ML2 Codebook for Primary Analyses
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY
1
Measures, Effects, and CitationVariables in Dataset for Primary AnalysisExclusion CriteriaNotes
2
Demographics and individual difference measures
3
Age, Sex, Race/ethnicity, Cultural origins (3 items), political ideology, education, Hometown, location of wealthier people in hometown (for Huang et al., 2014) age, sex, race, born, born.par, born.par2, hometown, homewealth (north=1, South=2, neither=3), politics (left-wing=1 right wing=7 n/a=-99; for use in Graham et al.), education (higher numbers=higher level)
4
Cognitive reflection: Finucane, M. L., & Gullion, C. M. (2010). Developing a tool for measuring the decision-making competence of older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25, 271.cogref.1 (nurses); cogref.2 (soup and salad); cogref.3 (tea)
5
Self-Esteem: Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151-161.sise (higher values=higher self-esteem)
6
Personality: Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.tipi_1=extraverted, enthusiastic; tipi_2=Critical, quarrelsome; tipi_3=dependable, self-disciplined; tipi_4 = Anxious, easily upset; tipi_5= Open to new experiences, complex; tipi_6= reserved, quiet; tipi_7= sympathetic, warm; tipi_8=disorganizaed, careless; tipi_9=calm, emotionally stable; tipi_10= conventional, uncreative
7
Instruction Manipulation Check: Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867-872.IMC1 (failed if responses NE [1 & 2 & 3 & 4]).
8
Data quality: Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437–455.IMC2: should we use your data? (yes=1, no=2)
9
Subjective well-being: Veenhoven, R. (2009). The international scale interval study. In V. Møller & D. Huschka (Eds.), Quality of life in the new millennium: Advances in quality-of-life studies, theory and research (pp. 45-58). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.subjwell. 1=dissatisfied; 10=satisfied
10
Mood: Cohen, G. L., Sherman, D. K., Bastardi, A., Hsu, L., McGoey, M., & Ross, L. (2007). Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 415-430.mood. values: extremely bad1 (1) to extremely good (5)
11
Disgust Sensitivity, Contaminiation subscale (Slate 1 only): Olatunji, B. O., Williams, N. L., Tolin, D. F., Abramowitz, J. S., Sawchuk, C. N. Lohr, J. M., & Elwood, L. S. (2007). The Disgust Scale: Item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement. Psychological Assessment, 19, 281-297.disg1.11,disg1.12,disg2.10,disg2.12,disg2.13; --responses on the DS-R are scored as follows: True 1, False 0; Not disgusting 0, Slightly disgusting 0.5, Very disgusting 1
12
13
Slate 1
14
1Huang, Y., Tse, C. S., & Cho, K. W. (2014). Living in the north is not necessarily favorable: Different metaphoric associations between cardinal direction and valence in Hong Kong and in the United States. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 360-369.huan1.1_Y1= Y position of the mouse (high ses condition). huan2.1_Y1= Y position of the mouse (low ses). smaller numbers=upper position. huan1.1_R0 and huan2.1_R0 indicate for each condition whether they clicked inside the map (1) or outside (0). For each condition they must have clicked inside the map (=1) to be included in the analysis.All participants who indicate an area within the boundaries of the map will be included in the analysis. The test for replicating the cultural difference observed in Huang et al. will be conducted on a subset of the participants that respond on the wealth in hometown individual difference item that wealthy people tend to live in the North (akin to original U.S. sample) versus wealthy people tend to live in the South (akin to original Hong Kong sample). The entire sample will be used for investigating variation in effects across sample and setting
15
2Kay, A. C., Laurin, K., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Landau, M. J. (2014). A functional basis for structure-seeking: Exposure to structure promotes willingness to engage in motivated action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 486-491.kay1.4=goal subjective value (ordered condition; higher values=higher happiness to achieve the goal); kay1.5=goal pursuit #1 (ordered condition; higher numbers=higher interest in work toward the goal); kay1.6=goal pursuit #2 (ordered condition; higher numbers= higher inteerst in resisting temptations); kay2.4=goal subjective value (disordered condition; higher values=higher happiness to achieve the goal); kay2.5=goal pursuit #1 (disordered condition; higher numbers=higher interest in work toward the goal); kay2.6=goal pursuit #2 (disordered condition; higher numbers= higher interest in resisting temptations)any participant with missing data on any one of the three
items will not be included in analysis.
16
3Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 569.alt1.3=All dentists are golfers. Some dentists are not tennis players (correct response=7); alt1.4 = No chefs are violinists. Some violinists are artists. (correct response=8) ; alt1.5 = No professors are gymnasts. All cartoonists are gymnasts (correct responses=5,6,7,8) ; alt1.6 = No beekeepers are vegetarians. Some geologists are vegetarians (correct response=8); alt1.7= All doctors are writers. Some doctors are poker players (correct response=3); alt1.8 = Some economists are not rowers. All economists are yachters (correct response=8). alt1.n=easy-to-read condition; alt2.n=difficult-to-read condition. syllogisms N.3 (dentists) and N.8 (economists) were used in the original study
USE FOR EACH SAMPLE ONLY SYLLOGISMS CORRECTLY RESPONSED BY MORE THAN 25% OF SS AND LESS THAN 75% OF SS. secondary analysis will be run on exactly the same syllogisms that were analyzed in the original study (the first and the last in the list).
17
4Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.individualizing items=[grah1.2,grah1.3,grah1.4,grah1.5,grah1.6,grah1.7]; binding items=[grah1.8,grah1.9,grah1.10,grah1.11,grah1.12,grah1.13,grah1.14,grah1.15,grah1.16]. for all items, higher numbers=higher relevance; see Demographics for the political ideology item
18
5Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12, 185-190.rott1.1=certainty condition; rott2.1= 1% chance; values: 1=movie star, 2= $50
19
6Bauer, M. A., Wilkie, J. E., Kim, J. K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2012). Cuing consumerism situational materialism undermines personal and social well-being. Psychological Science, 23, 517-523.baudv.4=trust (higher numbers=higher trust). identify subjects conditions with bau1.1=Consumer condition, bau2.1=Individual condition (mutually exclusive). for secondary analysis: baudv.2 = How responsible do you feel for dealing with the crisis?; baudv.3 = How obligated do you feel to cut your water usage?; baudv.5 = How much do you view the others as partners?; baudv.6 = How much do you believe that the others should use less water than you yourself did?
20
7Miyamoto, Y, & Kitayama, S. (2002). Cultural variation in correspondence bias: The critical role of attitude diagnosticity of socially constrained behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,1239-1248.miya1.4=true attitude (pro-death condition; higher values=higher support for death penalty); miya1.5=endorsed attitude if free to talk (por-death cond); miya1.7=perceived constraint (pro-death condition; higher values=higher freedom); miya2.4=true attitude (against death penalty condition; higher values=higher support for death penalty); miya2.5=endorsed attitude if free to talk (anti-death cond); miya2.7=perceived constraint (against death condition; higher values= higher freedom). miya1.6 (pro-death cond) and miya2.6 (anti-death cond)= perceived attitude of the average student in that person’s country (higher values=higher support for capital punishment); miya1.8 (pro cond) and miya2.8 (anti cond) =perceived persuasiveness of the essay (higher values=higher persuasiveness).
21
8Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D., Knobe, J., & Bloom, P. (2009). Disgust sensitivity predicts intuitive disapproval of gays. Emotion, 9, 435-439.inba1.3=intentionality (homosexual men kissing condition); inba2.3=intentionality (kissing condition); inba1.4=wrong to french kiss in public? (homo condition) inba2.4=wrong to french kiss in public? (kissing cond); inba1.5= wrong to make a video (homo cond), inba2.5= wrong to make a video? (kissing cond). see cell C11 for the disgust sensitivity scale
22
9Critcher, C. R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 241-251.crit1.1= % of P97 sold in the US; crit2.1= % of P17 sold in the US. For sites running this on pencil and paper, crit1.1_1_TEXT = % of P97 sold in the US, crit2.1_1_TEXT = % of P17 sold in US, and those sites were open-response (usually that just means you may have to remove a % symbol from the end). You can identify pencil/paper sites from the ML2_SourceInfo Google Doc (the "Pencil" column).

crit.mc1 = their recollection of the model of the cellphone (P17 or P97) open response. For pencil/paper participants, this is item crit1.1_2_TEXT
or crit2.1_2_TEXT depending on which condition they were in.
Participants whose answers will not fall between 0 and 100 will be excluded from analysis
23
10Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. M. N., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 733 - 746.van.p.1.2_1 TO van.p.1.2_6 are the items of SVO measure. murphy et al. (2011) scoring: SVO degress=arctan [(mean Alloc other − 50)/(mean Allocation self - 50)]. See SVO codes (this doc) for the list of paired amounts. van.p2.1_1_TEXT=# of older siblings; van.p2.1_2_TEXT=# of younger siblings. To be included in the analysis, participants must respond to all 6 items of the SVO slider and have valid data for the two questions asking about older and younger siblings.
24
11Hauser, M., Cushman, F., Young, L., Kang-Xing Jin, R., & Mikhail, J. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind & Language, 22, 1-21.haus1.1t_3= timing (side effect scenario); haus2.1t_3=timing (greater good scenario); haus1.2=previous experience (1=yes, 2=no)); haus2.2=previous experience (1=yes, 2=no); haus1.1=morally permissible (side effect scenario; Yes=1; haus 2.1=morally permissible (greater good scenario; Yes=1). Subjects will be excluded from all analyses if they take fewer than four seconds to read and respond to either of the target scenarios. For the key confirmatory test comparing with the original effect size, we will include only participants that indicate having no prior experience with the task. The original authors suggested the effect may be weaker in participants with prior exposure. Prior exposure will be investigated as a moderator for the other analyses.
25
12Anderson, C., Kraus, M. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Keltner, D. (2012). The local-ladder effect social status and subjective well-being. Psychological science, 23, 764-771.and1.3=Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS, 5 items, Low SocioMetricStatus condition), higher numbers=higher satisfaction; and1.4=Positive And Negative Affect Scale (PANAS, Low SocioMetricStatus condition). Positive items are 1,4,5,8,9,12,14,17,18,19. Negative items: 2,3,6,7,10,11,13,15,16,20; Alert: recode responses to negative items before averaging. and2.3=Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS, 5 items, High SocioMetricStatus condition), higher numbers=higher satisfaction; and2.4=Positive And Negative Affect Scale (PANAS, High SocioMetricStatus condition). Positive items are 1,4,5,8,9,12,14,17,18,19. Negative items: 2,3,6,7,10,11,13,15,16,20; Alert: recode responses to negative items before averaging.
# Analysis plan. Following the original authors, the three dependent measures will be
# standardized and averaged into a single index of subjective well-being. The mean difference in
# subjective well-being between high and low-sociometric status conditions will be tested with an
# independent-samples t-test. All participants with data will be included in the analysis.
26
13Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301. ross.s1.1=percentage of peers; ross.s1.2=you; values: 1=sign; 2=refuse; ross.s1.1_1_TEXT & ross.s1.1_2_TEXT=percentage of peers who would respectively sign or refuse; Participants will be included in the analysis if they respond to all three questions and their estimate for the DV (e.g., “what percent of your peers would sign the release”) falls between 0-100.
27
28
Slate 2
29
14Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301. ross.s2.1_1_TEXT= % of peers who would pay the fine; ross.s2.1_2_TEXT
=% of your peers who would go to court; ross.s2.2=would you pay the fine or appear in court? 1=pay, 2=appear in court
30
15Giessner, S. R., & Schubert, T. W. (2007). High in the hierarchy: How vertical location and judgments of leaders’ power are interrelated. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 30-44.geis.1.1=long line condition; geis.2.1=short line condition; geis.dv_1=dominant; geis.dv_2=strong; geis.dv_3=self-confident; geis.dv_4=control; geis.dv_5=status; average all dvs, higher numbers=higher power.
31
16Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458. tver1.1=choice ("expensive item" condition, yes=1, no=2); tver2.1=choice ("cheap item" cond, yes=1, no=2).
32
17Hauser, M., Cushman, F., Young, L., Kang-Xing Jin, R., & Mikhail, J. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind & Language, 22, 1-21.hauser3.1=morality judgment (greater good condition); hauser4.1=morality judgment (foreseen side-effect condition; for both, yes=1, no=2. haus3.2 and haus4.2=previous experience (yes=1, no=2); haus3.1t_3=timing (greater good); haus4.1t_3=timing (side effect). Participants will be excluded from all analyses if they take fewer than four seconds to read and respond to either of the target scenarios. For the key confirmatory test comparing with the original effect size, we will include only participants that indicate having no prior experience with the task. Prior exposure will be investigated as a moderator for the other analyses
33
18Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Why people are reluctant to tempt fate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 293.rise1.3=likelihood that the professor will call on you (unprepared condition); rise2.3=likelihood that the professor will call on you (prepared condition); for both, higher numbers=higher likelihood All participants that answer the dependent measure will be included in analysis. The primary confirmatory test for comparing the original and replication effect size will be based on only the samples using undergraduate students.
34
19Savani, K., Markus, H. R., Naidu, N. V. R., Kumar, S., & Berlia, N. (2010). What counts as a choice? US Americans are more likely than Indians to construe actions as choices. Psychological Science, 21, 391-398.sava1.N=interpersonal actions; sava2.N=personal actions; sava1.4=choice (buy a gift; 1=choice; 2=no choice); sava1.5=importance (buy a gift); sava1.9=choice (take a friend at the restaurant; 1=choice; 2=no choice); sava1.10=importance (restaurant); sava1.15=choice (trip; 1=choice, 2 and 3 = no choice); sava1.16=importance (trip); sava1.21=choice (dinner; 1=choice, 2 and 3 = no choice); sava1.22=importance (dinner); sava1.27=choice (errand; 1=choice, 2 and 3 = no choice); sava1.28=importance (errand); sava1.33=choice (help, 1=choice, 2 & 3 = no choice); sava1.34=importance (help); sava1.38=choice (advice, 1=choice, 2 & 3 = no choice); sava1.39=importance (advice); sava1.43=choice (friends, 1=choice, 2 & 3 = no choice); sava1.44=importance (friends); sava2.4=choice (buy for yourself; 1=choice; 2=no choice); sava2.5=importance (buy for yourself); sava2.9=choice (at the restaurant by yourself; 1=choice; 2=no choice); sava2.10=importance (restaurant by yourself); sava2.15=choice (trip alone; 1=choice, 2 and 3 = no choice); sava2.16=importance (trip alone); sava2.21=choice (out for dinner; 1=choice, 2 and 3 = no choice); sava2.22=importance (out for dinner); sava2.27=choice (errand for yourself; 1=choice, 2 and 3 = no choice); sava2.28=importance (errand for yourself); sava2.33=choice (ask for help, 1=choice, 2 & 3 = no choice); sava2.34=importance (ask for help); sava2.38=choice (take a course, 1=choice, 2 & 3 = no choice); sava2.39=importance (take a course); sava2.43=choice (friends, 1=choice, 2 & 3 = no choice); sava2.44=importance (friends); For all importance items: higher numbers=higher importancewe will only include university data collections in the primary confirmatory analysis to be compared with the original effect sizes. Data for all participants will be included to examine variability across sample and setting. However, participants must respond to all choice and importance of choice questions to be included in the analysis.
35
20Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 653-684.nore1.1 TO nore1.20 provide choices ("belong to" condition); nore2.1 to nore2.20 provide choices ("similar to" condition). scoring keys in separate file (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kcta4q5j91jeics/Norenzayan_etal2002.scoringKeys.docx?dl=0)
36
21Hsee, C. K. (1998). Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 107-121.hsee1.1=generosity ($90 scarf condition); hsee2.1=generosity ($110 coat condition); for both, higher numbers=higher generosity
37
22Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 505.Adult harms baby scenario; gray1.2=responsibility (adult); gray1.3=intentionality (adult); gray1.4=pain (baby). Baby harms adult scenario; gray2.2=responsibility (baby); gray2.3=intentionality (baby); gray2.4=pain (adult)
38
23Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313, 1451–1452.zhon1.1= unethical condition; zhon2.1=ethical condition; zhon.dv.1_1 TO zhon.dv.1_10=desirability of products (both conditions); higher numbers=higher desirability; Products list: Post-it notes (zhon.dv.1_1), Dove shower soap (zhon.dv.1_2), Crest toothpaste (zhon.dv.1_3), Nantucket Nectars juice (zhon.dv.1_4), Energizer batteries (zhon.dv.1_5), Sony cd cases (zhon.dv.1_6), Windex glass cleaner (zhon.dv.1_7), Lysol countertop disinfectant (zhon.dv.1_8), Snickers candy bar (zhon.dv.1_9), Tide laundry detergent (zhon.dv.1_10)Participants who copy less than half the target article will be excluded from analysis
39
24Schwarz, N., Strack, F., & Mai, H. P. (1991). Assimilation and contrast effects in part-whole question sequences: A conversational logic analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 3-23.schw1.1=life sat (first); schw1.2=partner satisfaction (second); schw2.1=partner satisfaction (first); schw2.2=life sat (second). for all, higher numbers=higher satisfaction
40
25Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21, 546-556.shaf1.1=choice (award condition; Parent A=1, Parent B=2); shaf2.1=choice (deny condition; Parent A=1, Parent B=2)
41
26Zaval, L., Keenan, E. A., Johnson, E. J., & Weber, E. U. (2014). How warm days increase belief in global warming. Nature Climate Change, 4, 143-147. zav1.1 TO zav1.13 provide COLD primes. zav2.1 TO zav2.13 provide HEAT primes. zav.dv.2=belief; zav.dv.3=concern; higher numbers=higher belief/concern. the direct replication test will use only English language sites, and - like all other effects - all samples and settings with data will be included in analyses examining heterogeneity to see if factors, like translation, have an impact on effect estimates
42
27Knobe, J. (2003). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63, 190-193.knob1.3=intentionality (help condition); knob2.3=intentionality (harm condition); for both, higher numbers=higher intentionality; secondary analysis on praise/blame ratings (knob1.4 and knob2.4).
43
28Tversky, A., & Gati, I. (1978). Studies of similarity. Cognition and categorization, 1, 79-98.see Gati Codebook sheet
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...
 
 
 
Summary codebook for primary analysis
Gati Codebook
Norenzayan Scoring Key
SVO CODES
Country codes
Race/ethnicity Codebook