It's Not the Boss's Fault (#89)
How to Cite this Report
APA StyleBobbie Spellman. It's Not the Boss's Fault. (2011, November 15). Retrieved 19:04, February 25, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=ODk%3D
MLA Style"It's Not the Boss's Fault" Bobbie Spellman. 15 Nov 2011 16:59 25 Feb 2017, 19:04 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=ODk%3D>
MHRA Style'It's Not the Boss's Fault', Bobbie Spellman, , 15 November 2011 16:59 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=ODk%3D> [accessed 25 February 2017]
Chicago Style"It's Not the Boss's Fault", Bobbie Spellman, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=ODk%3D (accessed February 25, 2017)
CBE/CSE StyleIt's Not the Boss's Fault [Internet]. Bobbie Spellman; 2011 Nov 15, 16:59 [cited 2017 Feb 25]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=ODk%3D
|Reference to Original Report of Finding||Wells, G. L., & Gavanski, I. (1989), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 56(2), 161-169. doi: 10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206|
|Title||It's Not the Boss's Fault|
|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||View Article|
|Brief Statement of Original Result||The boss is more causal of her dying in the one-wine than the two-wine condition.|
|Type of Replication Attempted||Highly Exact Replication|
|Result Type||Failure to Replicate|
|Difference?||Same Direction, .7|
|Number of Subjects||80|
|Number of Subjects in Original Study|
|Year in which Replication Attempt was Made||2004|
|Name of Investigators (Real Names Required)||Bobbie Spellman|
|Detailed Description of Method/Results||
We tried to replicate as exactly as possible.|
This is the story of a woman who goes out to dinner with her boss. She is allergic to wine. He orders for both of them. The dish contains wine. She eats it and dies. In both conditions he also considers ordering another dish: in one condition the other also contains wine, in the other it does not. The original finding is that the boss is more cause in the one-wine than two-wine condition -- because (supposedly) there is the obvious counterfactual: if he ordered the other she wouldn't have died.
I believe that this study was fine when it was originally run. It just doesn't work NOW.
If you ask subjects to list counterfactuals or causes of her death they will say things like:
She should have told him she had an allergy.
She should have ordered for herself.
What was she doing going to dinner with her boss?
|Any Known Methodological Differences |
(between original and present study)?
|Email of Investigator|
|Name of individuals who |
actually carried out the project
|Research assistants and me.|
|Location of Project||Laboratory|
|Characteristics of Subjects |
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
|University students from subject pool|
|Where did these subjects reside?||United States|
|Was this a Class Project?||No|
|Further Details of Results as pdf|
|Email of Original Investigator|
|Quantitive Information||Again. I think the original worked 20 years ago. Just not now. I hear that Experiment 2 from this paper (the taxi driving off the bridge) still works fine.|
|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|