Replication of Study ‘How Quick Decisions Illuminate Moral Character’ by Clayton R. Critcher, Yoel Inbar and David A. Pizarro (2012, Psychological Science)
Introduction
Critcher, Inbar, and Pizarro (2012) found that the speed of decision-making plays a major role in shaping how we evaluate someone’s moral character. Quick decisions often signal certainty, which leads to stronger judgments—quick moral decisions get positive evaluations, while quick immoral ones result in harsher criticism. In contrast, slow decisions suggest indecision or conflict, leading to more moderate assessments.
In this replication, I’ll be testing these findings again, but with a stronger emphasis on randomization to reduce any potential biases that may have influenced the original study. This could pose challenges, especially if additional variables or confounding factors emerge that were not fully accounted for before. By refining the experimental design, I aim to provide a clearer understanding of how decision speed impacts moral evaluations and address any limitations in the original methodology. To conduct this experiment, participants will be presented with scenarios where individuals make either moral or immoral decisions, with the critical variable being the speed of the decision (quick vs. slow). After each scenario, participants will rate the decision-maker’s moral character, perceived certainty, and impulsivity. The challenge will be creating scenarios that clearly manipulate decision speed without introducing unintended biases—ensuring quick decisions don’t seem impulsive by default and slow decisions aren’t perceived as overly reflective. Pretesting will be necessary to refine the stimuli and ensure participants interpret them consistently and as intended.
[Repository] (https://github.com/carolineporche1/critcher2012)
[Original Paper] (https://github.com/carolineporche1/critcher2012/blob/main/original_paper/How_quick_decisions_illuminate_moral_cha.pdf)
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.