A multi-site collaborative study of the hostile priming effect

Randy McCarthy, Will Gervais, Balazs Aczel, Rosemary L. Al-Kire, Mark Aveyard, Silvia Marcella Baraldo, Lemi Baruh, Charlotte Basch, Anna Baumert, Anna Behler, Ann Bettencourt, Adam Bitar, Hugo Bouxom, Ashley Buck, Zeynep Cemalcilar, Peggy Chekroun, Jacqueline M. Chen, Ángel del Fresno-Díaz, Alec Ducham, John E. EdlundAmanda ElBassiouny, Thomas Rhys Evans, Patrick J. Ewell, Patrick S. Forscher, Paul T. Fuglestad, Lauren Hauck, Christopher E. Hawk, Anthony D. Hermann, Bryon Hines, Mukunzi Irumva, Lauren N. Jordan, Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba, Catherine Haley, Pavol Kačmár, Murat Kezer, Robert Körner, Muriel Kosaka, Marton Kovacs, Elicia C. Lair, Jean Baptiste Légal, Dana C. Leighton, Michael W. Magee, Keith Markman, Marcel Martončik, Martin Müller, Jasmine B. Norman, Jerome Olsen, Danielle Oyler, Curtis E. Phills, Gianni Ribeiro, Alia Rohain, John Sakaluk, Astrid Schütz, Daniel Toribio-Flórez, Jo Ann Tsang, Michela Vezzoli, Caitlin Williams, Guillermo B. Willis, Jason Young, Cristina Zogmaister

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    6 Citations (Scopus)
    171 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    In a now-classic study by Srull and Wyer (1979), people who were exposed to phrases with hostile content subsequently judged a man as being more hostile. And this “hostile priming effect” has had a significant influence on the field of social cognition over the subsequent decades. However, a recent multi-lab collaborative study (McCarthy et al., 2018) that closely followed the methods described by Srull and Wyer (1979) found a hostile priming effect that was nearly zero, which casts doubt on whether these methods reliably produce an effect. To address some limitations with McCarthy et al. (2018), the current multi-site collaborative study included data collected from 29 labs. Each lab conducted a close replication (total N = 2,123) and a conceptual replication (total N = 2,579) of Srull and Wyer's methods. The hostile priming effect for both the close replication (d = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.22], z = 1.34, p =.16) and the conceptual replication (d = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.15], z = 1.15, p =.58) were not significantly different from zero and, if the true effects are non-zero, were smaller than what most labs could feasibly and routinely detect. Despite our best efforts to produce favorable conditions for the effect to emerge, we did not detect a hostile priming effect. We suggest that researchers should not invest more resources into trying to detect a hostile priming effect using methods like those described in Srull and Wyer (1979).

    Original languageEnglish
    Article number18738
    JournalCollabra: Psychology
    Volume7
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 5 Feb 2021

    Bibliographical note

    Publisher Copyright:
    © This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY-4.0). View this license's legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

    Keywords

    • Crowdsourcing
    • Hostile attributions
    • Hostile perceptions
    • Priming
    • Replication
    • Social judgments
    • Social priming

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • General Psychology

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'A multi-site collaborative study of the hostile priming effect'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this