Many Labs 5: Registered Replication of Shnabel and Nadler (2008), Study 4

Abstract

Shnabel and Nadler (2008) assessed a needs-based model of reconciliation suggesting that in conflicts, victims and perpetrators have different psychological needs that when satisfied increase the chances of reconciliation. For instance, Shnabel and Nadler found that after a conflict, perpetrators indicated that they had a need for social acceptance and were more likely to reconcile after their sense of social acceptance was restored, whereas victims indicated that they had a need for power and were more likely to reconcile after their sense of power was restored. Gilbert (2016), as a part of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P), attempted to replicate these findings using different study materials but did not find support for the original effect. In an attempt to reconcile these discrepant findings, we conducted two new sets of replications—one using the RP:P protocol and another using modified materials meant to be more relatable to undergraduate participants. Teams from eight universities contributed to data collection ( N = 2,738). We did find moderation by protocol; the focal interaction from the revised protocol, but not from the RP:P protocol, replicated the interaction in the original study. We discuss differences in, and possible explanations for, the patterns of results across protocols.

Victims need more than power: Empowerment and moral change independently predict victims’ satisfaction and willingness to reconcile.

“…1 In other words, according to the needs-based model of reconciliation, the victim's empowerment-or, a restoration of "agency" (Shnabel & Nadler, 2015)-is the primary prerequisite for reconciliation. Many empirical findings are in line with this model (e.g., Shnabel et al, 2009Shnabel et al, , 2013Shnabel et al, , 2014; but also see Baranski et al, 2020), suggesting that victims of injustice do indeed seek to restore their sense of power and that empowerment increases victims' willingness to reconcile with offenders.…”

Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability

“…Of the two statistically significant effects obtained with the revised protocol, the observed effect sizes were 76% and 67% smaller than the those reported for the original studies. Comparing the RP:P and revised protocols for each of these findings indicated that for only one of the two tests was the revised protocol’s effect size significantly larger ( p = .601 for Chartier et al’s, 2020, replication of Albarracín et al’s, 2008, Experiment 5; p = .012 for Baranski et al’s, 2020 replication of Shnabel & Nadler, 2008). It is possible that the expert feedback did reliably improve the effect size for the replication of Shnabel and Nadler (2008), but given the number of tests, it is also plausible that this difference occurred by chance.…”

“…Nevertheless, if the difference is replicable, then these protocols might help in studying the role of manipulation checks and effective implementation of the experimental intervention. In this case, the manipulation checks for both protocols suggested that the intervention was effective (Baranski et al, 2020, this issue), and yet the outcomes on the dependent variable landed on opposing sides of the statistical-significance criterion ( p s = .004, .350).…”

“…The two project organizers had primary responsibility for drafting the manuscript, and the other authors contributed to revisions, knowing the outcomes of at most one set of replications during the writing process (depending on which individual studies they helped conduct). The full reports of the individual replication studies are reported separately in this issue (Baranski et al, 2020; Buttrick et al, 2020; Chartier et al, 2020; Corker et al, 2020; Ebersole et al, 2020; IJzerman et al, 2020; Lazarević et al, 2020; Mathur et al, 2020; Rabagliati et al, 2020; Skorb et al, 2020).…”

A Review of Multisite Replication Projects in Social Psychology: Is It Viable to Sustain Any Confidence in Social Psychology’s Knowledge Base?

“…We review these below, noting also whether results were different between the full and truncated samples. Baranski et al (2020) noted that nearly half (45%) their sample failed the attention check. They reported that the focal interaction was significant with the full sample but not the truncated sample, although the patterns were similar and both departed from the original finding.…”