Multi-Lab Replication Reveals A Small but Significant Ego Depletion Effect

Dang, Junhua; Zerhouni, Oulmann; Jia, Lile; Giacomantonio, Mauro; Sevincer, A. Timur; Buchholz, Nita; Lange, Florian; Kubiak, Thomas; Wenzel, Mario; Berkman, Elliot T.; Rm, Ludwig; Livingston, Jordan; Buczny, Jacek; Gong, Ran; Shi, Jing; Barker, Paul; Rassi, Niklas; Cristofaro, De; Pearman, Joshua; Baumert, Anna; Bentvelzen, Margriet; Chen, Zemeng; L, de Vries; Dewitte, Siegfried; Homan, Maaike; Ismail, Ismaharif; D, Li; Panno, Angelo; Schmitt, Matt; Stamos, Angelos; Tan, Yinling; Zhang, L; Zhang, Y; Zinkernagel, Axel; Hb, Schiöth

doi:10.31234/osf.io/cjgru

Cited by 16 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are no published estimates of replicability for suicide research. However, empirical estimates in the broader psychology literature suggest that false positives are common, with replicability estimated at only 36%‐54% on the basis of large, multi‐lab replication studies (e.g., Dang et al, 2019; Ebersole et al, 2016; Forscher et al, 2019; Hagger et al, 2016; O’Donnell et al, 2018; Open Science Collaboration, 2015; Wagenmakers et al, 2016). Unless we believe that suicide research has better practices than psychology at large (e.g., higher power, better theory, less p ‐hacking, etc.…”

Section: The Replication “Crisis”—or Reasons For Concernmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With large samples, effect sizes can be precisely estimated. For example, if the effect of a treatment on depression is d = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.09, 0.11], then this “null” result has precisely estimated a “zero or trivially small” effect (for more examples, see Dang et al, 2019; Hagger et al, 2016). Newer statistical tools such as equivalence testing use this same information to provide a test of support for the null hypothesis (Lakens, 2017); Bayesian analysis similarly provides measures of relative support for the null and alternative hypotheses as well (Masson, 2011).…”

Section: Reasons For the Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Optimizing the scientific study of suicide with open and transparent research practices

Carpenter

Law

2021

Suicide & Life Threat Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suicide research is vitally important, yet—like psychology research more broadly—faces methodological challenges. In recent years, researchers have raised concerns about standard practices in psychological research, concerns that apply to suicide research and raise questions about its robustness and validity. In the present paper, we review these concerns and the corresponding solutions put forth by the “open science” community. These include using open science platforms, pre‐registering studies, ensuring reproducible analyses, using high‐powered studies, ensuring open access to research materials and products, and conducting replication studies. We build upon existing guides, address specific obstacles faced by suicide researchers, and offer a clear set of recommended practices for suicide researchers. In particular, we consider challenges that suicide researchers may face in seeking to adopt “open science” practices (e.g., prioritizing large samples) and suggest possible strategies that the field may use in order to ensure robust and transparent research, despite these challenges.

show abstract

Section: The Replication “Crisis”—or Reasons For Concernmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reasons For the Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing the scientific study of suicide with open and transparent research practices

Carpenter

Law

2021

Suicide & Life Threat Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are no published estimates of replicability for suicide research. However, empirical estimates in the broader psychology literature suggest that false positives are common, with replicability estimated at only 36%-54% on the basis of large, multi-lab replication studies (e.g., Dang et al, 2019;Ebersole et al, 2016;Forscher et al, 2019;Hagger et al, 2016;O'Donnell et al, 2018;Open Science Collaboration, 2015;Wagenmakers et al, 2016). Unless we believe that suicide research has better practices than psychology at large (e.g., higher power, better theory, less p-hacking, etc.…”

Section: The Replication "Crisis"-or Reasons For Concernmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With large samples, effect sizes can be precisely estimated. For example, if the effect of a treatment on depression is d = .01, 95% CI [-.09, .11], then this "null" result has precisely estimated a "zero or trivially small" effect (for more examples, see Dang et al, 2019;Hagger et al, 2016). Newer statistical tools such as equivalence testing use this same information to provide a test of support for the null hypothesis (Lakens, 2017); Bayesian analysis similarly provides measures of relative support for the null and alternative hypotheses as well (Masson, 2011).…”

Section: Reasons For the Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing the Scientific Study of Suicide with Open and Transparent Research Practices

Carpenter¹,

Law²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suicide research is vitally important, yet—like psychology research more broadly—faces methodological challenges. In recent years, researchers have raised concerns about standard practices in psychological research, concerns that apply to suicide research and raise questions about its robustness and validity. In the present paper, we review these concerns and the corresponding solutions put forth by the ‘open science’ community. These include using open science platforms, pre-registering studies, ensuring reproducible analyses, using high-powered studies, ensuring open access to research materials and products, and conducting replication studies. We build upon existing guides, address specific obstacles faced by suicide researchers, and offer a clear set of recommended practices for suicide researchers. In particular, we consider challenges that suicide researchers may face in seeking to adopt ‘open science’ practices (e.g., prioritizing large samples) and suggest possible strategies that the field may use in order to ensure robust and transparent research, despite these challenges.

show abstract

“…This resource has a limited capacity, which after having worked on a self-control demanding task, can become temporarily depleted; this depleted state has been named ego depletion (Baumeister et al, 1998; Muraven et al, 1998). It has been repeatedly demonstrated that self-control performance suffers during the state of ego depletion (Hagger et al, 2010; Dang et al, 2019). For instance, individuals who had to suppress their emotions while watching an upsetting video clip performed significantly worse in a subsequent self-control task when compared with individuals who did not have to suppress their emotions while watching the identical video clip (Schmeichel et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creative Flexibility Performance Is Neither Related to Anxiety, Nor to Self-Control Strength, Nor to Their Interaction

Bertrams

Englert

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has reliably found that self-control strength moderates the anxiety-performance relationship for cognitive and perceptual-motor tasks that involve executive functioning. In the present preregistered experiment (N = 200; https://aspredicted.org/a775h.pdf), we investigated whether the interaction of anxiety and self-control also predicts creative flexibility performance. According to the Attentional Control Theory, anxiety can impair executive functioning. In the case that creative flexibility relies on executive functions, anxiety should therefore interfere with creative flexibility performance. However, self-control strength has been demonstrated to serve as a buffer against the negative effects of anxiety on executive functioning. Therefore, we assumed that there will be a negative relationship between anxiety and creative flexibility performance, and that this negative relationship would be more pronounced for participants who are low compared to high in momentary self-control strength. Analogous to the previous studies, we manipulated the participants’ self-control strength (ego depletion vs. no depletion) and subsequently induced a potentially threatening test situation. The participants then completed a measure of their state anxiety and a standardized test of creative flexibility. Contrary to our expectation, self-control strength, state anxiety, and their interaction did not predict creative flexibility performance. Complementary Bayesian hypothesis testing revealed strong support for the null hypothesis. Therefore, we conclude that, at least under certain conditions, creative flexibility performance may be unrelated to resource-dependent executive functions.

show abstract

Multi-Lab Replication Reveals A Small but Significant Ego Depletion Effect

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Optimizing the scientific study of suicide with open and transparent research practices

Optimizing the scientific study of suicide with open and transparent research practices

Optimizing the Scientific Study of Suicide with Open and Transparent Research Practices

Creative Flexibility Performance Is Neither Related to Anxiety, Nor to Self-Control Strength, Nor to Their Interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About