Failure to replicate McCabe & Castel (#185)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Bogdan Kostic, Cory Derringer. Failure to replicate McCabe & Castel. (2014, April 25). Retrieved 15:34, September 25, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTg1

MLA Style

"Failure to replicate McCabe & Castel" Bogdan Kostic, Cory Derringer. 25 Apr 2014 15:45 25 Sep 2017, 15:34 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTg1>

MHRA Style

'Failure to replicate McCabe & Castel', Bogdan Kostic, Cory Derringer, , 25 April 2014 15:45 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTg1> [accessed 25 September 2017]

Chicago Style

"Failure to replicate McCabe & Castel", Bogdan Kostic, Cory Derringer, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTg1 (accessed September 25, 2017)

CBE/CSE Style

Failure to replicate McCabe & Castel [Internet]. Bogdan Kostic, Cory Derringer; 2014 Apr 25, 15:45 [cited 2017 Sep 25]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTg1

Reference to Original Report of Finding McCabe, D.P., & Castel, A.D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning.
Title Failure to replicate McCabe & Castel
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'. Experiment 3
Link to PDF of Original Report
Brief Statement of Original Result The presence of a brain image increased ratings of agreement with a news article’s conclusions, and the presence of criticism had no effect. The presence of a brain image did not affect ratings of the appropriateness of the title, but the presence of criticism decreased ratings of the title.
Type of Replication Attempted Highly Direct Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? Opposite Direction, .40
Number of Subjects 99
Number of Subjects in Original Study 108
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2014
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Bogdan Kostic, Cory Derringer
Detailed Description of Method/Results Participants read one of four versions of a short news article entitled “Brain Scans Can Detect Criminals.” The articles either included a brain image or did not, and either had a short statement of criticism of the article’s conclusions or did not. After participants read the article they used a four-point scale to rate how appropriate they found the title and how much they agreed with the article’s conclusions. The study used a 2(Brain Image: Present vs. Absent) x 2 (Criticism: Present vs. Absent) Between-subjects design. There were 25 participants in each of the conditions, except for the Brain Image Absent/Criticism Absent condition which had 24 participants.

A 2x2 Between-subjects ANOVA on the ratings of agreement with the article’s conclusion showed no main effect of Brain Image, F(1,95) = 0.71, MSE = 0.36, p = .40, and a main effect of Criticism, F(1,95) = 5.36, MSE = 0.36, p = .02, partial eta squared = .05, in which ratings of agreement with the conclusion were higher when criticism was absent. There was no interaction between the two factors, F(1,95) = 1.28, MSE = 0.36, p = .26. The same type of ANOVA on the ratings of appropriateness of the title showed a significant main effect of Brain Image, F(1,95) = 4.98, MSE = 0.46, p = .03, partial eta squared = .05, in which ratings of the appropriateness of the title were higher when the brain image was absent. There was no main effect of Criticism, F(1,95) = 0.04, MSE = 0.46, p = .85. The interaction between the two factors was not significant, F(1,95) = 1.05, MSE = 0.46, p = .31.

Below are the averages and standard deviations of the ratings across conditions:

Ratings of agreement with the conclusions
Brain present, Criticism present: 2.58 (0.64)
Brain present, Criticism absent: 2.72 (0.68)
Brain absent, Criticism present: 2.54 (0.51)
Brain absent, Criticism absent: 2.96 (0.55)

Ratings of the appropriateness of the title
Brain present, Criticism present: 1.85 (0.67)
Brain present, Criticism absent: 1.96 (0.54)
Brain absent, Criticism present: 2.29 (0.69)
Brain absent, Criticism absent: 2.13 (0.80)

Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
None.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Bogdan Kostic and Cory Derringer
Location of ProjectHill Hall, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65897
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
Other
Students in an Experimental Psychology (research methods) lab participated as part of a lab activity that was led by the instructor.
Where did these subjects reside?United States
Was this a Class Project?Yes
Further Details of Results as 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