Replication of Economic Insecurity Increases Physical Pain by Chou et al. (2016, Psychological Science)

Introduction

The domain of this project is a a bit off-center from my current research study. My research is in the space of Human-Computer Interaction, specifically focusing on how hegemonic digital constructs implicitly influence our perceptions of the world. Like most topics in this course, having experience running randomized control trials will help with testing causal theories. Nevertheless, I picked this project because I am interested in learning more about how our mental state indeed affects our physical state.

This specific paper from Chou et al. (2016) aims to understand if economic insecurity has an effect on physical pain. The original authors claim to demonstrate this through six experiments, and one meta-analysis with five of the experiments. Here, we shift our focus to replicating the experiment not used in the meta-analysis: Lack of Control Produces Physical Pain (Study 5).

Participants are randomly assigned to Group A or Group B. In Group A (control), participants are asked to recount a time when they were in complete control of a situation. In Group B (intervention), participants are asked to do the opposite – namely recount a time they felt “a complete lack of control.” Both groups then spend a few minutes reflecting on these incidents, and then are asked to indicate the level of physical pain they are experiencing. The challenges of this study seem mostly related to assessing the level of severity of their specific memory; some individuals in Group B may recall very painful memories, while some may not. It is also a challenge to determine if the pain they experience is directly attributed to the intervention, or if circumstances like environment and initial pain levels impact the final measurement. There is also an ethical consideration to be evaluated; it will need to determined that it is sufficient to potentially trigger participants’ harmful expereiences for the sake of the study.

Documentation relating to this project can be found here

Summary of prior replication attempt

Based on the prior write-up, describe any differences between the original and 1st replication in terms of methods, sample, sample size, and analysis. Note any potential problems such as exclusion rates, noisy data, or issues with analysis.

Methods

Power Analysis

Original effect size, power analysis for samples to achieve 80%, 90%, 95% power to detect that effect size. Considerations of feasibility for selecting planned sample size.

How much power does your planned sample have for original effect? For an attenuated effect that is half the size of the original?

(If power analysis is not possible or precise, discuss more fully how you determined a sample size that would be sufficient for rescue.)

Planned Sample

Planned sample size and/or termination rule, sampling frame, known demographics if any, preselection rules if any.

Materials

All materials - can quote directly from original article - just put the text in quotations and note that this was followed precisely. Or, quote directly and just point out exceptions to what was described in the original article.

Procedure

Can quote directly from original article - just put the text in quotations and note that this was followed precisely. Or, quote directly and just point out exceptions to what was described in the original article.

Controls

What attention checks, positive or negative controls, or other quality control measures are you adding so that a (positive or negative) result will be more interpretable?

Analysis Plan

Can also quote directly, though it is less often spelled out effectively for an analysis strategy section. The key is to report an analysis strategy that is as close to the original - data cleaning rules, data exclusion rules, covariates, etc. - as possible.

Clarify key analysis of interest here You can also pre-specify additional analyses you plan to do.

Differences from Original Study and 1st replication

Explicitly describe known differences in sample, setting, procedure, and analysis plan from original study. The goal, of course, is to minimize those differences, but differences will inevitably occur. Also, note whether such differences are anticipated to make a difference based on claims in the original article or subsequent published research on the conditions for obtaining the effect.

Methods Addendum (Post Data Collection)

You can comment this section out prior to final report with data collection.

Actual Sample

Sample size, demographics, data exclusions based on rules spelled out in analysis plan

Differences from pre-data collection methods plan

Any differences from what was described as the original plan, or “none”.

Results

Data preparation

Data preparation following the analysis plan.

Results of control measures

How did people perform on any quality control checks or positive and negative controls?

Confirmatory analysis

The analyses as specified in the analysis plan.

Three-panel graph with original, 1st replication, and your replication is ideal here

Exploratory analyses

Any follow-up analyses desired (not required).

Discussion

Mini meta analysis

Combining across the original paper, 1st replication, and 2nd replication, what is the aggregate effect size?

Summary of Replication Attempt

Open the discussion section with a paragraph summarizing the primary result from the confirmatory analysis and the assessment of whether it replicated, partially replicated, or failed to replicate the original result.

Commentary

Add open-ended commentary (if any) reflecting (a) insights from follow-up exploratory analysis, (b) assessment of the meaning of the replication (or not) - e.g., for a failure to replicate, are the differences between original and present study ones that definitely, plausibly, or are unlikely to have been moderators of the result, and (c) discussion of any objections or challenges raised by the current and original authors about the replication attempt. None of these need to be long.