Search

Many recent discussions have focused on the role of replication in psychological science. In this article, we examine three key issues in evaluating the conclusions that follow from results of studies at least partly aimed at replicating previous results: the evaluation and status of exact versus conceptual replications, the statistical evaluation of replications, and the robustness of research findings to potential existing or future “non-replications.” In the first section of the article, we discuss the sources of ambiguity in evaluating failures to replicate in exact as well as conceptual replications. In addressing these ambiguities, we emphasize the key role of psychometric invariance of the independent and dependent variables in evaluations of replications. In the second section of the article, we use a meta-analytic framework to discuss the statistical status of replication attempts. We emphasize meta-analytic tools that have been used too sparingly, especially in evaluation of sets of studies within a single article or focused program of research. In the final section of the article, we extend many of these meta-analytic tools to the evaluation of the robustness of a body of research to potential existing or future failures to replicate previous statistically significant results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Strong social and legal norms in the United States discourage the overt expression of bias against ethnic and racial minorities, increasing the attributional ambiguity of Whites' positive behavior to ethnic minorities. Minorities who suspect that Whites' positive overtures toward minorities are motivated more by their fear of appearing racist than by egalitarian attitudes may regard positive feedback they receive from Whites as disingenuous. This may lead them to react to such feedback with feelings of uncertainty and threat. Three studies examined how suspicion of motives relates to ethnic minorities' responses to receiving positive feedback from a White peer or same-ethnicity peer (Experiment 1), to receiving feedback from a White peer that was positive or negative (Experiment 2), and to receiving positive feedback from a White peer who did or did not know their ethnicity (Experiment 3). As predicted, the more suspicious Latinas were of Whites' motives for behaving positively toward minorities in general, the more they regarded positive feedback from a White peer who knew their ethnicity as disingenuous and the more they reacted with cardiovascular reactivity characteristic of threat/avoidance, increased feelings of stress, heightened uncertainty, and decreased self-esteem. We discuss the implications for intergroup interactions of perceptions of Whites' motives for nonprejudiced behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a result of prevalent pressure to inhibit prejudice, racial minorities may wonder whether White people's nonprejudiced behavior is primarily motivated by personal commitments to egalitarianism (i.e., internal motivation) or superficial efforts to appear nonprejudiced (i.e., external motivation). The present work investigated whether minority group members chronically suspicious of White people's motives (i.e., those who believe White people are more externally than internally motivated), are more accurate than those who are less suspicious in detecting the motives behind White individuals' pleasant behavior toward minorities. Minority participants viewed four videos of White targets engaging in dyadic interracial interactions with a Black peer and evaluated the White targets' motivations. Compared to those low in suspicion, those high in suspicion were more accurate at assessing White targets' actual levels of external motivation. Hence, suspicion seems to carry some functional benefit as it attunes minority-group members to Whites' externally motivated positivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]