Replication of How Quick Decisions Illuminate Moral Character by Clayton R. Critcher, Yoel Inbar, & David A. Pizarro (2013, Social Psychological and Personality Science)
Introduction
Within social psychology, studying relationships and snap judgements can give us insight into how people may justify the negative treatment of others. I am particularly interested in using computational methods to investigate how judgements based on aspects of a person’s identity—such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, neurodivergence, or disability status—lead to prejudiced beliefs and discriminatory behavior. Performing a replication study of Experiment 1 from How Quick Decisions Illuminate Moral Character will provide a foundation for measuring and quantifying snap character judgements. I am also intrigued by the concept of moral character evaluations based on a first impressions and the speed at which they occur. Replicating this study could provide me with an adaptable framework to investigate how the speed of identity detection informs the impression and moral character judgement from prejudiced individuals (e.g. if a homophobic individual is unable to discern that someone is not straight until after they have already formed a generally positive first impression of them, how does that impact their overall judgement of their character?). In essence, I am interested in what affects the speed of moral character judgements and can see myself gaining useful knowledge that could be applied to my later research.
To conduct this experiment, we will introduce two characters (in writing) to the participants. In the scenario, they both independently come across two separate cash-filled wallets in a grocery store parking lot. One is “able to decide quickly” what to do, and the other is “only able to decide after long and careful consideration.” Then, participants who were randomly assigned to the moral condition will be presented with the outcome where both characters “did not steal the money and left the wallet with customer service instead.” Participants in the immoral condition will be presented with the alternate ending where both men decide to “pocket the money and drive off.” Immediately following the reading of their passage, participants will be asked to indicate the following on a scale from 1-7: (1) how quickly each character made their decision, (2) assess the character’s underlying moral principals and standards, (3) report the perceived decision certainty, and (4) indicate the perceived emotionally impulsive nature of the decisions. Running a two-way 2x2 ANOVA should allow us to analyze these results appropriately.
I anticipate a few potential challenges with replicating this study. It is possible that emotionally impulsivity or certainty may be confounding variables, and could therefore introduce high multicollinearity with decision speed. This may make it difficult to tell if the moral judgements are actually due to speed, or underlying variables associated with decision speed. I think it is important that we also explore the potential for any two-way interactions between variables in this setting, since it is possible that the effect of speed on moral judgement may change based on whether the decision made was moral or immoral. In regards to programming skills, I have no previous experience coding in Java, so I anticipate that may be a personal challenge I will encounter as well.
[No abstract is needed.] Each replication project will have a straightforward, no frills report of the study and results. These reports will be publicly available as supplementary material for the aggregate report(s) of the project as a whole. Also, to maximize project integrity, the intro and methods will be written and critiqued in advance of data collection. Introductions can be just 1-2 paragraphs clarifying the main idea of the original study, the target finding for replication, and any other essential information. It will NOT have a literature review – that is in the original publication. You can write both the introduction and the methods in past tense.
\(~\)
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.
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.
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
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.
Confirmatory analysis
The analyses as specified in the analysis plan.
Side-by-side graph with original graph is ideal here
Exploratory analyses
Any follow-up analyses desired (not required).
\(~\)
Discussion
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.