Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979)

Randy J. McCarthy, John J. Skowronski, Bruno Verschuere, Ewout H. Meijer, Ariane Jim, Katherine Hoogesteyn, Robin Orthey, Oguz A. Acar, Balazs Aczel, Bence E. Bakos, Fernando Barbosa, Ernest Baskin, Laurent Bègue, Gershon Ben-Shakhar, Angie R. Birt, Lisa Blatz, Steve D. Charman, Aline Claesen, Samuel L. Clay, Sean P. CoaryJan Crusius, Jacqueline R. Evans, Noa Feldman, Fernando Ferreira-Santos, Matthias Gamer, Coby Gerlsma, Sara Gomes, Marta González-Iraizoz, Felix Holzmeister, Juergen Huber, Rafaele J. C. Huntjens, Andrea Isoni, Ryan K. Jessup, Michael Kirchler, Nathalie klein Selle, Lina Koppel, Marton Kovacs, Tei Laine, Frank Lentz, David D. Loschelder, Elliot A. Ludvig, Monty L. Lynn, Scott D. Martin, Neil M. McLatchie, Mario Mechtel, Galit Nahari, Asil Ali Özdoğru, Rita Pasion, Charlotte R. Pennington, Arne Roets, Nir Rozmann, Irene Scopelliti, Eli Spiegelman, Kristina Suchotzki, Angela Sutan, Peter Szecsi, Gustav Tinghög, Jean-Christian Tisserand, Ulrich S. Tran, Alain Van Hiel, Wolf Vanpaemel, Daniel Västfjäll, Thomas Verliefde, Kévin Vezirian, Martin Voracek, Lara Warmelink, Katherine Wick, Bradford J. Wiggins, Keith Wylie, Ezgi Yıldız

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80% of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20% described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the primary analyses) of Srull and Wyer?s Experiment 1, each of which followed a preregistered and vetted protocol. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that the protagonist was seen as 0.08 scale points more hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.16]). The ambiguously hostile behaviors were seen as 0.08 points less hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% CI = [?0.18, 0.01]). Although the confidence interval for one outcome excluded zero and the observed effect was in the predicted direction, these results suggest that the currently used methods do not produce an assimilative priming effect that is practically and routinely detectable.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)321-336
Number of pages16
JournalAdvances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
Volume1
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2018

Cite this

McCarthy, Randy J. ; Skowronski, John J. ; Verschuere, Bruno ; Meijer, Ewout H. ; Jim, Ariane ; Hoogesteyn, Katherine ; Orthey, Robin ; Acar, Oguz A. ; Aczel, Balazs ; Bakos, Bence E. ; Barbosa, Fernando ; Baskin, Ernest ; Bègue, Laurent ; Ben-Shakhar, Gershon ; Birt, Angie R. ; Blatz, Lisa ; Charman, Steve D. ; Claesen, Aline ; Clay, Samuel L. ; Coary, Sean P. ; Crusius, Jan ; Evans, Jacqueline R. ; Feldman, Noa ; Ferreira-Santos, Fernando ; Gamer, Matthias ; Gerlsma, Coby ; Gomes, Sara ; González-Iraizoz, Marta ; Holzmeister, Felix ; Huber, Juergen ; Huntjens, Rafaele J. C. ; Isoni, Andrea ; Jessup, Ryan K. ; Kirchler, Michael ; klein Selle, Nathalie ; Koppel, Lina ; Kovacs, Marton ; Laine, Tei ; Lentz, Frank ; Loschelder, David D. ; Ludvig, Elliot A. ; Lynn, Monty L. ; Martin, Scott D. ; McLatchie, Neil M. ; Mechtel, Mario ; Nahari, Galit ; Özdoğru, Asil Ali ; Pasion, Rita ; Pennington, Charlotte R. ; Roets, Arne ; Rozmann, Nir ; Scopelliti, Irene ; Spiegelman, Eli ; Suchotzki, Kristina ; Sutan, Angela ; Szecsi, Peter ; Tinghög, Gustav ; Tisserand, Jean-Christian ; Tran, Ulrich S. ; Van Hiel, Alain ; Vanpaemel, Wolf ; Västfjäll, Daniel ; Verliefde, Thomas ; Vezirian, Kévin ; Voracek, Martin ; Warmelink, Lara ; Wick, Katherine ; Wiggins, Bradford J. ; Wylie, Keith ; Yıldız, Ezgi. / Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979). In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2018 ; Vol. 1, No. 3. pp. 321-336.
@article{4b04639db1f6484c854223a239dc54a5,
title = "Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979)",
abstract = "Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80{\%} of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20{\%} described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the primary analyses) of Srull and Wyer?s Experiment 1, each of which followed a preregistered and vetted protocol. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that the protagonist was seen as 0.08 scale points more hostile when participants were primed with 80{\%} hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20{\%} hostile sentences (95{\%} confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.16]). The ambiguously hostile behaviors were seen as 0.08 points less hostile when participants were primed with 80{\%} hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20{\%} hostile sentences (95{\%} CI = [?0.18, 0.01]). Although the confidence interval for one outcome excluded zero and the observed effect was in the predicted direction, these results suggest that the currently used methods do not produce an assimilative priming effect that is practically and routinely detectable.",
author = "McCarthy, {Randy J.} and Skowronski, {John J.} and Bruno Verschuere and Meijer, {Ewout H.} and Ariane Jim and Katherine Hoogesteyn and Robin Orthey and Acar, {Oguz A.} and Balazs Aczel and Bakos, {Bence E.} and Fernando Barbosa and Ernest Baskin and Laurent B{\`e}gue and Gershon Ben-Shakhar and Birt, {Angie R.} and Lisa Blatz and Charman, {Steve D.} and Aline Claesen and Clay, {Samuel L.} and Coary, {Sean P.} and Jan Crusius and Evans, {Jacqueline R.} and Noa Feldman and Fernando Ferreira-Santos and Matthias Gamer and Coby Gerlsma and Sara Gomes and Marta Gonz{\'a}lez-Iraizoz and Felix Holzmeister and Juergen Huber and Huntjens, {Rafaele J. C.} and Andrea Isoni and Jessup, {Ryan K.} and Michael Kirchler and {klein Selle}, Nathalie and Lina Koppel and Marton Kovacs and Tei Laine and Frank Lentz and Loschelder, {David D.} and Ludvig, {Elliot A.} and Lynn, {Monty L.} and Martin, {Scott D.} and McLatchie, {Neil M.} and Mario Mechtel and Galit Nahari and {\"O}zdoğru, {Asil Ali} and Rita Pasion and Pennington, {Charlotte R.} and Arne Roets and Nir Rozmann and Irene Scopelliti and Eli Spiegelman and Kristina Suchotzki and Angela Sutan and Peter Szecsi and Gustav Tingh{\"o}g and Jean-Christian Tisserand and Tran, {Ulrich S.} and {Van Hiel}, Alain and Wolf Vanpaemel and Daniel V{\"a}stfj{\"a}ll and Thomas Verliefde and K{\'e}vin Vezirian and Martin Voracek and Lara Warmelink and Katherine Wick and Wiggins, {Bradford J.} and Keith Wylie and Ezgi Yıldız",
note = "doi: 10.1177/2515245918777487",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/2515245918777487",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "321--336",
journal = "Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science",
issn = "2515-2459",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "3",

}

McCarthy, RJ, Skowronski, JJ, Verschuere, B, Meijer, EH, Jim, A, Hoogesteyn, K, Orthey, R, Acar, OA, Aczel, B, Bakos, BE, Barbosa, F, Baskin, E, Bègue, L, Ben-Shakhar, G, Birt, AR, Blatz, L, Charman, SD, Claesen, A, Clay, SL, Coary, SP, Crusius, J, Evans, JR, Feldman, N, Ferreira-Santos, F, Gamer, M, Gerlsma, C, Gomes, S, González-Iraizoz, M, Holzmeister, F, Huber, J, Huntjens, RJC, Isoni, A, Jessup, RK, Kirchler, M, klein Selle, N, Koppel, L, Kovacs, M, Laine, T, Lentz, F, Loschelder, DD, Ludvig, EA, Lynn, ML, Martin, SD, McLatchie, NM, Mechtel, M, Nahari, G, Özdoğru, AA, Pasion, R, Pennington, CR, Roets, A, Rozmann, N, Scopelliti, I, Spiegelman, E, Suchotzki, K, Sutan, A, Szecsi, P, Tinghög, G, Tisserand, J-C, Tran, US, Van Hiel, A, Vanpaemel, W, Västfjäll, D, Verliefde, T, Vezirian, K, Voracek, M, Warmelink, L, Wick, K, Wiggins, BJ, Wylie, K & Yıldız, E 2018, 'Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979)', Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 321-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918777487

Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979). / McCarthy, Randy J.; Skowronski, John J.; Verschuere, Bruno; Meijer, Ewout H.; Jim, Ariane; Hoogesteyn, Katherine; Orthey, Robin; Acar, Oguz A.; Aczel, Balazs; Bakos, Bence E.; Barbosa, Fernando; Baskin, Ernest; Bègue, Laurent; Ben-Shakhar, Gershon; Birt, Angie R.; Blatz, Lisa; Charman, Steve D.; Claesen, Aline; Clay, Samuel L.; Coary, Sean P.; Crusius, Jan; Evans, Jacqueline R.; Feldman, Noa; Ferreira-Santos, Fernando; Gamer, Matthias; Gerlsma, Coby; Gomes, Sara; González-Iraizoz, Marta; Holzmeister, Felix; Huber, Juergen; Huntjens, Rafaele J. C.; Isoni, Andrea; Jessup, Ryan K.; Kirchler, Michael; klein Selle, Nathalie; Koppel, Lina; Kovacs, Marton; Laine, Tei; Lentz, Frank; Loschelder, David D.; Ludvig, Elliot A.; Lynn, Monty L.; Martin, Scott D.; McLatchie, Neil M.; Mechtel, Mario; Nahari, Galit; Özdoğru, Asil Ali; Pasion, Rita; Pennington, Charlotte R.; Roets, Arne; Rozmann, Nir; Scopelliti, Irene; Spiegelman, Eli; Suchotzki, Kristina; Sutan, Angela; Szecsi, Peter; Tinghög, Gustav; Tisserand, Jean-Christian; Tran, Ulrich S.; Van Hiel, Alain; Vanpaemel, Wolf; Västfjäll, Daniel; Verliefde, Thomas; Vezirian, Kévin; Voracek, Martin; Warmelink, Lara; Wick, Katherine; Wiggins, Bradford J.; Wylie, Keith; Yıldız, Ezgi.

In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, Vol. 1, No. 3, 01.09.2018, p. 321-336.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979)

AU - McCarthy, Randy J.

AU - Skowronski, John J.

AU - Verschuere, Bruno

AU - Meijer, Ewout H.

AU - Jim, Ariane

AU - Hoogesteyn, Katherine

AU - Orthey, Robin

AU - Acar, Oguz A.

AU - Aczel, Balazs

AU - Bakos, Bence E.

AU - Barbosa, Fernando

AU - Baskin, Ernest

AU - Bègue, Laurent

AU - Ben-Shakhar, Gershon

AU - Birt, Angie R.

AU - Blatz, Lisa

AU - Charman, Steve D.

AU - Claesen, Aline

AU - Clay, Samuel L.

AU - Coary, Sean P.

AU - Crusius, Jan

AU - Evans, Jacqueline R.

AU - Feldman, Noa

AU - Ferreira-Santos, Fernando

AU - Gamer, Matthias

AU - Gerlsma, Coby

AU - Gomes, Sara

AU - González-Iraizoz, Marta

AU - Holzmeister, Felix

AU - Huber, Juergen

AU - Huntjens, Rafaele J. C.

AU - Isoni, Andrea

AU - Jessup, Ryan K.

AU - Kirchler, Michael

AU - klein Selle, Nathalie

AU - Koppel, Lina

AU - Kovacs, Marton

AU - Laine, Tei

AU - Lentz, Frank

AU - Loschelder, David D.

AU - Ludvig, Elliot A.

AU - Lynn, Monty L.

AU - Martin, Scott D.

AU - McLatchie, Neil M.

AU - Mechtel, Mario

AU - Nahari, Galit

AU - Özdoğru, Asil Ali

AU - Pasion, Rita

AU - Pennington, Charlotte R.

AU - Roets, Arne

AU - Rozmann, Nir

AU - Scopelliti, Irene

AU - Spiegelman, Eli

AU - Suchotzki, Kristina

AU - Sutan, Angela

AU - Szecsi, Peter

AU - Tinghög, Gustav

AU - Tisserand, Jean-Christian

AU - Tran, Ulrich S.

AU - Van Hiel, Alain

AU - Vanpaemel, Wolf

AU - Västfjäll, Daniel

AU - Verliefde, Thomas

AU - Vezirian, Kévin

AU - Voracek, Martin

AU - Warmelink, Lara

AU - Wick, Katherine

AU - Wiggins, Bradford J.

AU - Wylie, Keith

AU - Yıldız, Ezgi

N1 - doi: 10.1177/2515245918777487

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80% of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20% described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the primary analyses) of Srull and Wyer?s Experiment 1, each of which followed a preregistered and vetted protocol. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that the protagonist was seen as 0.08 scale points more hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.16]). The ambiguously hostile behaviors were seen as 0.08 points less hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% CI = [?0.18, 0.01]). Although the confidence interval for one outcome excluded zero and the observed effect was in the predicted direction, these results suggest that the currently used methods do not produce an assimilative priming effect that is practically and routinely detectable.

AB - Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80% of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20% described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the primary analyses) of Srull and Wyer?s Experiment 1, each of which followed a preregistered and vetted protocol. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that the protagonist was seen as 0.08 scale points more hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.16]). The ambiguously hostile behaviors were seen as 0.08 points less hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% CI = [?0.18, 0.01]). Although the confidence interval for one outcome excluded zero and the observed effect was in the predicted direction, these results suggest that the currently used methods do not produce an assimilative priming effect that is practically and routinely detectable.

U2 - 10.1177/2515245918777487

DO - 10.1177/2515245918777487

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 321

EP - 336

JO - Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

JF - Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

SN - 2515-2459

IS - 3

ER -