Effort reduces 1/f noise in Weapon Racial Task (#156)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Etienne P. LeBel. Effort reduces 1/f noise in Weapon Racial Task. (2013, April 29). Retrieved 15:43, June 22, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU2

MLA Style

"Effort reduces 1/f noise in Weapon Racial Task" Etienne P. LeBel. 29 Apr 2013 14:11 22 Jun 2017, 15:43 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU2>

MHRA Style

'Effort reduces 1/f noise in Weapon Racial Task', Etienne P. LeBel, , 29 April 2013 14:11 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU2> [accessed 22 June 2017]

Chicago Style

"Effort reduces 1/f noise in Weapon Racial Task", Etienne P. LeBel, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU2 (accessed June 22, 2017)

CBE/CSE Style

Effort reduces 1/f noise in Weapon Racial Task [Internet]. Etienne P. LeBel; 2013 Apr 29, 14:11 [cited 2017 Jun 22]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU2

Reference to Original Report of Finding Correll, J. (2008, Study 2). 1/f noise and effort on implicit measures of bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 48-59.
Title Effort reduces 1/f noise in Weapon Racial Task
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'. Study 2
Link to PDF of Original Report
Brief Statement of Original Result Participants instructed to use race and avoid race exhibited less 1/f noise than participants in the control condition (planned contrast: average of experimental conditions compared to control condition).
Type of Replication Attempted Highly Direct Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? Same Direction, .37
Number of Subjects 148
Number of Subjects in Original Study 71
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2012
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Etienne P. LeBel
Detailed Description of Method/Results Exact same instructions and task were used as all original stimuli acquired from original author.

Exact same analysis executed. Target analysis involved a between-subjects ANOVA using a planned orthogonal contrast comparing the PSD slopes in the control condition to the average of the PSD slopes in the two experimental conditions (codes: control = -1, avoid race = +1/2, use race = +1/2). Inconsistent with Correll's original finding, this analysis yielded a non-significant contrast, F(1, 145) = .79, p > .37, d = .15 whereby the average of the mean PSD slopes in the experimental conditions (M_avoidRace = -.28, SD = .26 and M_useRace = -.35, SD = .33) were not less negative than in the control condition (M_control = -.37, SD = .38; contrast estimate = .05, with a 95% C.I. of [-.06, .17]), even though the sample was more than twice as large as the original.

The current sample achieved a power level of .86 to detect an effect as large as the one reported by Correll (i.e., contrast estimate = .18, d = .56).
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
Four minor differences which were not anticipated a priori "based on published and intuitive bases" to alter the likelihood of replicating the effect. (1) Canadian undergraduates will be used rather than American undergraduates (2) Participants will be run in groups of 1 to 5 rather than separately as in original study (3) Keyboard will be used to record responses rather than a response box (4) A different beeping sound will be heard for incorrect responses
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Experienced 5th-year undergraduate research assistant
Location of ProjectLondon, Ontario, Canada
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
University students from subject pool
Where did these subjects reside?Canada
Was this a Class Project?No
Further Details of Results as pdf PDF

Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information
I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.
TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking

Are you posting an unpublished replication attempt that you conducted yourself, or noting a published replication attempt?

Post Unpublished
Post Published