Suspicious Coincidence Effect Replicated (#260)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Goldberg, AE, Emberson, L, Treves, I.. Suspicious Coincidence Effect Replicated . (2017, January 29). Retrieved 10:32, June 25, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjYw

MLA Style

"Suspicious Coincidence Effect Replicated " Goldberg, AE, Emberson, L, Treves, I.. 29 Jan 2017 15:45 25 Jun 2017, 10:32 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjYw>

MHRA Style

'Suspicious Coincidence Effect Replicated ', Goldberg, AE, Emberson, L, Treves, I., , 29 January 2017 15:45 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjYw> [accessed 25 June 2017]

Chicago Style

"Suspicious Coincidence Effect Replicated ", Goldberg, AE, Emberson, L, Treves, I., , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjYw (accessed June 25, 2017)

CBE/CSE Style

Suspicious Coincidence Effect Replicated [Internet]. Goldberg, AE, Emberson, L, Treves, I.; 2017 Jan 29, 15:45 [cited 2017 Jun 25]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjYw

Reference to Original Report of Finding Xu, F., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological review, 114(2), 245.
Title Suspicious Coincidence 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 Xu and Tenenbaum (2007) found that adults and 3-4 year old children were shown a single exemplar of a category (e.g., a picture of a Dalmatian dog labeled a fep), they were often willing to extend the label to any instance of the corresponding basic level category (fep = “dog”). But after witnessing three different feps, each of which was a Dalmatian, participants were much more likely to apply the term more narrowly
Type of Replication Attempted Fairly Direct Replication
Result Type Successful Replication
Difference? Same Direction, .0001
Number of Subjects 511
Number of Subjects in Original Study 22
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2016
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Goldberg, AE, Emberson, L, Treves, I.
Detailed Description of Method/Results We replicate Xu & Tenenbaum (2007)’s “suspicious coincidence” effect, regardless of whether three exemplars are presented sequentially or simultaneously, or whether the exemplars are identical to one another or distinct. Our replication of Xu & Tenenbaum is a partial failure to replicate Spencer et al. (2011). Differences between our design and previous ones: ours was massively between subjects using participants on Mechanical Turk in order to avoid possible effects. Specifically, each of 511 participants witnessed a single trial. We used instances of categories that were distinct from those of either previous study (dog, fish, flower, bird vs. dog, truck, pepper). Our work does not investigate generalization to the higher, superordinate level, as generalizations to that level on the basis of a single exemplar are uncontroversially rare.

Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
Differences between our design and previous ones: ours was massively between subjects using participants on Mechanical Turk in order to avoid possible effects. Specifically, each of 511 participants witnessed a single trial. We used instances of categories that were distinct from those of either previous study (dog, fish, flower, bird vs. dog, truck, pepper). Our work does not investigate generalization to the higher, superordinate level, as generalizations to that level on the basis of a single exemplar are uncontroversially rare.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Goldberg and Treves designed the study; Treves created the survey and put it on MT, Emberson analyzed the data using mixed models; Goldberg wrote up the results.
Location of Projectonline on Mechanical Turk, participants from US
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
Adults tested through internet
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 See attached file.
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