A creative destruction approach to replication: Implicit work and sex morality across cultures
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, ISSN: 0022-1031, Vol: 93, Page: 104060
2021
- 1Citations
- 62Usage
- 75Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Usage62
- Downloads49
- Abstract Views13
- Captures75
- Readers75
- 75
- Mentions1
- References1
- Wikipedia1
Article Description
How can we maximize what is learned from a replication study? In the creative destruction approach to replication, the original hypothesis is compared not only to the null hypothesis, but also to predictions derived from multiple alternative theoretical accounts of the phenomenon. To this end, new populations and measures are included in the design in addition to the original ones, to help determine which theory best accounts for the results across multiple key outcomes and contexts. The present pre-registered empirical project compared the Implicit Puritanism account of intuitive work and sex morality to theories positing regional, religious, and social class differences; explicit rather than implicit cultural differences in values; self-expression vs. survival values as a key cultural fault line; the general moralization of work; and false positive effects. Contradicting Implicit Puritanism's core theoretical claim of a distinct American work morality, a number of targeted findings replicated across multiple comparison cultures, whereas several failed to replicate in all samples and were identified as likely false positives. No support emerged for theories predicting regional variability and specific individual-differences moderators (religious affiliation, religiosity, and education level). Overall, the results provide evidence that work is intuitively moralized across cultures.
Bibliographic Details
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3596; https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/more-foh-research/78; https://digitalcommons.ithaca.edu/scopus_articles/9
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103120304005; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104060; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85097902093&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022103120304005; https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0022103120304005?httpAccept=text/xml; https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0022103120304005?httpAccept=text/plain; https://dul.usage.elsevier.com/doi/; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3596; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4854&context=soss_research; https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/more-foh-research/78; https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=more-foh-research; https://digitalcommons.ithaca.edu/scopus_articles/9; https://digitalcommons.ithaca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=scopus_articles; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104060
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know