Probing the Strength of Infants' Preference for Helpers over Hinderers: Two Replication Attempts of Hamlin and Wynn (2011)
Several studies indicate that infants prefer individuals who act prosocially over those who act antisocially toward unrelated third parties. In the present study, we focused on a paradigm published by Kiley Hamlin and Karen Wynn in 2011. In this study, infants were habituated to a live puppet show i...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2015-11, Vol.10 (11), p.e0140570-e0140570 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0140570 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | e0140570 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 10 |
creator | Salvadori, Eliala Blazsekova, Tatiana Volein, Agnes Karap, Zsuzsanna Tatone, Denis Mascaro, Olivier Csibra, Gergely |
description | Several studies indicate that infants prefer individuals who act prosocially over those who act antisocially toward unrelated third parties. In the present study, we focused on a paradigm published by Kiley Hamlin and Karen Wynn in 2011. In this study, infants were habituated to a live puppet show in which a protagonist tried to open a box to retrieve a toy placed inside. The protagonist was either helped by a second puppet (the "Helper"), or hindered by a third puppet (the "Hinderer"). At test, infants were presented with the Helper and the Hinderer, and encouraged to reach for one of them. In the original study, 75% of 9-month-olds selected the Helper, arguably demonstrating a preference for prosocial over antisocial individuals. We conducted two studies with the aim of replicating this result. Each attempt was performed by a different group of experimenters. Study 1 followed the methods of the published study as faithfully as possible. Study 2 introduced slight modifications to the stimuli and the procedure following the guidelines generously provided by Kiley Hamlin and her collaborators. Yet, in our replication attempts, 9-month-olds' preference for helpers over hinderers did not differ significantly from chance (62.5% and 50%, respectively, in Studies 1 and 2). Two types of factors could explain why our results differed from those of Hamlin and Wynn: minor methodological dissimilarities (in procedure, materials, or the population tested), or the effect size being smaller than originally assumed. We conclude that fine methodological details that are crucial to infants' success in this task need to be identified to ensure the replicability of the original result. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0140570 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1732948197</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A434485967</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_4f86d3884aae401baaabb5857bc638c7</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A434485967</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-3ce653e1f7b3daaa5d64f6f7d7bcaeb1fe51be9c3616a326a9eea5bb887223583</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk99v0zAQxyMEYmPwHyCwNAm2h5Y4_hGHB6RqAlpp0qZtwKPlOJfWVWIX2x2Mvx5n66YW7QH5wfb5c1-fz3dZ9hrnY0xK_GHp1t6qbrxyFsY5pjkr8yfZPq5IMeJFTp5urfeyFyEs85wRwfnzbK_gjDOKi_3sz7l3tbFzFBeALqMHO48L5Fo0s62yMbxH5x5aSHYNqHUeTaFbgQ_IXUPaGNukMx8-oqtfDl3AqjNaReMsmsQI_SqGQWuq-s5YpGyDftxYi46KHOPjl9mzVnUBXm3mg-zbl89XJ9PR6dnX2cnkdKRLJuKIaOCMAG7LmjRKKdZw2vK2bMpaK6hxCwzXUGnCMVek4KoCUKyuhSiLgjBBDrK3d7qrzgW5SVuQuCRFRQWuykTM7ojGqaVcedMrfyOdMvLW4PxcKh-N7kDSVvCGCEGVAprjOgVU10ywFAwnQg9anza3reseGg02etXtiO6eWLOQc3ctKaekKqskcLQR8O7nGkKUvQkauk5ZcOvbuGkhCMM0oYf_oI-_bkPNVXqAsa1L9-pBVE4ooVSwig_U-BEqjQZ6o1ONtSbZdxyOdxwSE-F3nKt1CHJ2efH_7Nn3XfbdFrsA1cVFcN16qKqwC9I7UHsXQqrShyTjXA4tcp8NObSI3LRIcnuz_UEPTvc9Qf4CUJQMEg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1732948197</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Probing the Strength of Infants' Preference for Helpers over Hinderers: Two Replication Attempts of Hamlin and Wynn (2011)</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Salvadori, Eliala ; Blazsekova, Tatiana ; Volein, Agnes ; Karap, Zsuzsanna ; Tatone, Denis ; Mascaro, Olivier ; Csibra, Gergely</creator><contributor>di Pellegrino, Giuseppe</contributor><creatorcontrib>Salvadori, Eliala ; Blazsekova, Tatiana ; Volein, Agnes ; Karap, Zsuzsanna ; Tatone, Denis ; Mascaro, Olivier ; Csibra, Gergely ; di Pellegrino, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><description>Several studies indicate that infants prefer individuals who act prosocially over those who act antisocially toward unrelated third parties. In the present study, we focused on a paradigm published by Kiley Hamlin and Karen Wynn in 2011. In this study, infants were habituated to a live puppet show in which a protagonist tried to open a box to retrieve a toy placed inside. The protagonist was either helped by a second puppet (the "Helper"), or hindered by a third puppet (the "Hinderer"). At test, infants were presented with the Helper and the Hinderer, and encouraged to reach for one of them. In the original study, 75% of 9-month-olds selected the Helper, arguably demonstrating a preference for prosocial over antisocial individuals. We conducted two studies with the aim of replicating this result. Each attempt was performed by a different group of experimenters. Study 1 followed the methods of the published study as faithfully as possible. Study 2 introduced slight modifications to the stimuli and the procedure following the guidelines generously provided by Kiley Hamlin and her collaborators. Yet, in our replication attempts, 9-month-olds' preference for helpers over hinderers did not differ significantly from chance (62.5% and 50%, respectively, in Studies 1 and 2). Two types of factors could explain why our results differed from those of Hamlin and Wynn: minor methodological dissimilarities (in procedure, materials, or the population tested), or the effect size being smaller than originally assumed. We conclude that fine methodological details that are crucial to infants' success in this task need to be identified to ensure the replicability of the original result.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140570</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26565412</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Aggression ; Child care ; Child Development ; Choice Behavior ; Cognition & reasoning ; Cognitive development ; Dissimilar materials ; Evaluation ; Health aspects ; Helping Behavior ; Humans ; Infant ; Infants ; Investigations ; Morality ; Play and Playthings ; Preferences ; Psychological Tests ; Replicating ; Replication ; Social behavior ; Studies</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2015-11, Vol.10 (11), p.e0140570-e0140570</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2015 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2015 Salvadori et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2015 Salvadori et al 2015 Salvadori et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-3ce653e1f7b3daaa5d64f6f7d7bcaeb1fe51be9c3616a326a9eea5bb887223583</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-3ce653e1f7b3daaa5d64f6f7d7bcaeb1fe51be9c3616a326a9eea5bb887223583</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4643979/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4643979/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26565412$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>di Pellegrino, Giuseppe</contributor><creatorcontrib>Salvadori, Eliala</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blazsekova, Tatiana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Volein, Agnes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karap, Zsuzsanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tatone, Denis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mascaro, Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Csibra, Gergely</creatorcontrib><title>Probing the Strength of Infants' Preference for Helpers over Hinderers: Two Replication Attempts of Hamlin and Wynn (2011)</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Several studies indicate that infants prefer individuals who act prosocially over those who act antisocially toward unrelated third parties. In the present study, we focused on a paradigm published by Kiley Hamlin and Karen Wynn in 2011. In this study, infants were habituated to a live puppet show in which a protagonist tried to open a box to retrieve a toy placed inside. The protagonist was either helped by a second puppet (the "Helper"), or hindered by a third puppet (the "Hinderer"). At test, infants were presented with the Helper and the Hinderer, and encouraged to reach for one of them. In the original study, 75% of 9-month-olds selected the Helper, arguably demonstrating a preference for prosocial over antisocial individuals. We conducted two studies with the aim of replicating this result. Each attempt was performed by a different group of experimenters. Study 1 followed the methods of the published study as faithfully as possible. Study 2 introduced slight modifications to the stimuli and the procedure following the guidelines generously provided by Kiley Hamlin and her collaborators. Yet, in our replication attempts, 9-month-olds' preference for helpers over hinderers did not differ significantly from chance (62.5% and 50%, respectively, in Studies 1 and 2). Two types of factors could explain why our results differed from those of Hamlin and Wynn: minor methodological dissimilarities (in procedure, materials, or the population tested), or the effect size being smaller than originally assumed. We conclude that fine methodological details that are crucial to infants' success in this task need to be identified to ensure the replicability of the original result.</description><subject>Aggression</subject><subject>Child care</subject><subject>Child Development</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive development</subject><subject>Dissimilar materials</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Helping Behavior</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant</subject><subject>Infants</subject><subject>Investigations</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>Play and Playthings</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Psychological Tests</subject><subject>Replicating</subject><subject>Replication</subject><subject>Social behavior</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk99v0zAQxyMEYmPwHyCwNAm2h5Y4_hGHB6RqAlpp0qZtwKPlOJfWVWIX2x2Mvx5n66YW7QH5wfb5c1-fz3dZ9hrnY0xK_GHp1t6qbrxyFsY5pjkr8yfZPq5IMeJFTp5urfeyFyEs85wRwfnzbK_gjDOKi_3sz7l3tbFzFBeALqMHO48L5Fo0s62yMbxH5x5aSHYNqHUeTaFbgQ_IXUPaGNukMx8-oqtfDl3AqjNaReMsmsQI_SqGQWuq-s5YpGyDftxYi46KHOPjl9mzVnUBXm3mg-zbl89XJ9PR6dnX2cnkdKRLJuKIaOCMAG7LmjRKKdZw2vK2bMpaK6hxCwzXUGnCMVek4KoCUKyuhSiLgjBBDrK3d7qrzgW5SVuQuCRFRQWuykTM7ojGqaVcedMrfyOdMvLW4PxcKh-N7kDSVvCGCEGVAprjOgVU10ywFAwnQg9anza3reseGg02etXtiO6eWLOQc3ctKaekKqskcLQR8O7nGkKUvQkauk5ZcOvbuGkhCMM0oYf_oI-_bkPNVXqAsa1L9-pBVE4ooVSwig_U-BEqjQZ6o1ONtSbZdxyOdxwSE-F3nKt1CHJ2efH_7Nn3XfbdFrsA1cVFcN16qKqwC9I7UHsXQqrShyTjXA4tcp8NObSI3LRIcnuz_UEPTvc9Qf4CUJQMEg</recordid><startdate>20151113</startdate><enddate>20151113</enddate><creator>Salvadori, Eliala</creator><creator>Blazsekova, Tatiana</creator><creator>Volein, Agnes</creator><creator>Karap, Zsuzsanna</creator><creator>Tatone, Denis</creator><creator>Mascaro, Olivier</creator><creator>Csibra, Gergely</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151113</creationdate><title>Probing the Strength of Infants' Preference for Helpers over Hinderers: Two Replication Attempts of Hamlin and Wynn (2011)</title><author>Salvadori, Eliala ; Blazsekova, Tatiana ; Volein, Agnes ; Karap, Zsuzsanna ; Tatone, Denis ; Mascaro, Olivier ; Csibra, Gergely</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-3ce653e1f7b3daaa5d64f6f7d7bcaeb1fe51be9c3616a326a9eea5bb887223583</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Aggression</topic><topic>Child care</topic><topic>Child Development</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive development</topic><topic>Dissimilar materials</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Helping Behavior</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant</topic><topic>Infants</topic><topic>Investigations</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>Play and Playthings</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Psychological Tests</topic><topic>Replicating</topic><topic>Replication</topic><topic>Social behavior</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Salvadori, Eliala</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blazsekova, Tatiana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Volein, Agnes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karap, Zsuzsanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tatone, Denis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mascaro, Olivier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Csibra, Gergely</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Salvadori, Eliala</au><au>Blazsekova, Tatiana</au><au>Volein, Agnes</au><au>Karap, Zsuzsanna</au><au>Tatone, Denis</au><au>Mascaro, Olivier</au><au>Csibra, Gergely</au><au>di Pellegrino, Giuseppe</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Probing the Strength of Infants' Preference for Helpers over Hinderers: Two Replication Attempts of Hamlin and Wynn (2011)</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2015-11-13</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e0140570</spage><epage>e0140570</epage><pages>e0140570-e0140570</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Several studies indicate that infants prefer individuals who act prosocially over those who act antisocially toward unrelated third parties. In the present study, we focused on a paradigm published by Kiley Hamlin and Karen Wynn in 2011. In this study, infants were habituated to a live puppet show in which a protagonist tried to open a box to retrieve a toy placed inside. The protagonist was either helped by a second puppet (the "Helper"), or hindered by a third puppet (the "Hinderer"). At test, infants were presented with the Helper and the Hinderer, and encouraged to reach for one of them. In the original study, 75% of 9-month-olds selected the Helper, arguably demonstrating a preference for prosocial over antisocial individuals. We conducted two studies with the aim of replicating this result. Each attempt was performed by a different group of experimenters. Study 1 followed the methods of the published study as faithfully as possible. Study 2 introduced slight modifications to the stimuli and the procedure following the guidelines generously provided by Kiley Hamlin and her collaborators. Yet, in our replication attempts, 9-month-olds' preference for helpers over hinderers did not differ significantly from chance (62.5% and 50%, respectively, in Studies 1 and 2). Two types of factors could explain why our results differed from those of Hamlin and Wynn: minor methodological dissimilarities (in procedure, materials, or the population tested), or the effect size being smaller than originally assumed. We conclude that fine methodological details that are crucial to infants' success in this task need to be identified to ensure the replicability of the original result.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>26565412</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0140570</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2015-11, Vol.10 (11), p.e0140570-e0140570 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1732948197 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Aggression Child care Child Development Choice Behavior Cognition & reasoning Cognitive development Dissimilar materials Evaluation Health aspects Helping Behavior Humans Infant Infants Investigations Morality Play and Playthings Preferences Psychological Tests Replicating Replication Social behavior Studies |
title | Probing the Strength of Infants' Preference for Helpers over Hinderers: Two Replication Attempts of Hamlin and Wynn (2011) |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T01%3A04%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Probing%20the%20Strength%20of%20Infants'%20Preference%20for%20Helpers%20over%20Hinderers:%20Two%20Replication%20Attempts%20of%20Hamlin%20and%20Wynn%20(2011)&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Salvadori,%20Eliala&rft.date=2015-11-13&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e0140570&rft.epage=e0140570&rft.pages=e0140570-e0140570&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0140570&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA434485967%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1732948197&rft_id=info:pmid/26565412&rft_galeid=A434485967&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_4f86d3884aae401baaabb5857bc638c7&rfr_iscdi=true |