Replication of ‘Ecocentrism and Anthropocentrism: Moral Reasoning About Ecological Commons Dilemmas’ by Kortenkamp & Moore (2001, Journal of Environmental Psychology)
Introduction
Facilitating pro-environmental behaviors can be, from a behavioral intervention approach, quite fickle. Interventions that work in the context of a survey may decay in their efficacy within the hour, or even the moment they step away from their computers. Accordingly, long-lasting interventions may have a reinforcement mechanism that the more touch-and-go interventions lack. We hypothesize that one such mechanism relates to forming and maintaining an environmentalist identity, via select subprocesses. One such subprocess may be how we conceptualize the environment morally. Kortenkamp & Moore (2001) found a relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and certain forms of moral reasoning. As it is quite dated, it would be good to check if the relationship still holds even decades from the original experiment.
Participants will be shown four ecological moral dilemmas (overgrazing, logging old-growth, logging protected redwood, and building a new landfill). The experiment will have a 2x2 design, where we will either 1) give or not give additional info on how the action will harm the environment, and 2) give or not give additional info on how the action will harm humans. Participants would be randomly assigned into one of these four groups, consistent for each dilemma. They will then be asked whether or not a character in the dilemma should perform or not support the damaging act. They will be asked to give four factors they took into consideration when making their decision.
These responses will then be coded and grouped into three categories: anthropocentric reasoning, ecocentric reasoning, and nonenvironmental reasoning. This may be the most difficult part of the methods, since the coding needs to be reliable and accurate.
- Replication repository: https://github.com/psych251/kortenkamp2001
- Original paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494401902051
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.