Replication of Does Seeing Faces of Young Black Boys Facilitate the Identification of Threatening Stimuli? by Todd et al. (2016, Psychological Science)
Introduction
After reviewing the possible rescue projects available to students, a decision was made to attempt to rescue the replication project from Todd et al. (2016) for mainly two reasons. First, the topic is highly relevant and has strong implications. The paper deals with anti-Black racism toward young boys, and the finding that the perception of young Black faces facilitates the recognition of certain objects or words says a lot about how stereotyping and racism function at a perceptive level. Second, the experimental paradigm itself seemed straightforward and easy to reproduce, but other aspects of the experiment (e.g., sample size, data analysis) seem not to have been done in the best way.
The present project aims to rescue the replication of Experiment 1, which used photos of Black and White boys as primes for the categorization of objects (gun vs. toy). Specifically, the rescue will focus on attempting to replicate the results concerning reaction times and error rates. For that, we will need access to the stimuli utilized in the experiment (i.e., images of faces of boys and a set of images of objects to be categorized). In addition, the experiment will have to be programmed in the appropriate form (e.g., PsychoPy or Qualtrics).
Challenges involve recreating the experimental paradigm in line with the original and analyzing the data using the same statistical techniques. Adding other forms to guarantee the high quality of the experiment (e.g., attention checks, control) might also be challenging.
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.