Evaluating the Replicability of Social Priming Studies

To assess the replicability of social priming findings we reviewed the extant close replication attempts in the field. In total, we found 70 close replications, that replicated 49 unique findings. Ninety-four percent of the replications had effect sizes smaller than the effect they replicated and only 17% of the replications reported a significant p-value in the original direction. The strongest predictor of replication success was whether or not the replication team included at least one of the authors of the original paper. Twelve of the 18 replications with at least one original author produced a significant effect in the original direction and the meta-analytic average of these studies suggest a significant priming effect (d = 0.40, 95% CI[0.23; 0.58]). In stark contrast, none of the 52 replications by independent research teams produced a significant effect in the original direction and the meta-analytic average was virtually zero (d = 0.002, 95% CI[-0.03; 0.03]). We argue that these results have shifted the burden of proof back onto advocates of social priming. Successful replications from independent research teams will likely be required to convince sceptics that social priming exists at all.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Meta-Psychology
Published
2024-11-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15626/mp.2022.3308
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Behavioral Health and Interventions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.64
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating the Replicability of Social Priming Studies

Magnus Bergquist, Simon Karlsson, David A. Neequaye, Erik Mac Giolla
4 citations
Meta-Psychology
Behavioral Health and Interventions
1.64
article

Evaluating the Replicability of Social Priming Studies

Magnus Bergquist, Simon Karlsson, David A. Neequaye, Erik Mac Giolla
article en
4 citations

Abstract

To assess the replicability of social priming findings we reviewed the extant close replication attempts in the field. In total, we found 70 close replications, that replicated 49 unique findings. Ninety-four percent of the replications had effect sizes smaller than the effect they replicated and only 17% of the replications reported a significant p-value in the original direction. The strongest predictor of replication success was whether or not the replication team included at least one of the authors of the original paper. Twelve of the 18 replications with at least one original author produced a significant effect in the original direction and the meta-analytic average of these studies suggest a significant priming effect (d = 0.40, 95% CI[0.23; 0.58]). In stark contrast, none of the 52 replications by independent research teams produced a significant effect in the original direction and the meta-analytic average was virtually zero (d = 0.002, 95% CI[-0.03; 0.03]). We argue that these results have shifted the burden of proof back onto advocates of social priming. Successful replications from independent research teams will likely be required to convince sceptics that social priming exists at all.

Meta-PsychologyVol. 8
Institute for Futures Studies (SE), Technological University Dublin (IE), Atlantic Technological University (IE), University of Gothenburg (SE)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Behavioral Health and Interventions
1.64
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.