Written by: Brent Donnellan
Primary Source: The Trait-State Continuum
Our rejoinder to the Bargh and Shalev response to our replication studies has been accepted for publication after peer-review. The Bargh and Shalev response is available here. A pdf of our rejoinder is available here. Here are the highlights of our piece:
- An inspection of the size of the correlations from their three new studies suggests their new effect size estimates are closer to our estimates than to those reported in their 2012 paper. The new studies all used larger sample sizes than the original studies.
- We have some concerns about the validity of the Physical Warmth Extraction Index and we believe the temperature item is the most direct test of their hypotheses. If you combine all available data and apply a random-effects meta-analytic model, the overall correlation is .017 (95% CI = -.02 to .06 based on 18 studies involving 5,285 participants).
- We still have no idea why 90% of the participants in their Study 1a responded that they took less than 1 shower/bath per week. No other study using a sample from the United States even comes close to this distribution. Given this anomaly, we think results from Study 1a should be viewed with extreme caution.
- Acquiring additional data from outside labs is probably the most constructive step forward. Additional cross-cultural data would also be valuable.
This has been an interesting adventure and we have learned a lot about self-reported bathing/showering habits. What more could you ask for?
Latest posts by Brent Donnellan (see all)
- My View on the Connection between Theory and Direct Replication - April 9, 2015
- How Do You Feel When Something Fails To Replicate? - March 13, 2015
- (Hopefully) The Last Thing We Write About Warm Water and Loneliness - November 19, 2014