Favorable Sex Ratios Unrelated to Diversification (#252)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Michael O'Donnell and Leif D. Nelson. Favorable Sex Ratios Unrelated to Diversification. (2016, May 10). Retrieved 04:55, November 22, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjUy

MLA Style

"Favorable Sex Ratios Unrelated to Diversification" Michael O'Donnell and Leif D. Nelson. 10 May 2016 15:57 22 Nov 2017, 04:55 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjUy>

MHRA Style

'Favorable Sex Ratios Unrelated to Diversification', Michael O'Donnell and Leif D. Nelson, , 10 May 2016 15:57 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjUy> [accessed 22 November 2017]

Chicago Style

"Favorable Sex Ratios Unrelated to Diversification", Michael O'Donnell and Leif D. Nelson, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjUy (accessed November 22, 2017)

CBE/CSE Style

Favorable Sex Ratios Unrelated to Diversification [Internet]. Michael O'Donnell and Leif D. Nelson; 2016 May 10, 15:57 [cited 2017 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjUy

Reference to Original Report of Finding Ackerman, J. M., Maner, J. K., & Carpenter, S. M. (2016). Going All In: Unfavorable Sex Ratios Attenuate Choice Diversification. Psychological Science, 1, 11.
Title Favorable Sex Ratios Unrelated to Diversification
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 ReportView Article
Brief Statement of Original Result We attempted to replicate the main effect in Study 2, that participants exposed to unfavorable sex ratios chose to invest more shares in fewer companies (i.e., less diversification) in a hypothetical investment task.
Type of Replication Attempted Highly Direct Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? Opposite Direction, .53
Number of Subjects 266
Number of Subjects in Original Study 105
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2016
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Michael O'Donnell and Leif D. Nelson
Detailed Description of Method/Results Note: This replication was pre-registered on AsPredicted.

Participants: Participants were 266 workers recruited from MTurk (the same subject pool as in the article).

Procedure: We utilized the supplementary materials provided with the original paper to generate a replication of Study 2. Participants who completed the study read a newspaper article that indicated a skewed sex-ratio (either male-biased or female-biased), the wording of which was copied exactly from the supplementary materials. Participants then completed the investment measure, which was also copied exactly from the supplementary materials. Finally, participants provided their age, gender, and familiarity with financial investing.

Results: We coded for favorable or unfavorable sex-ratios. Male participants exposed to female-biased sex ratio information and female participants exposed to male-biased sex-ratio information were coded as having favorable sex-ratios and all others were coded as having unfavorable sex-ratios. We calculated an average of the 5 investment items (reverse-scoring item 3) to yield a measure of investment concentration (more concentration is less diversification). We conducted a 2 (sex ratios: favorable or unfavorable) by 2 (sex: male or female) ANOVA predicting investment concentration. We find no main effect of favorable/unfavorable sex ratios F(1, 262) = .4, p = .53 and no main effect of gender F(1, 262) = .07, p = .79. We do find a significant interaction effect F(1, 262) = 7.35, p = .007. A graph of the 4 marginal means, with standard error bars, is attached.

The significant interaction reported above can be better understood as a main effect of sex-ratio cues (regardless of favorability). Indeed, a 2 (sex ratios: male-biased or female-biased) by 2 (gender: male or female) ANOVA predicting investment concentration yield a significant main effect of sex ratios F(1, 262) = 7.35, p = .007, and neither a main effect of gender F(1, 262) = .07, p = .79 nor an interaction effect, F(1, 262) = .4, p = .53. The marginal means for the sex-ratio factor indicate relatively more investment concentration (less diversification) when participants are told there are more males (M = 2.03) than when told there are more females (M = 1.8).

The AsPredicted pre-registration can be found here:
https://aspredicted.org/jtsbd.pdf

An OSF page containing the data, stata do file, printout of the Qualtrics survey, and a printout of the pre-registration from AsPredicted can be found here: https://osf.io/smfxd/
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
Unclear if there was a filler task between the sex-ratio prime and the investment task in the original study. We had no filler between the prime and the investment task. In our version of the study, participants were required to remain on the page with the sex-ratio prime (i.e., the news article) for at least 15 seconds before advancing. It is unknown if any timing delay was used in the original study.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Michael O'Donnell ran the subjects and analyzed the data.
Location of ProjectAmazon Mechanical Turk
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
Adults tested through internet
Mechanical Turk
Where did these subjects reside?United States
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