Replicating and fixing failed replications: The case of need for cognition and argument quality

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Volumn 69, Issue , 2017, Pages 178-183

  Luttrell, Andrew ^a   Petty, Richard E ^b   Xu, Mengran ^b  

^a 931 College Mall   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Elaboration likelihood model; Need for cognition; Replication; Reproducibility

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; MODEL; REPRODUCIBILITY;

EID: 85008235367     PISSN: 00221031     EISSN: 10960465     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.006     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bakker, B.N., Lelkes, Y., Selling ourselves short? How abbreviated measures of personality change the way we think about personality and politics. (Unpublished manuscript), 2016, University of Amsterdam.
2. Brandt, M.J., Ijzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F.J., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., van't Veer, A., The Replication Recipe: What makes for a convincing replication?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 50 (2014), 217–224, 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005.
3. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (1979), 97–109, 10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.97.
4. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (1982), 116–131, 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116.
5. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Morris, K., Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, argument recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (1983), 805–818, 10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805.
6. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F., The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment 48:3 (1984), 306–307, 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13.
7. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J., Jarvis, W.B.G., Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin 119 (1996), 197–253, 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197.
8. Calanchini, J., Moons, W.G., Mackie, D.M., Angry expressions induce extensive processing of persuasive appeals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 64 (2016), 88–98, 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.004.
9. Carpenter, C.J., A meta-analysis of the ELM's argument quality × processing type predictions. Human Communication Research 41:4 (2015), 501–534, 10.1111/hcre.12054.
10. Cesario, J., Priming, replication, and the hardest science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9:1 (2014), 40–48, 10.1177/1745691613513470.
11. Clark, J.K., Wegener, D.T., Message position, information processing, and persuasion: The Discrepancy Motives Model. Devine, P., Plant, A., (eds.) Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 47, 2013, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 189–232, 10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00004-8.
12. Cohen, J.E., Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.
13. Crandall, C.S., Sherman, J.W., On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66 (2016), 93–99, 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.002.
14. Dijksterhuis, A., Welcome back theory!. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9:1 (2014), 72–76, 10.1177/1745691613513472.
15. Ebersole, C.R., Atherton, O.E., Belanger, A.L., Skulborstad, H.M., Allen, J.M., Banks, J.B., Nosek, B.A., Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 67 (2016), 68–82.
16. Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., Conceptualizing and evaluating the replication of research results. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66 (2016), 68–80, 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.009.
17. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., Lang, A.G., Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41 (2009), 1149–1160.
18. Gilbert, D.T., King, G., Pettigrew, S., Wilson, T.D., Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”. Science, 351(6277), 2016, 1037a, 10.1126/science.aad7243.
19. Hayes, A.F., Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. 2013, The Guilford Press, New York.
20. Kam, C.D., Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior 27:2 (2005), 163–182, 10.1007/s11109-005-1764-y.
21. Klein, R.A., Ratliff, K.A., Vianello, M., Adams, R.B. Jr., Bahnik, S., Bernstein, M.J., Nosek, B.A., Investigating variation in replicability: A “Many Labs” replication project. Social Psychology 45 (2014), 142–152, 10.1027/1864-9335/a00017.
22. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349 (2015), 943–951, 10.1126/science.aac4716.
23. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:10 (1979), 1915–1926, 10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1915.
24. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. 1986, Springer Verlag, New York.
25. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo J.T., Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin 107 (1990), 367–374, 10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.367.
26. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Methodological choices have predictable consequences in replicating studies on motivation to think: Commentary on Ebersole et al. (2016). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 67 (2016), 86–87.
27. Petty, R.E., Harkins, S.G., Williams, K.D., The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38 (1980), 81–92, 10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.81.
28. See, Y.H.M., Petty, R.E., Evans, L.M., The impact of perceived message complexity and need for cognition on information processing and attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009), 880–889, 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.006.
29. Simons, D.J., The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (2014), 76–80, 10.1177/1745691613514755.
30. Simonsohn, U., No-way interactions. Data Colada, 2014, 10.15200/winn.142559.90552.
31. Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L.D., Simmons, J.P., P-Curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143:2 (2014), 534–547, 10.1037/a0033242.
32. Smith, S.M., Petty, R.E., Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22 (1996), 257–268, 10.1177/0146167296223004.
33. Smithson, M., Correct confidence intervals for various regression effect sizes and parameters: The importance of noncentral distributions in computing intervals. Educational and Psychological Measurement 61:4 (2001), 605–632, 10.1177/00131640121971392.
34. Van Bavel, J.J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W.J., Reinero, D.A., Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (2016), 6454–6459, 10.1073/pnas.1521897113.
35. Wheeler, S.C., Petty, R.E., Bizer, G.Y., Self-schema matching and attitude change: Situational and dispositional determinants of message elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research 31 (2005), 787–797, 10.1086/426613.
36. Widaman, K.F., Little, T.D., Preacher, K.J., Sawalani, G.M., On creating and using short forms of scales in secondary research. Trzesniewski, K.H., Donnellan, B.M., Lucas, R.E., (eds.) Secondary data analysis: An introduction for psychologists, 2011, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 39–61.