450,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"Our subject pool of undergraduate students is probably less diverse than the internet-based subject pool used in the original study with respect to variables such as age, ethnicity and educational level.",Virtually identical,Very similar,Moderately challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Quantitative,173,t,is,1,172,3.94,<,0.01,1.18E-04,1.18E-04,,0.28771881,140,t,is,1,139,4.02,is,0.001,9.50E-05,9.50E-05,,0.322727228,,dependent samples t-test,dependent t-test,,1,1,0,172,139,0.313321162,1,1
117,"Temporal selection is suppressed, delayed, and diffused during the attentional blink.","E Vul, M Nieuwenstein, N Kanwisher",PS,19,1,55-61,https://osf.io/rzjvn/,"Adolescent, Adult, Attentional Blink, Cues, Female, Humans, Inhibition (Psychology), Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Probability, Reaction Time, Serial Learning, Time Perception",3,1,Vul,2785,MIT,Kanwisher,30967,MIT,Barnett-Cowan,395,University of Waterloo,Barnett-Cowan,395,University of Waterloo,53,6.42,6.42,2.98,2.98,1,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4,2.5,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,M Barnett Cowan,4/2/12,4/5/13,M Barnett Cowan,1,"F(18, 660) = 16.31",12,<.00001,,,ANOVA,interaction,"Selection is (a) suppressed (efficacy), (b) delayed (latency), and (c) diffused (precision) in time during the attentional blink as demonstrated significant main effects of each of these factors and by a significant three way interaction between SOA, measure (efficacy, latency, precision).",__p^2 = .308,,4,4,5,Complete,12,0.99,1,D Lakens,"F(18, 660) = 12.98",12,1.00E-12,same,,ANOVA,interaction,yes,0.99,_^2 = .261,D Lakens,Author has responded and sent all relevant materials. Original computer hardware has been sourced. Effect size not originally reported by the authors. All effects are at p < .0001 with n=12,1,https://osf.io/2mcdv/,PhD or equivalent,2009,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Some Expertise,31,23,388,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,The original description of the experiment used a computer monitor which required a frame rate of 150Hz with a resolution of 1024 x 768. This was not possible to achieve using the same monitor. It was therefore decided in consultation with the original authors to run the experiment at 150Hz with a resolution of 800 x 600. In principle this change in resolution and corresponding change in the visual angle of the stimulus should not make a difference based on claims in the original article or subsequent published research on the conditions for obtaining the effect. Both the original authors and the OSF reviewer agreed with this assessment.,Virtually identical,Extremely similar,Moderately challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Behavioral neuroscience/Comparative,12,F,is,18,660,16.31,<,1.00E-05,6.06E-42,6.06E-42,,0.130782132,12,F,is,18,660,12.98,is,0.00E+00,3.35E-33,3.35E-33,,0.120519146,,ANOVA,ANOVA,,1,1,1,660,660,,1,
118,"Toward a physiology of dual-process reasoning and judgment: lemonade, willpower, and expensive rule-based analysis.","EJ Masicampo, RF Baumeister",PS,19,3,255-60,https://osf.io/3h29d/,"Adult, Association, Attention [physiology], Beverages, Blood Glucose [metabolism], Brain [physiology], Female, Humans, Inhibition (Psychology), Interpersonal Relations, Intuition [physiology], Judgment [physiology], Logic, Male, Motivation, Physical Exertion [physiology], Problem Solving [physiology], Set (Psychology)",2,3,Masicampo,983,Florida State University,Baumeister,84112,Florida State University,Osborne,0,University of Virginia,Vuu,0,University of Virginia,202,3.66,3.66,4.36,4.36,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Extreme expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Extreme opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4.5,3.75,0,0,0,0,0,3,1,0,C Osborne,8/11/14,3/20/15,J Cohoon,1,"F(1, 111) = 5.311",115,prep = .92,,,ANOVA,focused interaction contrast,"The attraction effect was larger in the depletion with placebo group than among participants in the other three groups (depletion with sugar, no depletion with sugar, no depletion with placebo)",__p^2 = .045,,169,225,278,Complete,225,0.9,1,J Goss,"F(1, 158) = 0.379",166,0.539,opposite,,between ANOVA,focused interaction contrast,no,0.79,__p^2 = 0.002,J Cohoon,,1,https://osf.io/4tb8a/,Bachelor's degree or equivalent,2015,Undergraduate student,Slight Expertise,No Expertise,0,0,0,was of slightly lower quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"The fact that the questionnaire of main interest dealt with location of student apartment to campus provided a confounding variable that we did not think of. Average distances students live from campus differs school to school, and we think that the nature of that question likely altered the effect.",Not at all similar,Slightly similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,115,F,is,1,111,5.311,prep,0.92,0.023051359,0.023051359,,0.21368683,166,F,is,1,158,0.379,is,0.539,0.539024693,0.539024693,,-0.048918238,,ANOVA,2x2x2 between subjects ANOVA,,1,0,1,111,158,0.060626056,0,0
119,Naming practices and the acquisition of key biological concepts: Evidence from English and Indonesian,"FK Anggoro, SR Waxman, DL Medin",PS,19,4,314-9,,"Biology, Child, Child, Preschool, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Culture, Female, Humans, Indonesia, Male, Names, Semantics, United States",3,,Anggoro,,,,,,,,,,,,41,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,"X^2(1, N=48) = 50.89",48,<.001,,,"non parametric analysis, chi square",main effect,"9 year old Indonesian children favor the ""living thing"" pattern over ""animal inclusive""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,48,Chi2,is,1,,50.89,<,0.001,9.77E-13,9.77E-13,,1.029664185,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
120,Errors Are Aversive: Defensive Motivation and the Error-Related Negativity,"G Hajcak, D Foti",PS,19,2,103-8,https://osf.io/73pnd/,"Affect, Defense Mechanisms, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Time Factors, Verbal Behavior, Vocabulary",2,2,Hajcak,8843,Stony Brook University,Hajcak,8843,Stony Brook University,Lewis,2,Reed College,Pitts,235,Reed College,172,2.85,2.85,2.52,2.52,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.42,3.28,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,M Lewis,9/7/12,5/30/13,M Cohn,1,r = -.38,31,<.05,,1,zero-order correlation,correlation,The magnitude of the startle response following an error is correlated to the amplitude of the Error-Related Negativity (ERN),"F not calculable (no effect size, no SD on means); |rho| = .38",,42,56,70,Complete,42,0.8,1,J Grange,r = -.25,43,0.11,same,1,zero-order correlation,correlation,no,0.82,r = -.25,J Cohoon,,1,https://osf.io/vjb2a/,PhD or equivalent,2007,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,18,14,248,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Extremely similar,Treatment of outliers.,Slightly similar,Extremely similar,Moderately challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,31,r,is,,,-0.38,<,0.05,0.034266919,0.01713346,,0.38,43,r,is,,,-0.25,is,0.11,0.106230061,0.053115031,,0.25,,zero-order correlation,Pearson's product-moment correlation,,1,0,1,28,40,0.314973275,1,1
121,The sunny side of fairness: Preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry),"G Tabibnia, AB Satpute, MD Lieberman",PS,19,4,339-47,https://osf.io/94j6h/,"Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Cerebral Cortex [physiology], Conflict (Psychology), Female, Happiness, Humans, Male, Prefrontal Cortex [physiology], Reward, Social Control, Informal, Social Justice",3,3,Tabibnia,1246,UCLA,Lieberman,14419,UCLA,Beer,4341,University of Texas at Austin,Beer,4341,University of Texas at Austin,274,5.16,5.16,4.15,4.15,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,Extreme expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.5,4.5,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,J Beer,8/18/14,12/29/14,J Cohoon,2,t(11) = 5.39,12,prep = .99,,2,dependent samples t-test,main effect,Accepting unfair offers increases right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex activation,d = 3.25,,6,7,8,Complete,25,0.99,1,F Cheung,z = 5.43,24,prep > .99,same,,GLM of neuroimaging data,main effect,yes,0.99,d = 2.22,J Matacotta,,1,https://osf.io/u5g9n/,PhD or equivalent,2002,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,High Expertise,62,37,4267,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Moderately similar,"The proportion of offers was different than the original. In the original, the authors did not analyze all of their trials. The replication just included the trial types that were included in the analysis so there were no ""filler"" trials.",Somewhat similar,Somewhat similar,Slightly challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social Neursocience,12,t,is,1,11,5.39,prep,0.99,0.00021998,0.00021998,,0.851679354,24,z,is,,,5.43,prep,9.90E-01,2.82E-08,2.82E-08,,0.828997685,,dependent samples t-test,GLM of neuroimaging data,,1,1,1,11,24,,,
122,The representation of simple ensemble visual features outside the focus of attention,"GA Alvarez, A Oliva",PS,19,4,392-8,https://osf.io/dnaxe/,"Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Humans, Visual Perception",2,2,Alvarez,3554,MIT,Oliva,11460,MIT,Schlegelmilch,0,University of Erfurt,Schlegelmilch,0,University of Erfurt,134,6.42,6.42,1.65,1.65,3,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.17,3.5,2,2,0,0,0,1,1,0,R Schlegelmilch,7/17/14,12/29/14,J Cohoon,3,t(7) = 2.76,8,0.028,,2,dependent samples t-test,main effect,Reporting error on the location of missing distractors items was less when the targets were spatially distinct,dz = 0.976,,11,14,16,Unavailable,16,0.95,9,W Vanpaemel,t(16)= -9.59,17,0.0001,same,2,dependent samples t-test,main effect,yes,0.97,dz= -2.33,J Goss,,1,https://osf.io/xgdqy/,Master's degree or equivalent,2013,PhD student,Slight Expertise,Slight Expertise,1,1,0,was of slightly higher quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"The experiment required to track moving dots on the screen from a constant viewing distance. In the replication we used a chin rest, which was not reported in the original article. The participants had to locate the center (centroid) of four dots. There may be differences in the instructions to the participants in what is meant by ""center of dots"", as well as the actual calculation of those centers. No information about these was given int he article, and it was not possible to correspond to the authors in general. To test the quality of the centroid localization, a baseline task (empirical chance/ guessing phase) was assessed for test in which condition localization was better. In the original article, there was information given about the trialdesign and the basic procedure of this baseline task, but no information was given of how many of those trials the participants had to solve. We decided for the same number of trials as in each of the experimental conditions, to have the same amount of observations per participant for each comparison between conditions. This may have driven accuracy in the baseline task and therefore the results.",Extremely similar,Moderately similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,8,t,is,1,7,2.76,is,0.028,0.02809598,0.02809598,,0.721890032,17,t,is,1,16,-9.59,is,0.0001,4.90E-08,4.90E-08,,0.922934494,,dependent samples t-test,paired sample t-test,,1,1,0,7,16,1.409362993,0,1
123,The effect of visual search efficiency on response preparation,"GF Woodman, MS Kang, K Thompson, JD Schall",PS,19,2,128-36,,"Animals, Macaca mulatta, Macaca radiata, Neurophysiology, Reaction Time, Saccades [physiology], Visual Fields [physiology], Visual Perception",4,,Woodman,,,,,,,,,,,,36,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,t(38) = 14.47,4,<.001,,,t-test,correlation,when search is more difficult movement related activity began after a delay that was equal to the difference in RT between search conditions,r^2 = .846,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,4,t,is,1,38,14.47,<,1.00E-03,4.85E-17,4.85E-17,,0.919994961,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
124,Loving those who justify inequality: the effects of system threat on attraction to women who embody benevolent sexist ideals.,"GP Lau, AC Kay, SJ Spencer",PS,19,1,20-1,https://osf.io/fxqsk/,"Adolescent, Adult, Canada, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Culture, Humans, Male, Politics, Prejudice, Rationalization, Social Change, Social Desirability, Socioeconomic Factors, Stereotyping",3,1,Lau,54,University of Waterloo,Spencer,11032,University of Waterloo,Stieger,1038,University of Konstanz,Stieger,1038,University of Konstanz,54,2.98,2.98,2.09,2.09,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4,3,0,0,0,0,0,5,1,0,S Stieger,8/19/14,1/5/15,J Cohoon,1,"F(1, 34) = 5.89",36,prep = .93,,,ANOVA,interaction,Male participants whose faith in the federal system was threatened showed greater romantic interest in women who embody benevolent sexist ideals than in women who do not embody these ideals,__p^2 = 0.147,,50,66,80,Complete,50,0.8,9,J Matacotta,"F(1, 68) = 0.08",70,0.79,opposite,,ANOVA,interaction,no,0.93,__p^2 = .001,E Baranaski,,1,https://osf.io/cwkzu/,PhD or equivalent,2006,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Moderate Expertise,84,78,1015,was of moderately higher quality than the original study,was better than the average study,Extremely similar,"We used exactly the same materials (i.e., instruction, stories, pictures) than in the original study except translating the texts from English into German.",Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Moderately challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Quantitative,36,F,is,1,34,5.89,prep,0.93,0.02067727,0.02067727,,0.384260399,70,F,is,1,68,0.08,is,0.79,0.778156632,0.778156632,,-0.034279559,,2x2 ANOVA,ANOVA,,1,0,1,34,68,0.110689718,0,0
125,Loving those who justify inequality: the effects of system threat on attraction to women who embody benevolent sexist ideals.,"GP Lau, AC Kay, SJ Spencer",PS,19,1,20-1,https://osf.io/b0vac/,"Adolescent, Adult, Canada, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Culture, Humans, Male, Politics, Prejudice, Rationalization, Social Change, Social Desirability, Socioeconomic Factors, Stereotyping",3,,Lau,54,University of Waterloo,Spencer,11032,University of Waterloo,,,,,,,54,2.98,2.98,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,,,,,,,,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
126,Bright children become enlightened adults,"IJ Deary, GD Batty, CR Gale",PS,19,1,6-Jan,,"Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child Development, Cohort Studies, Educational Status, Female, Great Britain, Humans, Individuality, Intelligence, Male, Models, Psychological, Politics, Prejudice, Social Class, Social Justice, Social Values",3,,Deary,,,,,,,,,,,,84,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,"X^2(33, N = 3412) = 274.4",3412,<.001,,,deviance test,chi square,"the model fit well for men, examining association between intelligence at age 10 and antitraditional attitudes at 30",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,3412,Chi2,is,33,,274.4,<,0.001,7.59E-40,7.59E-40,,0.283587799,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
127,A motion aftereffect from still photographs depicting motion,"J Winawer, AC Huk, L Boroditsky",PS,19,3,276-83,https://osf.io/mjasz/,"Attention, Cues, Figural Aftereffect, Humans, Imagination, Motion Perception, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photography, Psychophysics, Transfer (Psychology)",3,2,Winawer,2029,Stanford University,Boroditsky,5834,Stanford University,Levitan,378,Occidental College,Levitan,378,Occidental College,47,6.54,6.54,2.12,2.12,3,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.5,3,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,C Levitan,4/17/13,5/24/15,Lavine,3,t(28) = -4.978,29,0.00003,,2,paired sample t-test,main effect,Motion aftereffects were present following the presentation of a still photograph depicting motion,d = -.94,,12,15,18,Complete,32,0.99,9,P Whitehead,t(25)=-3.103,26,0.00471,same,,paired sample t-test,main effect,yes,0.99,d = -.62,,"original article statistic was recalulated, corresponds to their report t(28) = 4.98, p-value = 2.9e-5",1,https://osf.io/efu3h/,PhD or equivalent,2007,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Some Expertise,15,12,373,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,none,Very similar,Very similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,32,t,is,1,28,4.98,is,0,0.0000293,0.0000293,,0.685347348,26,t,is,1,25,-3.103,is,0.00471,0.004708112,0.004708112,,0.527307869,,paired sample t-test,paired sample t-test,,1,1,1,28,25,0.72020175,1,1
128,It takes two: The interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy,"J Zaki, N Bolger, K Ochsner",PS,19,4,399-404,https://osf.io/vj65s/,"Adult, Affect, Empathy, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Questionnaires",3,1,Zaki,2041,Columbia University,Ochsner,17796,Columbia University,Tullett,215,University of Alabama,Tullett,215,University of Alabama,147,5.47,5.47,2.91,2.91,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,1.8,2.6,0,,0,,0,1,0,0,A Tullett,8/1/14,,J Cohoon,1,b = .14,33,<.02,,,regression,correlation,perceiver's trait affective empathy predicted accuracy for expressive (versus unexpressive) targets,X,,X,X,X,Unavailable,54,X,1,E Baranski,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,PhD or equivalent,2012,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,15,11,208,was of moderately higher quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,Use of different stimulus videos. Different population.,,,Moderately challenging,,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,33,b,is,,,0.14,<,0.02,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
129,The threat of appearing prejudiced and race-based attentional biases.,"JA Richeson, S Trawalter",PS,19,2,98-102,https://osf.io/c5fza/,"Adult, Anxiety [psychology], Arousal [physiology], Attention, Attitude, Bias (Epidemiology), Facial Expression, Female, Humans, Male, Prejudice",2,1,Richeson,4539,Northwestern University,Richeson,4539,Northwestern University,Lai,127,University of Virginia,Lai,127,University of Virginia,75,4.42,4.42,4.36,4.36,1,Social,1,Some of both,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4,3.33,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,C Lai,1/1/12,8/15/13,Calvin Lai,1,"F(1, 26) = 4.17",28,prep = .92,,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,"High External Motivation (EM) participants exhibit attentional biases for neutral Black faces, but not happy Black faces.",d = 0.80,,50,64,78,Complete,78,0.95,1,J Joy Gaba,"F(1, 64) = .02",66,0.89,same,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,no,0.91,_2 = .00,C Eggleston,Author has responded and sent all relevant materials.,1,https://osf.io/wi6hv/,Master's degree or equivalent,2012,PhD student,High Expertise,Moderate Expertise,7,4,122,was of slightly lower quality than the original study,was better than the average study,Extremely similar,Slight differences in the stimuli used for the DV.,Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,28,F,is,1,26,4.17,prep,0.92,0.051411614,0.051411614,,0.371775163,66,F,is,1,64,0.02,is,0.89,0.887981301,0.887981301,,0.017674908,,2x2x2 mixed ANOVA,2x2x2 mixed ANOVA,,1,0,1,26,64,0.123587161,0,0
130,The threat of appearing prejudiced and race-based attentional biases.,"JA Richeson, S Trawalter",PS,19,2,98-102,,"Adult, Anxiety [psychology], Arousal [physiology], Attention, Attitude, Bias (Epidemiology), Facial Expression, Female, Humans, Male, Prejudice",2,,Richeson,,,,,,,,,,,,75,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,,,,,,,,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
131,Finding words and rules in a speech stream: Functional differences between vowels and consonants,"JM Toro, M Nespor, J Mehler, LL Bonatti",PS,19,2,137-44,,"Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Phonetics, Speech Perception, Verbal Behavior, Vocabulary",4,,Toro,,,,,,,,,,,,108,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,,,,,,,,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
132,Where do we look during potentially offensive behavior?,"JR Crosby, B Monin, D Richardson",PS,19,3,226-8,https://osf.io/b98zw/,"African Continental Ancestry Group [psychology], Association, Attention, European Continental Ancestry Group [psychology], Eye Movements, Fixation, Ocular, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Orientation, Prejudice, Social Identification",3,2,Crosby,331,Agnes Scott College,Richardson,2496,University of Reading,Skorinko,309,Worcester Polytechnic Institute,Jonas,361,University of Amsterdam,36,1.49,2.22,1.77,3.43,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Extreme expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Extreme opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.67,3,0,0,0,0,0,3,1,0,K Jonas,7/11/14,3/15/15,J Cohoon,1,"F(3, 69) = 5.15",25,<.005,,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,"When a White man made a potentially offensive comment in the presence of a Black man, participants would look at the Black man for a longer period of time if he could hear the comment than if he could not",__p^2 = .18,,26,32,38,Complete,32,0.9,4,H Fuchs,"F(1.48, 41.458) = 1.401",30,0.254,same,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,no,0.82,__p^2 = 0.0476,J Cohoon,,1,https://osf.io/3nay6/,PhD or equivalent,2002,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),High Expertise,High Expertise,47,35,607,was of slightly higher quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,"The cultural background of the participants is totally different. The original effect builds on a typical US university admission selection, highly competitive. Here we do not have such a procedure.",Moderately similar,Moderately similar,Not at all challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,25,F,is,3,69,5.15,<,0.005,0.002850691,0.002850691,,0.246947019,30,F,is,1.48,41.458,1.401,is,0.254,0.254170145,0.254170145,,0.179397898,,2x4 mixed ANOVA,2x4 ANOVA,,1,0,1,69,41.458,,0,
133,Adaptive memory: The comparative value of survival processing.,"JS Nairne, JN Pandeirada, SR Thompson",PS,19,2,176-80,https://osf.io/jhkpe/,"Adaptation, Physiological, Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, Memory [physiology], Survival, Vocabulary",3,2,Nairne,4482,Purdue University,Nairne,4482,Purdue University,MÈller,65,University of Erfurt,Renkewitz,520,University of Erfurt,191,4.43,4.43,1.65,1.65,2,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.25,3.25,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,F Renkewitz,1/1/12,11/17/12,F Renkewitz,2,"F(1, 23) = 5.7",24,"""significant""",,,RM ANOVA,main effect,Words rated for survival relevance were recalled more often.,__p^2 = .20,,10,13,16,Complete,24,0.99,1,S Fiedler,"F(1, 37) = 8.08",38,0.007,same,,RM ANOVA,main effect,yes,0.99,__p^2 = .18,G Jahn,Power calculations assume a correlation of r = .5 between repeated measures,1,https://osf.io/witg3/,PhD or equivalent,2004,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Some Expertise,11,25,609,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Virtually identical,none,Virtually identical,Virtually identical,Slightly challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,24,F,is,1,23,5.7,significant,,0.025570456,0.025570456,,0.445652636,38,F,is,1,37,8.08,is,0.007,0.007242548,0.007242548,,0.423363806,,repeated within ANOVA,ANOVA,,1,1,1,23,37,0.462206401,1,1
134,"Is happiness having what you want, wanting what you have, or both?","JT Larsen, AR McKibban",PS,19,4,371-7,https://osf.io/5dx4v/,"Adult, Attitude, Female, Happiness, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life [psychology], Questionnaires",2,6,Larsen,5016,Texas Tech University,Larsen,5016,Texas Tech University,Seibel,0,University of Nijmegen,Seibel,0,University of Nijmegen,22,2.88,2.88,2.39,2.39,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.67,4,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,L Seibel,3/1/14,12/20/14,J Cohoon,2,pr = .21,119,prep = .92,,,Partial correlation,correlation,"Having what you want and wanting what you have account for unique variance in happiness; people who had what they wanted were happier than others, even after controlling for the degree to which they wanted what they had.",pr = .21,,175,234,289,Complete,175,0.8,1,B Lassetter,pr = 0.497,238,0.001,same,2,Partial correlation,correlation,yes,0.9,pr = 0.497,D Williams,,1,https://osf.io/qewvf/,Master's degree or equivalent,2013,Master's student,Some Expertise,Some Expertise,0,0,0,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"The population of the replication study consists of Dutch students while in the original study by Larsen and McKibban (2008) the population consisted of U.S undergraduates from a technical university. This could lead to differences in the Have/Want Survey. Indeed, our pilot study indicated that our sample named much more accomplishments and skills compared to the original U.S. sample, which named mostly material possessions. Thus, compared to the original Have/Want Survey, our Have/Want survey is much more balanced and includes accomplishments, skills, and interpersonal relationships. In the original study, paper and pencil questionnaires were distributed among the students in a class setting (between 5 and 30 students). The current study, however, distributed the questionnaires online. The original authors approved this change in procedure.",Extremely similar,Very similar,Not at all challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Psychopathology,119,t,is,1,115,2.303,prep,0.023,NA,0.023,,0.20996855,238,t,is,1,234,8.836,is,0.000001,2.41E-16,2.41E-16,,0.500179963,,Partial correlation,Partial correlations,,1,1,0,115,234,0.439026022,0,1
135,Implicit attitude generalization occurs immediately; explicit attitude generalization takes time,"KA Ranganath, BA Nosek",PS,19,3,249-54,https://osf.io/2gkjt/,"Adult, Association, Attitude, Decision Making, Feedback, Psychological, Female, Generalization, Response, Humans, Individuality, Interpersonal Relations, Judgment, Male, Mental Recall, Middle Aged, Personality Inventory, Social Behavior, Social Identification",2,1,Ranganath,800,University of Virginia,Nosek,16030,University of Virginia,Cohn,1875,"University of California, San Fransisco",Cohn,1875,"University of California, San Fransisco",65,4.36,4.36,3.81,3.81,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.67,4.67,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,M Cohn,11/14/12,1/8/15,J Cohoon,1,t(562) = -0.11,564,prep = .18,,,t-test,main effect,"""Participants were unable to prevent the information about the original individuals from influencing their implicit responses toward the new individuals. They automatically and immediately treated the individual group members as if they were interchangeable.""",d = -.004,,1644,2203,2722,Complete,2722,0.95,1,J Axt,t(3511.1) = -6.31,3597,0,same,2,t-test,main effect,no,0.99,d=.21,E Cremata,"uses usable n according to a priori inclusion rules, not total n recruited; also see notes below for info on post hoc exclusions",1,https://osf.io/m4xp8/,PhD or equivalent,2008,Post-doc or Research Scientist,Slight Expertise,Some Expertise,13,5,1875,was about the same quality as the original study,was worse than the average study,Extremely similar,I had to write a large amount of code for the Project Implicit platform without being familiar with it or having access to some critical documentation. There may have been errors introduced.,Moderately similar,Moderately similar,Very challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,684,t,is,1,562,-0.11,prep,0.18,0.912448643,0.912448643,,0.00464002,3597,t,is,1,3511.1,-6.31,is,0.00E+00,3.14E-10,3.14E-10,,0.105891025,,independent samples t-test,Welch's t-test,,0,1,0,562,3511.1,0.092282138,0,1
136,The value of believing in free will: Encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating.,"KD Vohs, JW Schooler",PS,19,1,49-54,https://osf.io/i29mh/,"Culture, Deception, Female, Genetic Determinism, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Moral Development, Personal Autonomy, Persuasive Communication, Problem Solving, Social Environment",2,3,Vohs,19845,University of Minnesota,Vohs,19845,University of Minnesota,Embley,0,University of Kent,Giner-Sorolla,2052,University of Kent,341,3.64,3.64,2.61,2.61,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.75,3.75,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,R Giner-Sorolla,1/1/12,2/15/13,R Giner-Sorolla,1,t(28) = 3.04,30,<.01,,,independent samples t-test,main effect,"""Participants cheated more frequently after reading the anti-free-will essay than after reading the control essay""",d = .88,,44,58,70,Complete,58,0.9,2,M Motyl,t(56) = -.77,58,0.44,same,,independent samples t-test,main effect,no,0.91,d = .20,M Motyl,"We chose Study 1 because of the financial infeasibility of doing Study 2 with adequate power, given that participants could receive up to 15 USD pay and the original author alerted us to errors in the article's analysis pointed out by a reader after publication, so that the correct effect size was lower than that published.",1,https://osf.io/eyk8w/,PhD or equivalent,1996,Professor (or equivalent),High Expertise,High Expertise,44,33,2052,was of moderately higher quality than the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Very similar,Different participant population (though details of the participants were not provided in the original),,Not at all similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,30,t,is,1,28,3.04,<,0.01,0.005086904,0.005086904,,0.498149178,58,t,is,1,56,-0.77,is,0.44,0.444536036,0.444536036,,0.102355162,,independent samples t-test,t-test,,1,0,1,28,56,0.24895166,0,1
137,Do Today's Young People Really Think They Are So Extraordinary?,"KH Trzesniewski, MB Donnellan, RW Robins",PS,19,2,181-8,,"Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Narcissism, Personality Inventory, Schools, Self Concept, Students [psychology]",3,,Trzesniewski,,,,,,,,,,,,105,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,X,26867,X,,,effect size,standardized difference in mean score,no evidence for a secular increase in NPI scores over time,d = -0.06,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,26867,,,,,,,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
138,The secret life of emotions.,"KI Ruys, DA Stapel",PS,19,4,385-91,,"Affect, Awareness, Cognition, Expressed Emotion, Humans, Unconscious (Psychology)",2,,Ruys,,,,,,,,,,,,65,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,2,"F(2, 84) = 11.10",90,prep = 1.0,,,ANOVA,interaction,general mood effects appeared after both quick and super-quick exposures to disgusting and fearful stimuli,__p^2 = .21,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,90,F,is,2,84,11.1,prep,1,5.28E-05,5.28E-05,,0.323295181,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
139,Auditory change detection: simple sounds are not memorized better than complex sounds,"L Demany, W Trost, M Serman, C Semal",PS,19,1,85-91,https://osf.io/ta3j8/,"Attention, Humans, Judgment, Mental Recall, Music, Pitch Perception, Psychoacoustics, Reaction Time, Sound Spectrography",4,2,Demany,1611,University of Bordeaux,Demany,1611,University of Bordeaux,Snyder,1339,"University of Nevada, Las Vegas",Snyder,1339,"University of Nevada, Las Vegas",27,1.98,1.98,2.47,2.47,5,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Strong expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4,3.5,3,3,0,0,0,1,1,0,J Snyder,7/22/14,2/1/15,M Kidwell,5,"F(3, 9) = 8.5",4,0.005,,,ANOVA,main effect,"Mechanisms of change detection are dissimilar in vision and audition; specifically, auditory memory makes change detection easier in audition than in vision.",_^2 = .74,,3,3,5,Complete,5,0.99,1,M Brandt,"F(3,12)= 13.06",5,0,same,1,RM ANOVA,main effect,yes,0.95,__p^2 = .76,L Cramblet Alvarez,,1,https://osf.io/dw4xu/,PhD or equivalent,2003,Associate Professor (or equivalent),High Expertise,High Expertise,40,36,1322,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,It's possible there was a little more background noise in the replication study due to using a single-walled sound booth instead of a double-walled booth.,Extremely similar,Extremely similar,Moderately challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,4,F,is,3,9,8.5,is,0.005,0.005425227,0.002712614,,0.496363588,5,F,is,3,12,13.06,is,0,0.000435464,0.000217732,,0.505151268,,ANOVA,"Two way repeated measures ANOVA, with ISI [0, 250,750, 2000] and N [1, 2, 4, 7] as factors",,1,1,0,9,12,,1,
140,Keeping one's distance: The influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation.,"LE Williams, JA Bargh",PS,19,3,302-8,https://osf.io/vnsqg/,"Adult, Affect, Cues, Culture, Dangerous Behavior, Energy Intake, Female, Food Habits [psychology], Humans, Judgment, Male, Object Attachment, Personal Space, Reading, Self-Assessment, Social Facilitation, Social Perception, Violence [psychology]",2,3,Williams,1465,Yale University,Bargh,45986,Yale University,Joy-Gaba,255,Virginia Commonwealth University,Joy-Gaba,255,Virginia Commonwealth University,219,6.56,6.56,2.38,2.38,4,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4.6,3.6,3,3,0,0,0,1,1,0,J Joy Gaba,1/1/12,6/15/12,Russ Clay,4,"F(2, 81) = 4.97",84,prep = .95,,,ANOVA,main effect,A distance prime can influence perceptions of closeness toward ones family members and hometown.,__p^2 =.11,,84,108,129,Complete,129,0.95,see notes,K Ratliff,"F(2,122) = 0.24",125,0.787,same,,ANOVA,main effect,no,0.95,__p^2=.03,K Ratliff,Data had already been collected when requirement to get original authors assessment was added.,1,https://osf.io/85bnh/,PhD or equivalent,2011,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Some Expertise,12,8,247,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,none,Somewhat similar,Somewhat similar,Not at all challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,84,F,is,2,81,4.97,prep,0.95,0.009205933,0.009205933,,0.233776428,125,F,is,2,122,0.24,is,0.787,0.786998369,0.786998369,,0.044266281,,ANOVA,ANOVA,,1,0,1,81,122,,0,
141,Emotional valence and arousal interact in attentional control.,"LN Jefferies, D Smilek, E Eich, JT Enns",PS,19,3,290-5,https://osf.io/n2m7p/,"Affect, Arousal, Attentional Blink, Auditory Perception, Discrimination Learning, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Music, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reaction Time",4,1,Jefferies,217,University of British Columbia,Enns,10143,University of British Columbia,Tibboel,210,Ghent University,Tibboel,210,Ghent University,103,3.67,3.67,2.57,2.57,1,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Strong expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.33,3,0,,0,,0,1,0,0,H Tibboel,9/5/14,,M Kidwell,1,"F(1,91) = 4.05",100,<.05,,,ANOVA,interaction,strong effect of arousal for anxious and sad participants but none for happy and calm participants,__p^2 = 0.0426,,180,240,295,Complete,180,0.8,,A Calhoun Sauls,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,100,F,is,1,91,4.05,<,0.05,0.047127477,0.047127477,,0.206419847,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
142,Hedonic and instrumental motives in anger regulation.,"M Tamir, C Mitchell, JJ Gross",PS,19,4,324-8,https://osf.io/k4y9i/,"Adult, Affect, Anger, Humans, Leisure Activities, Male, Motivation, Music, Social Control, Informal",3,1,Tamir,2114,Boston College,Gross,45085,Stanford University,Masicampo,983,Wake Forest University,Masicampo,983,Wake Forest University,138,3.98,6.54,3.08,3.08,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,1.5,2.5,0,0,0,0,0,3,1,0,E Masicampo,7/17/14,3/3/15,M Kidwell,1,"F(2, 162) = 192.89",82,<.001,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,_Preferences for anger-inducing activities were higher than preferences for exciting and neutral activities when participants anticipated playing confrontational games.Ó,X,,X,X,7,Complete,82,0.99,1,A Laique,"F(2, 174) = 252.83",88,< .0001,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,yes,0.99,_2 = .744,M Kidwell,,1,https://osf.io/mwgub/,PhD or equivalent,2010,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),High Expertise,Slight Expertise,28,16,976,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,The video games that were used in the original study are rather old now and are probably not as fun or engaging for participants.,Extremely similar,Extremely similar,Slightly challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,82,F,is,2,162,192.89,<,0.001,1.39E-43,1.39E-43,,0.593405778,88,F,is,2,174,252.83,<,0.0001,3.30E-52,3.30E-52,,0.609913782,,RMANOVA,Repeated measures ANOVA,,1,1,0,162,174,,1,
143,"Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds.","N Epley, S Akalis, A Waytz, JT Cacioppo",PS,19,2,114-20,https://osf.io/yuybh/,"Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Loneliness, Male, Motivation, Object Attachment, Questionnaires, Religion and Psychology, Social Behavior",4,2,Epley,5920,University of Chicago,Cacioppo,86172,University of Chicago,Sandstrom,98,University of Cambridge,Dunn,2531,University of British Columbia,185,4.71,4.71,5.73,3.67,3,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.4,2.8,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,G Sandstrom,1/1/12,7/28/12,G Sandstrom,3,"F(4, 108) = 3.67",57,0.01,,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,"People who were feeling socially disconnected attempted to restore feelings of belonging by demonstrating more beliefs in supernatural agents and events, and by attributing more social traits to pets",_^2 =.12,,51,66,81,Complete,81,0.95,1,K Lemm,"F(4, 150) = .58",78,0.68,same,,mixed ANOVA,interaction,no,0.95,__p^2 = .02,K Lemm,Power calculations assume a correlation of r = .5 between repeated measures; Data had already been collected when requirement to get original authors assessment was added.,1,https://osf.io/utcr3/,PhD or equivalent,2004,Associate Professor (or equivalent),High Expertise,High Expertise,61,41,,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,"One difference from the original study is that the current participants wore headphones while watching the movie, while the original participants heard the sound through high quality speakers; this may result in differences in the intensity of emotional responses to the movie. Further, participants in the current study saw four inkblot drawings on each page, instead of one per page; this may lead participants to compare the images presented on the same page, thus possibly detecting more faces. These deviations from the original study are not expected to significantly affect the results.",Slightly similar,Somewhat similar,Not at all challenging,Results were extremely surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,57,F,is,4,108,3.67,is,0.01,0.007654847,0.007654847,,0.172960188,78,F,is,4,150,0.58,is,0.68,0.677581223,0.677581223,,0.061707156,,3x3 mixed ANOVA,3x3 ANOVA,,1,0,1,108,150,,0,
144,Creating social connection through inferential reproduction,"N Epley, S Akalis, A Waytz, JT Cacioppo",PS,19,2,114-20,,"Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Loneliness, Male, Motivation, Object Attachment, Questionnaires, Religion and Psychology, Social Behavior",4,,Epley,5920,,,,,,,,,,,185,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,,,,,,,,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
145,_In_Group LoveÓ and _Out_Group HateÓ as Motives for Individual Participation in Intergroup Conflict: A New Game Paradigm,"N Halevy, G Bornstein, L Sagiv",PS,19,4,405-11,https://osf.io/76qc5/,"Adult, Conflict (Psychology), Female, Hate, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Love, Male, Motivation",3,3,Halevy,783,The Hebrew University,Sagiv,4290,The Hebrew University,Thomae,44,University of Winchester,Thomae,44,University of Winchester,126,2.48,2.48,2.04,2.04,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Strong expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.75,4,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,M Thomae,7/15/14,12/11/14,M Kidwell,1,"F(1, 76) = 109.74",240,0,,2,t-test,main effect,The contribution rate to Pool B was significantly lower in the IPD-MD game than the contribution rate to Pool B (the only pool) in the IPD game.,__p^2 = .59,,24,30,36,Complete,44,0.99,1,J Goss,"F(1, 36) = 26.76",120,0.0001,same,2,t-test,main effect,yes,0.99,__p^2 = .426,J Hodsoll,,1,https://osf.io/7xyi5/,PhD or equivalent,2011,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,Moderate Expertise,10,10,48,was of slightly lower quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,- use of female rather than male participants (80% of sample female in replication) - data collection in groups of 3 rather than in individual cubicles,Extremely similar,Very similar,Very challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,80,F,is,1,76,109.74,is,0.00E+00,2.10E-16,2.10E-16,,0.768651993,40,F,is,1,36,26.76,is,0.0001,8.85E-06,8.85E-06,,0.652982567,,ANOVA,Univariate ANOVA,,1,1,1,76,36,0.941760874,1,1
146,A word-order constraint on phonological activation,"N Janssen, FX Alario, A Caramazza",PS,19,3,216-20,https://osf.io/dncxa/,"Color Perception, Humans, Language, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Phonetics, Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Verbal Behavior",3,1,Janssen,569,CNRS,Caramazza,33703,Harvard University,Melinger,773,University of Dundee,Melinger,773,University of Dundee,15,1.9,6.74,1.83,1.83,2,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,5.33,5,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,A Melinger,7/29/14,11/20/14,M Kidwell,2,t(14) = 3.2,15,<.007,,2,t-test,main effect,"Color and object naming times in the congruent condition were faster than in the incongruent condition in the color and object naming tasks, respectively, but these differences did not reach significance.",d = 1.71,,12,18,21,Complete,21,0.95,1,B Lassetter,t(11) = 1.9,12,0.09,same,2,dependent samples t-test,main effect,no,0.8,dz = .548,D Williams,"original effect size based on dependent t-test of effect of condition on the effect of valence, so the means * sd's represent the mean and sd of the differences between pos and negative valence items in each condition",1,https://osf.io/7cab3/,PhD or equivalent,2001,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,High Expertise,40,37,766,was about the same quality as the original study,was slightly worse than the average study,Virtually identical,Sample size,Not at all similar,Slightly similar,Not at all challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,30,t,is,1,14,3.2,<,0.007,0.006420541,0.006420541,,0.649955571,24,t,is,1,11,1.9,is,0.09,0.083950437,0.083950437,,0.497082522,,dependent samples t-test,paired sample t-test,,1,0,1,14,11,0.675309572,1,1
147,Enhancing the Pace of Recovery: Self-Distanced Analysis of Negative Experiences Reduces Blood Pressure Reactivity,"O Ayduk, E Kross",PS,19,3,229-31,,"Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Blood Pressure, Conflict (Psychology), Defense Mechanisms, Emotions, Female, Humans, Imagination, Life Change Events, Male, Mental Recall, Problem Solving, Self Care [psychology]",2,2,Ayduk,4743,UC Berkeley,Ayduk,4743,UC Berkeley,Munoz,0,Green Neuro Lab,Lam,0,Green Neuro Lab,86,5.61,5.61,2.24,2.24,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,Moderately surprising,Very exciting and important,0,,0,,0,1,0,0,A Munoz,1/31/14,,J Cohoon,1,"F(1, 69) = 6.98",37,<.01,,,ANCOVA,interaction,participants in the self-distanced group show lower MAP reactivity than those in the self-immersed group during the manipulation phase,,,78,120,126,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,37,F,is,1,69,6.98,<,0.01,0.010189448,0.010189448,,0.303094508,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
148,The Best Men Are (Not Always) Already Taken: Female Preference for Single Versus Attached Males Depends on Conception Risk,"P Bressan, D Stranieri",PS,19,2,145-51,https://osf.io/blcj6/,"Adult, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Marriage [psychology], Reproductive Behavior [psychology], Sexual Behavior [psychology], Social Behavior, Social Desirability",2,2,Bressan,1999,University of Padua,Bressan,1999,University of Padua,Frazier,258,University of Virginia,Frazier,258,University of Virginia,20,1.97,1.97,4.36,4.36,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.5,3.6,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,R Frazier,1/1/12,12/29/14,R Frazier,2,"F(1, 194) = 7.16",208,0.008,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,There was an interaction between mans availability and participants conception risk for partnered women but this interaction was non existent for unpartnered women.,f = 0.19,,64,80,96,Complete,132,0.99,1,S Koleva,"F(1,259) = 0.236",263,0.628,opposite,,RM ANOVA,interaction,no,0.99,_^2 = .001,C Anderson,,1,https://osf.io/2a5ru/,PhD or equivalent,2015,Post-doc or Research Scientist,Some Expertise,Some Expertise,8,5,258,was of slightly higher quality than the original study,was better than the average study,Virtually identical,The materials were translated from Italian to English and photos might have been a little out of date since the original study was published in 2008.,Not at all similar,Slightly similar,Moderately challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,208,F,is,1,194,7.16,is,0.008,0.008092031,0.008092031,,0.188662549,263,F,is,1,259,0.236,is,0.628,0.627520896,0.627520896,,-0.030172295,,repeated measures ANOVA,General Linear Model (repeated measures),,1,0,1,194,259,0.064449075,0,0
149,The Best Men Are (Not Always) Already Taken: Female Preference for Single Versus Attached Males Depends on Conception Risk,"P Bressan, D Stranieri",PS,19,2,145-51,https://osf.io/blcj6/,"Adult, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Marriage [psychology], Reproductive Behavior [psychology], Sexual Behavior [psychology], Social Behavior, Social Desirability",2,2,Bressan,1999,University of Padua,Bressan,1999,University of Padua,Frazier,258,University of Virginia,Frazier,258,University of Virginia,20,1.97,1.97,4.36,4.36,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.5,3.6,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,R Frazier,1/1/12,12/29/14,R Frazier,2,"F(1, 194) = 7.16",208,0.008,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,There was an interaction between mans availability and participants conception risk for partnered women but this interaction was non existent for unpartnered women.,f = 0.19,,64,80,96,Complete,132,0.99,1,S Koleva,"F(1,314) = 0.105",318,0.746,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,no,0.99,_^2 = 0.000,C Anderson,,1,https://osf.io/47cs8/,PhD or equivalent,2015,Post-doc or Research Scientist,Some Expertise,Some Expertise,8,5,258,was of slightly higher quality than the original study,was better than the average study,Virtually identical,The materials were translated from Italian to English and photos might have been a little out of date since the original study was published in 2008.,Not at all similar,Slightly similar,Moderately challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,208,F,is,1,194,7.16,is,0.008,0.008092031,0.008092031,,0.188662549,318,F,is,1,314,0.105,is,0.746,0.74612573,0.74612573,,0.018283411,,repeated measures ANOVA,General Linear Model (GLM) repeated measures,,1,0,1,194,314,0.084143664,0,0
150,Sensitivity to object viewpoint and action instructions during search for targets in the lower visual field,"S Forti, GW Humphreys",PS,19,1,42-8,https://osf.io/tf8ky/,"Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Discrimination Learning, Eye Movements, Female, Fixation, Ocular, Humans, Male, Orientation, Probability, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Semantics, Visual Fields",2,2,Forti,134,University of Birmingham,Humphreys,11039,University of Birmingham,Dorrough,0,University of G_ttigen,Fiedler,0,MPI for Collective Goods,7,2.7,2.7,2.08,3.02,1,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Strong expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.67,2.67,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,A Dorrough,8/5/14,1/19/15,J Cohoon,1,"F(1, 13) = 14.2",14,prep = .99,,,RM ANOVA,interaction,There was a significant interaction between viewpoint (prototypical or non-prototypical) and visual field (upper visual field or lower visual field) on the probability of the first fixation being on the target.,__p^2 = 0.522,,11,13,15,Unavailable,15,0.95,9,M Barnett Cowan,"F(1,18)=0.81",19,0.369,same,,RM ANOVA,interaction,no,0.98,_2 = .0065,L Lazarevic,,1,https://osf.io/jknef/,PhD or equivalent,2013,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),No Expertise,High Expertise,12,9,292,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,"Because the original materials were unable to be obtained from Forti or Humphreys, the stimuli and the program used to present them had to be reconstructed. The list of objects used as stimuli were drawn from another of Humphreys papers (Yoon & Humphreys, 2008), the images were created according to the description and the screenshot in the original article. The instructions, and the experiment as a whole, were conducted in German. Additionally, the SMI RED 250 eye tracker was used rather than the head-mounted SMI Eyelink V2.04, but both eye trackers had the same sampling rate (250 Hz). Stimuli were presented on a larger monitor (22 in.) and using a computer with a slightly faster processor (Intel Core i7-2620m CPU processor at 2.70 ghz). Other than these discrepancies, there were no anticipated differences between the present replication and the original study.",Slightly similar,Somewhat similar,Not at all challenging,Results were exactly as anticipated,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,14,F,is,1,13,14.2,prep,0.99,0.002344469,0.002344469,,0.722536382,19,F,is,1,18,0.81,is,0.369,0.380003702,0.380003702,,0.207514339,,2x2 within ANOVA,Repeated measurement ANOVA,,1,0,1,13,18,0.501203829,0,1
151,With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments.,"S Schnall, J Benton, S Harvey",PS,19,12,1219-22,https://osf.io/apidb/,"Adult, Analysis of Variance, Communication, Conscience, Cues, Emotions [physiology], Female, Great Britain, Humans, Intuition [physiology], Judgment [physiology], Male, Morals, Social Behavior, Social Perception, Students [psychology], Young Adult",3,3,Schnall,1700,University of Plymouth,Schnall,1700,University of Plymouth,Johnson,11,Michigan State University,Donnellan,5924,Texas A&M,246,2.03,2.03,3.95,3.45,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,Strong expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Extreme opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,5,4,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,F Cheung,3/19/13,10/1/13,F Cheung,2,"F(1, 41) = 7.81",43,prep = .97,,,between ANOVA,main effect,Hand-washing after experiencing disgust led participants to judge moral vignettes with less severity than participants who did not wash their hands. ,__p^2 = .16,,44,58,72,Complete,100,0.99,1,D Lakens,"F(1, 124) = 0.001",126,0.97,same,,between ANOVA,main effect,no,0.99,d = .006,C Christopherson,This replication was also submitted for publication in the March 2014 special edition issue of Social Psychology and includes both studies from the original manuscript.,1,https://osf.io/pkaqw/,PhD or equivalent,2001,Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Slight Expertise,154,130,5800,was of much higher quality than the original study,was much better than the average study,Extremely similar,none,Extremely similar,Not at all similar,Moderately challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Social,43,F,is,1,41,7.81,prep,0.97,0.007866967,0.007866967,,0.400010244,126,F,is,1,124,0.001,is,0.97,0.974823723,0.974823723,,0.002839798,,one way ANOVA,one way ANOVA,,1,0,1,41,124,0.106108841,0,0
152,Genes and Popularity,SA Burt,PS,19,2,112-3,,"Adult, Environment, Female, Genotype, Humans, Male, Population Surveillance [methods], Promoter Regions, Genetic",1,,Burt,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,r = .20,127,<.05,,,correlation,correlation,"in sample 1, the G1438A polymorphism was associated with popularity ratings",r = .20,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,127,r,is,,,0.2,<,0.05,0.023974716,0.023974716,,0.2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
153,Extremal edge: a powerful cue to depth perception and figure-ground organization,"SE Palmer, T Ghose",PS,19,1,77-84,https://osf.io/0aifq/,"Attention, Contrast Sensitivity, Depth Perception, Discrimination Learning, Field Dependence-Independence, Humans, Optical Illusions, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual",2,3,Palmer,10291,UC Berkeley,Palmer,10291,UC Berkeley,Johnston,0,MIT,Saxe,8175,MIT,38,5.61,5.61,6.42,6.42,2,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Strong expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.67,3,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,R Saxe,1/1/12,5/29/12,R Saxe,2,t(7) = 4.45,8,<.001,,,single sample t-test,trend,Surfaces with a single EE (EE1) along the shared contour were perceived as closer than surfaces with two EE's orthogonal to the shared contour (Convex2),d = 1.573,,6,7,8,Complete,9,0.98,1,C Christopherson,t(7) = 0.32,8,0.76,same,,single sample t-test,trend,no,0.96,d = 0.11,G Jahn,we acquired the original stimuli and code for experiment delivery from the original authors.,1,https://osf.io/jnqky/,PhD or equivalent,2003,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Moderate Expertise,110,76,8089,was about the same quality as the original study,was worse than the average study,Moderately similar,"In retrospect, I thin the population we recruited was substantially less motivated and attentive than the original group. Because this was a psychophysics study, participants needed to be very attentive and careful. It would have been better to use a trained, or more motivated, group.",Moderately similar,Moderately similar,Moderately challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive neuroscience,8,t,is,1,7,4.45,<,0.001,0.002971641,0.002971641,,0.859552403,8,t,is,1,7,0.32,is,0.76,0.758308044,0.758308044,,0.120073568,,single sample t-test,single sample t-test,,1,0,1,7,7,0.706141998,0,1
154,What Do Cross_National Comparisons of Personality Traits Tell Us? The Case of Conscientiousness,"SJ Heine, EE Buchtel, A Norenzayan",PS,19,4,309-13,https://osf.io/siaqe/,"Attitude, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Culture, Humans, Morals, Personality, Personality Inventory",3,2,Heine,12531,University of British Columbia,Heine,12531,University of British Columbia,Lazarevi_,3,University of Belgrade,Knezevi_,1071,University of Belgrade,105,3.67,3.67,1.72,1.72,1,Social,31,Pre-existing,Strong expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4,4.67,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,L Lazarevic,8/20/14,11/1/14,M Kidwell,1,r = -0.43,70,X,,2,correlation,correlation,Validity criteria (behavioural and demographic measures of conscientiousness) had significant correlations with Perceptions of National Characters (PNC),r = -0.43,,X,X,X,Complete,10,X,1,A Laique,r=.-11,16,X,same,2,correlation,correlation,yes,X,r=.-11,A Fedor,originally coded as infeasible because of the availablility of the secondary data,1,https://osf.io/akv6y/,PhD or equivalent,2001,Professor (or equivalent),High Expertise,High Expertise,100,95,1062,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,"1. New data for Serbia were collected. 2. We used an additional behavioural measure of conscientiousness, which can be easily assessed for all countries involved in the study _ the Fragile State Index (see http://ffp.statesindex.org/). 3. We did not include BFI self-report data in the analyses, because they were available only for Serbia. 4. For some of the countries in the replication study (i.e., Czech Republic, France, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, United States), NEO-PI-R peer report data were collected on adolescents as part of the Adolescent Personality Profiles of Cultures Project (De Fruyt, et al., 2009), instead of adults. 5. For three countries the self-report NEO scores were transformed (see the next section).",Very similar,Very similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,Some data used was pre-existing,Personality,70,r,is,,,-0.43,,,0.000166938,0.000166938,,0.43,16,r,is,,,-0.11,,,0.690466537,0.690466537,,0.11,,correlation,correlation analysis,,1,0,1,67,13,0.403111094,1,1
155,Personality dominance and preferential use of the vertical dimension of space,"SK Moeller, MD Robinson, DL Zabelina",PS,19,4,355-61,https://osf.io/tg2wd/,"Adult, Attention, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Metaphor, Personality, Social Dominance, Space Perception, Spatial Behavior",3,2,Moeller,230,North Dakota State University,Robinson,6629,North Dakota State University,Levitan,378,Occidental College,Levitan,378,Occidental College,33,2.34,2.34,2.12,2.12,2,Social,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,4.4,3,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,C Levitan,8/12/13,1/5/15,Charney,2,r = -.31,53,<.05,,,correlation,correlation,Participants who scored as more dominant in personality were more likely to have relatively faster response times to vertical stimuli than horizontal stimuli.,r = -.31,,79,105,129,Complete,72,0.76,1,A Laique,r = 0.034,72,0.78,opposite,2,correlation,correlation,no,0.76,r = 0.034,S Mackinnon,,1,https://osf.io/uevha/,PhD or equivalent,2007,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Some Expertise,19,12,373,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Very similar,different sample might have had different personality traits,Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were somewhat surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,53,r,is,,,-0.31,<,0.05,0.023414774,0.023414774,,0.31,72,r,is,,,0.034,is,0.78,0.777533992,0.777533992,,-0.034,,correlation,correlation,,1,0,1,50,69,0.114961058,0,0
156,Beyond fear: rapid spatial orienting toward positive emotional stimuli.,"T Brosch, D Sander, G Pourtois, KR Scherer",PS,19,4,362-70,,"Adult, Affect, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Expressed Emotion, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Space Perception, Spatial Behavior",4,,Brosch,,,,,,,,,,,,153,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,"F(1, 18) = 2.598",20,0.93,,,2x2 ANOVA,interaction,"in the temporal segmentation analysis, there is no significant emotion type x cue validity interaction",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,20,F,is,1,18,2.598,is,0.93,0.124393963,0.937803018,,0.355146097,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
157,A double dissociation between action and perception in the context of visual illusions: opposite effects of real and illusory size.,"T Ganel, M Tanzer, MA Goodale",PS,19,3,221-5,,"Depth Perception, Discrimination Learning, Field Dependence-Independence, Hand Strength, Humans, Optical Illusions, Orientation, Psychomotor Performance, Psychophysics, Reality Testing, Size Perception",3,,Ganel,,,,,,,,,,,,61,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,2,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,t(13) = 2.63,27,prep = .92,,,t-test,main effect,"MGAs reflect the real length of an object, even if participants perceive the physically longer object to be shorter",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,27,t,is,1,13,2.63,prep,0.92,0.020787407,0.020787407,,0.589311447,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
158,Conflict-triggered goal shielding: Response conflicts attenuate background monitoring for prospective memory cues.,"T Goschke, G Dreisbach",PS,19,1,25-32,https://osf.io/bk53t/,"Attention, Conflict (Psychology), Cues, Goals, Humans, Inhibition (Psychology), Intention, Memory, Short-Term, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time",2,2,Goschke,4017,Dresden University of Technology,Goschke,4017,Dresden University of Technology,Perugini,5313,University of Milan-Bicocca,Perugini,5313,University of Milan-Bicocca,45,2.09,2.09,1.8,1.8,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.5,3.25,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,M Perugini,1/1/12,7/7/12,M Perugini,1,"F(1, 38) = 6.21",40,prep = .927,,,ANOVA,interaction,An interaction between Perspective Memory (PM) cue dimension and compatibility predicted the mean proportion of missed PM cues,__p^2 = .14,,69,89,107,Complete,90,0.9,1,S Gordon-McKeon,"F(1, 93)=18.94",95,0.000035,same,,ANOVA,interaction,yes,0.9,__p^2=.17,M Brandt,,1,https://osf.io/mvdsw/,PhD or equivalent,1993,Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Some Expertise,123,100,5240,was of slightly lower quality than the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Moderately similar,"Each participant of the replication study took 192 trials instead of 204, because of an error in the script.",Extremely similar,Somewhat similar,Very challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Quantitative,40,F,is,1,38,6.21,prep,0.927,0.017182464,0.017182464,,0.374787884,95,F,is,1,93,18.94,is,0.000035,3.46E-05,3.46E-05,,0.411336583,,ANOVA,ANOVA,,1,1,0,38,93,0.424817617,1,1
159,Cultural influences on neural substrates of attentional control,"T Hedden, S Ketay, A Aron, HR Markus, JD Gabrieli",PS,19,1,17-Dec,,"Acculturation, Adolescent, Adult, Asian Americans [psychology], Attention [physiology], Brain [physiology], Cross-Cultural Comparison, Discrimination Learning [physiology], European Continental Ancestry Group [psychology], Female, Field Dependence-Independence, Frontal Lobe [physiology], Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Judgment, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Orientation [physiology], Oxygen Consumption [physiology], Parietal Lobe [physiopathology], Pattern Recognition, Visual [physiology], Size Perception, Social Values",5,,Hedden,,,,,,,,,,,,214,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,"F(1, 18) = 26.19",20,<.001,,,2x2 ANOVA,interaction,culture x instruction interaction on activation differences: americans show greater activation difference during relative instruction than during absolut instruction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,20,F,is,1,18,26.19,<,0.001,7.20E-05,7.20E-05,,0.769849352,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
160,First Impressions and Last Resorts: How listeners adjust to speaker variability.,"T Kraljic, AG Samuel, SE Brennan",PS,19,4,332-8,https://osf.io/pj5hb/,"Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Attitude, Humans, Phonetics, Reaction Time, Social Perception, Speech Perception",3,1,Kraljic,921,UC San Diego,Brennan,9846,Stony Brook University,Babel,486,University of British Columbia,Babel,486,University of British Columbia,117,4.08,2.85,3.67,3.67,1,Cognitive,2,Collected themselves,Moderate expertise required,Moderate opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2.67,2.33,0,,0,,0,1,0,0,M Babel,7/17/14,,M Kidwell,1,"F(1, 62) = 5.93",268,prep = .93,,2,ANOVA,simple effect,listeners hearing ambiguous pronunciations first attribute them to the speaker and show learning; listeners hearing them second instead attribute them to some (unknown) transient cause and not show learning.,d = 0.6,,404,540,668,Complete,404,0.8,1,M Brandt,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,PhD or equivalent,2009,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Some Expertise,36,20,475,was of slightly higher quality than the original study,was about the same as the average study,Virtually identical,"We recorded a new model talker for video. Misalignment between the new video and the old audio (note the original study also had an audio-video mismatch in terms of the speaker) could affect the outcome. The original study used listeners from Long Island, our listener population speaks a West Coast variety of North American English -- that could also play a role. We have not finished data collection, so I am not answering the last few questions.",,,Slightly challenging,,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Speech (Linguistics),268,F,is,1,62,5.93,prep,0.93,0.017775393,0.017775393,,0.295458535,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
161,Detecting the snake in the grass: attention to fear-relevant stimuli by adults and young children.,"V Lobue, JS DeLoache",PS,19,3,284-9,https://osf.io/sd7kg/,"Adult, Age Factors, Animals, Attention, Child, Preschool, Fear, Field Dependence-Independence, Humans, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reaction Time, Snakes",2,5,Lobue,563,University of Virginia,DeLoache,8201,University of Virginia,Cramblet Alvarez,6,Adams State University,Cramblet Alvarez,6,Adams State University,143,4.36,4.36,1.4,1.4,3,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Slight opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,2,3.67,2,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,L Cramblet Alvarez,1/17/13,11/19/14,L Cramblet Alvarez,3,"F(1, 44) = 13.42",48,<.01,,,between ANOVA,main effect,"Both children and adults reaction times to stimuli were faster for fear-relevant conditions, as opposed to fear-irrelevant conditions",__p^2 = . 23,,33,40,50,Complete,35,0.85,2,J Goss,"F(1, 44) = 1.437",48,0.237,same,2,between ANOVA,main effect,no,0.9,_2 = .032,E Baranski,"original author indicated ""2"" for her assessment because she preferred we replicate experiment #2 rather than #3",1,https://osf.io/p67kr/,PhD or equivalent,2005,Professor (or equivalent),Some Expertise,Some Expertise,4,2,2,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,use of different data collection program (written for the study),Very similar,Very similar,Somewhat challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,3,No data used was pre-existing,Education/school,48,F,is,1,44,13.42,<,0.01,0.000665379,0.000665379,,0.483442318,48,F,is,1,44,1.437,is,0.237,0.237041962,0.237041962,,0.177837588,,2x2x2 between subjects ANOVA,2X2X2 ANOVA,,1,0,1,44,44,0.353607781,0,1
162,Can an angry woman get ahead?,"VL Brescoll, EL Uhlmann",PS,19,3,268-75,,"Adult, Anger, Career Mobility, Communication, Culture, Female, Hierarchy, Social, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Prejudice, Professional Competence, Salaries and Fringe Benefits, Stereotyping, Women, Working [psychology]",2,,Brescoll,,,,,,,,,,,,139,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,M Kidwell,3,t(44) = 3.53,133,prep = .986,,,t-test,main effect,if an angry female professional provides an objective reason for being angry she evokes less negative reactions,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,133,t,is,1,44,3.53,prep,0.986,0.000987739,0.000987739,,0.469786797,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
163,Implicit prejudice toward injecting drug users predicts intentions to change jobs among drug and alcohol nurses,"W von Hippel, L Brener, C von Hippel",PS,19,1,11-Jul,,"Adult, Alcoholism [nursing], Attitude of Health Personnel, Career Mobility, Empathy, Female, Humans, Intention, Job Satisfaction, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, New South Wales, Nurses [psychology], Personality Inventory, Prejudice, Substance Abuse, Intravenous [nursing]",3,,von Hippel,,,,,,,,,,,,53,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,M Kidwell,1,indirect effect = .175,44,"""significant""",,,bivariate correlation,mediation,implicit prejudice is a significant mediator of the relation between job stress and intention to change jobs,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,44,,is,,,0.175,significant,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
164,Affective Flexibility: evaluative processing goals shape amygdala activity.,"WA Cunningham, JJ Van Bavel, IR Johnsen",PS,19,2,152-60,https://osf.io/bifc7/,"Adult, Affect [physiology], Amygdala [physiology], Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male",3,2,Cunningham,7492,The Ohio State University,Cunningham,7492,The Ohio State University,McRae,2355,University of Denver,McRae,2355,University of Denver,160,4.18,4.18,2.61,2.61,1,Social,1,Collected themselves,Strong expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Strong opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3,4,0,,0,,0,1,0,0,K McRae,7/29/14,,J Cohoon,1,"f(1, 11) = 9.67",12,<.01,,2,RMANOVA,interaction,more extreme positive and negative names were expected to be associated with greater amygdala activation,dz = 3.931481,,12,15,18,Complete,35,0.99,1,J Carp,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,PhD or equivalent,2007,Assistant Professor (or equivalent),Moderate Expertise,High Expertise,34,28,2303,was of slightly higher quality than the original study,was better than the average study,Very similar,"some novel stimuli to be time and location appropriate, different scan parameters, slight different task timing                ",,,Very challenging,,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive Neuroscience,12,F,is,1,11,9.67,<,0.01,0.009931447,0.009931447,,0.683979364,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
165,The value heuristic in judgments of relative frequency.,"X Dai, K Wertenbroch, CM Brendl",PS,19,1,18-9,https://osf.io/q7f6w/,"Adult, Attention, Concept Formation, Discrimination Learning, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Motivation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Problem Solving",3,3,Dai,75,INSEAD Europe Campus,Brendl,1773,INSEAD Europe Campus,Fuchs,138,University of Cologne,Fuchs,138,University of Cologne,28,2.05,2.05,2.89,1.65,3,Social,1,Collected themselves,No expertise required,Slight opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,Moderate opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,3.11,2.94,2,2,0,0,0,1,1,0,H Fuchs,1/1/12,7/16/12,H Fuchs,1,"X^2(1, N=56) = 4.51",56,0.037,,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,main effect,Participants were more likely to underestimate the number of pictures in their value category than in the 'other' category.,w = .3386167,,64,85,105,Complete,64,0.8,1,S Fiedler,"X^2(1, N = 51) = 1.57",51,0.21,opposite,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,main effect,no,0.68,w = .19,J Carp,Power calculations assume a correlation of r = .5 between repeated measures; Data had already been collected when requirement to get original authors assessment was added.,1,https://osf.io/aigrv/,PhD or equivalent,2013,Post-doc or Research Scientist,Slight Expertise,Some Expertise,4,4,138,was about the same quality as the original study,was about the same as the average study,Extremely similar,The language in which the study was conducted.,Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Not at all challenging,Results were slightly surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Decision making,56,Chi2,is,1,,4.51,is,0.037,0.033697241,0.033697241,,0.28378815,51,Chi2,is,1,,1.57,is,0.21,0.210207014,0.210207014,,-0.175454592,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,chi Square,,1,0,1,56,51,,1,0
166,Conjoint measurement of gloss and surface texture,"YX Ho, MS Landy, LT Maloney",PS,19,2,196-204,,"Cognition, Cues, Humans, Judgment, Light, Models, Psychological, Visual Perception",3,,Ho,,,,,,,,,,,,74,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0,0,0,,,,J Cohoon,1,X,X,X,,,Pearson's Chi-squared test,main effect,comparison of full model to additive model for experiments 1 and 2,X,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,X,,,,,,,,,,,,NA,NA,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
167,"Head up, foot down: Object words orient attention to the objects' typical location.","Z Estes, M Verges, LW Barsalou",PS,19,2,93-7,https://osf.io/vwnit/,"Attention, Cues, Head, Humans, Space Perception, Vocabulary",3,2,Estes,1188,University of Warwick,Barsalou,26096,Emory University,Renkewitz,518,University of Erfurt,Renkewitz,518,University of Erfurt,91,2.67,3.65,1.65,1.65,3,Cognitive,1,Collected themselves,Slight expertise required,No opportunity for researcher expectations to influence results,No opportunity for lack of diligence to affect the results,5.2,4,2,2,1,1,0,1,1,0,F Renkewitz,1/1/12,11/17/12,F Renkewitz,1,"F(1, 17) = 9.33",18,prep = .97,,,RM ANOVA,main effect,Attentional effect of object words interfered with the visual perception of a target in the typical location of the object.,_^2 =.7,,6,8,9,Complete,20,0.99,1,S Fiedler,"F(1, 21) = 1.45",22,0.24,same,,RM ANOVA,main effect,no,0.99,__p^2 = .065,G Jahn,Power calculations refer to error-rate data and assume a correlation of r = .5 between repeated measures,1,https://osf.io/eqp4w/,PhD or equivalent,2004,Associate Professor (or equivalent),Slight Expertise,Some Expertise,25,11,609,was of slightly higher quality than the original study,was slightly better than the average study,Extremely similar,"We translated the stimulus material from English to German. Our sample was drawn at a German university. The procedure of both studies, however, was virtually identical.",Not at all similar,Not at all similar,Moderately challenging,Results were moderately surprising,X,1,No data used was pre-existing,Cognitive,18,F,is,1,17,9.33,prep,0.97,0.007169828,0.007169828,,0.595271914,22,F,is,1,21,1.45,is,0.24,0.241925362,0.241925362,,0.25414164,,within subjects ANOVA,within subjects ANOVA,,1,0,1,17,21,0.449149493,1,1
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,NA,,,NA,,,,,,,,,NA,,,NA,,,,,,,,,,,,