Diminished egocentrism effect replicated (#261)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Alan Jern and students of SV 472. Diminished egocentrism effect replicated. (2017, February 15). Retrieved 16:12, October 22, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjYx

MLA Style

"Diminished egocentrism effect replicated" Alan Jern and students of SV 472. 15 Feb 2017 14:40 22 Oct 2017, 16:12 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjYx>

MHRA Style

'Diminished egocentrism effect replicated', Alan Jern and students of SV 472, , 15 February 2017 14:40 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjYx> [accessed 22 October 2017]

Chicago Style

"Diminished egocentrism effect replicated", Alan Jern and students of SV 472, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjYx (accessed October 22, 2017)

CBE/CSE Style

Diminished egocentrism effect replicated [Internet]. Alan Jern and students of SV 472; 2017 Feb 15, 14:40 [cited 2017 Oct 22]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjYx

Reference to Original Report of Finding Thomas, R. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2013). Diminishing adult egocentrism in estimating what others know. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 473-486.
Title Diminished egocentrism effect replicated
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 1
Link to PDF of Original Report
Brief Statement of Original Result Subjects exhibited less of an egocentric bias when estimating what facts others would know if they had recently learned the facts themselves in an earlier part of the experiment.
Type of Replication Attempted Highly Direct Replication
Result Type Successful Replication
Difference? Same Direction, .001
Number of Subjects 41
Number of Subjects in Original Study 26
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2017
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Alan Jern and students of SV 472
Detailed Description of Method/Results In the first phase of the experiment, subjects see general knowledge questions with their answers. In the second phase, subjects complete a filler task for 10 minutes. In the final phase, subjects provide answers to trivia questions, half of which are ones they saw in the first phase, and half of which are new. After answering each question, subjects estimate what percentage of their peers would know the answer to the question.

A more detailed description of methods is included in the attached pdf. All materials and data are available at osf.io/hsve8.
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
We replicated the original experimental methods as closely as possible. The biggest difference was that we used 100 total questions (two sets of 50) instead of 160 total questions (two sets of 80). We also measured response time for the peer accuracy judgment differently. The original study measured response time starting from when the subject first clicked on the slider. We started as soon as the slider appeared.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Students ran subjects and AJ analyzed the data.
Location of ProjectRose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
University students paid for lab study
Where did these subjects reside?United States
Was this a Class Project?Yes
Further Details of Results as pdf PDF

Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information There was a significant interaction between question type (old or new) and performance type (subject\'s accuracy on the questions or subject\'s estimated peer accuracy), p < .001, partial eta-squared effect size of 0.69 (0.93 in original study).\r\n\r\nThe mean correlation between each subject\'s own accuracy and their peer accuracy estimates for old questions (M = 0.63, SD = 0.11) was significantly different than for new questions (M = 0.72, SD = 0.22), p = 0.008, partial eta-squared effect size of 0.16 (0.25 in original study).
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