Experiment 1 of Tarampi’s (2016) paper explored how stereotype threat contributes to gender differences in perspective-taking task performances. The researchers found that women tended to perform better when the same task was framed as a social perspective-taking task rather than spatial. This research aligned with my research interest in social cognition. Here, the result suggests that expectations from others influences one’s performance. I wonder how it might translate into social learning and education strategies.
Two tests were used in the experiment: the spatial orientation test and the road-map test. Participants also filled out the AQ questionnaire (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001). All the materials can be found on OSF. The original experiment was done in person, individually, or in a group of 2- 8 people of the same sex. Researchers first introduced perspective-taking ability, framing it either as a test of spatial ability or as a test of empathetic ability. Then, the participants took the spatial orientation test, road-map test, and filled out the AQ questionnaire, with researchers providing instruction at the start of each of the three tasks.
A foreseeable challenge will be crafting a reasonable schedule for recruiting participants, running the task in person, and coding responses. The original study had 139 undergraduate student participants. If I were to run it with around the same number of participants, the time needed from recruiting participants to producing analyzable data would be a lot. Some possible solutions are only focusing on one type of task or running the experiment online.
The repository: https://github.com/psych251/tarampi2016_rescue
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.
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 size and/or termination rule, sampling frame, known demographics if any, preselection rules if any.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You can comment this section out prior to final report with data collection.
Sample size, demographics, data exclusions based on rules spelled out in analysis plan
Any differences from what was described as the original plan, or “none”.
Data preparation following the analysis plan.
How did people perform on any quality control checks or positive and negative controls?
The analyses as specified in the analysis plan.
Three-panel graph with original, 1st replication, and your replication is ideal here
Any follow-up analyses desired (not required).
Combining across the original paper, 1st replication, and 2nd replication, what is the aggregate effect size?
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.
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.