Registered Replication Report: Hart & Albarracín (2011)

• Published in: Perspectives on psychological science Vol. 11; no. 1; pp. 158 - 171
• Main Authors: Eerland, Anita, Sherrill, Andrew M., Magliano, Joseph P., Zwaan, Rolf A., Arnal, Jack D., Aucoin, Philip, Berger, Stephanie A., Birt, Angela R., Capezza, Nicole, Carlucci, Marianna, Crocker, Candace, Ferretti, Todd R., Kibbe, Mackenzie R., Knepp, Michael M., Kurby, Christopher A., Melcher, Joseph M., Michael, Stephen W., Poirier, Christopher, Prenoveau, Jason M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.01.2016; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Bias; Crime - psychology; Cues; Decision making; Humans; Imagery; Intention; Interpersonal Relations; Language; Learning - physiology; Mental representation; Registered Replication Reports; Reproducibility; Social Perception; replication; grammatical aspect; attribution; legal psychology; behavioral intentionality
• ISSN: 1745-6916; 1745-6924
• DOI: 10.1177/1745691615605826

Language can be viewed as a complex set of cues that shape people's mental representations of situations. For example, people think of behavior described using imperfective aspect (i.e., what a person was doing) as a dynamic, unfolding sequence of actions, whereas the same behavior described using perfective aspect (i.e., what a person did) is perceived as a completed whole. A recent study found that aspect can also influence how we think about a person's intentions (Hart & Albarracín, 2011). Participants judged actions described in imperfective as being more intentional (d between 0.67 and 0.77) and they imagined these actions in more detail (d = 0.73). The fact that this finding has implications for legal decision making, coupled with the absence of other direct replication attempts, motivated this registered replication report (RRR). Multiple laboratories carried out 12 direct replication studies, including one MTurk study. A meta-analysis of these studies provides a precise estimate of the size of this effect free from publication bias. This RRR did not find that grammatical aspect affects intentionality (d between 0 and −0.24) or imagery (d = −0.08). We discuss possible explanations for the discrepancy between these results and those of the original study.