Replication of Study affective congruence & donation by Genevsky et al. (2025, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience)
Introduction
I chose to replicate Experiment 1a from Genevsky et al. (2025) because it directly connects with my research interests in affective decision-making and prosocial behavior, particularly how emotional cues and affective congruence shape value-based choices. Genevsky and colleagues proposed that the congruence between emotional features in charitable appeals—such as facial expressions and message framing—can enhance donation behavior by eliciting positive aroused affect, which in turn engages reward-related neural systems like the nucleus accumbens (NAcc). This framework integrates affective science and decision neuroscience, offering a mechanistic account of how emotion and valuation processes jointly drive prosocial giving. Replicating Experiment 1a, the foundational behavioral study in their series, provides an opportunity to test the robustness and generalizability of the affective congruence effect across participant samples. It also offers a strong behavioral foundation for my broader research program, which examines how affective and neural signals forecast real-world decisions, such as consumer or charitable choices. By reproducing this experiment, I aim to evaluate whether affective congruence consistently amplifies giving through emotional engagement, and to better understand the affective mechanisms that support prosocial decision-making.
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
The experiment will use the original image and message stimuli from Genevsky et al. (2025). The image set consists of photographs depicting individuals in need who display either happy or sad facial expressions, representing the manipulation of image valence. Each image is paired with a brief aid message that is either positively or negatively framed, creating a 2 × 2 within-subjects factorial design that varies affective congruence between the two affective features. Stimuli will be presented on a computer screen using a program that allows participants to indicate their donation decision with a slider bar ranging from $0.00 to $10.00. Additional materials include task instructions, comprehension checks, demographic questions, and post-task self-reports of emotional responses.
Procedure
Participants will receive a $10 endowment at the beginning of the session and complete 48 trials organized in a counterbalanced block design. On each trial, participants will view one image–message pair and decide how much of their endowment to donate using the slider. Each decision will be recorded as the dollar amount donated, along with response time and stimulus identifiers. Trial order within blocks will be randomized to minimize order and carryover effects. At the end of the session, one trial will be randomly selected to determine the participant’s real payout: if a donation was made on that trial, the chosen amount will be deducted from their endowment and donated to the corresponding cause; otherwise, the participant will retain the full $10. Finally, participants will complete brief demographic and manipulation-check questionnaires assessing perceived emotional tone of the stimuli.
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.