61,535 research outputs found

    Supplementary materials to: The interactive effects of ambivalence and certainty on political opinion stability

    No full text
    Supplementary materials to: Luttrell, A., Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2020). The interactive effects of ambivalence and certainty on political opinion stability. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8(2), 525-541. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v8i2.1247notReviewedpublishedVersio

    sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672221103414 – Supplemental material for The Measurement of Racial Colorblindness

    No full text
    Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672221103414 for The Measurement of Racial Colorblindness by Bernard E. Whitley, Andrew Luttrell and Tollie Schultz in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</p

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    No full text
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed

    Luttrell_OpenPracticesDisclosure_rev – Supplemental material for Challenging Moral Attitudes With Moral Messages

    No full text
    Supplemental material, Luttrell_OpenPracticesDisclosure_rev for Challenging Moral Attitudes With Moral Messages by Andrew Luttrell, Aviva Philipp-Muller and Richard E. Petty in Psychological Science</p

    Luttrell_SupplementalAnalyses – Supplemental material for Challenging Moral Attitudes With Moral Messages

    No full text
    Supplemental material, Luttrell_SupplementalAnalyses for Challenging Moral Attitudes With Moral Messages by Andrew Luttrell, Aviva Philipp-Muller and Richard E. Petty in Psychological Science</p

    Luttrell_Materials – Supplemental material for Challenging Moral Attitudes With Moral Messages

    No full text
    Supplemental material, Luttrell_Materials for Challenging Moral Attitudes With Moral Messages by Andrew Luttrell, Aviva Philipp-Muller and Richard E. Petty in Psychological Science</p

    Observe, hypothesize, test, repeat: Luttrell, Petty, and Xu (2017) demonstrate good science

    No full text
    Many Labs 3 (Ebersole et al., 2016) failed to replicate a classic finding from the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion (Cacioppo, Petty, &amp; Morris, 1983; Study 1). Petty and Cacioppo (2016) noted possible limitations of the Many Labs 3 replication (Ebersole et al., 2016) based on the cumulative literature. Luttrell, Petty, and Xu (2017) subjected some of those possible limitations to empirical test. They observed that a revised protocol obtained evidence consistent with the original finding that the Many Labs 3 protocol did not. This observe-hypothesize-test sequence is a model for scientific inquiry and critique. To test whether these results advance replicability and knowledge transfer, we conducted direct replications of Luttrell et al. in nine locations (Total N = 1,219). We successfully replicated the interaction of need for cognition and argument quality on persuasion using Luttrell et al.’s optimal design (albeit with a much smaller effect size; p &lt; .001; f2 = .025, 95%CI [.006, .056]) but failed to replicate the interaction that indicated that Luttrell et al.’s optimal protocol performed better than the Many Labs 3 protocol (p = .135, pseudo R2 = .002). Nevertheless, pragmatically, we favor the Luttrell et al. protocol with large samples for future research using this paradigm
    corecore