| Literature DB >> 27694468 |
Irene Cheung1, Lorne Campbell2, Etienne P LeBel3, Robert A Ackerman4, Bülent Aykutog˘lu5, Šteˇpán Bahník6, Jeffrey D Bowen7, Carrie A Bredow8, Christopher Bromberg7, Peter A Caprariello9, Rodrigo J Carcedo10, Kevin J Carson4, Rebecca J Cobb11, Nancy L Collins7, Conrad A Corretti4, Theresa E DiDonato12, Chelsea Ellithorpe13, Noelia Fernández-Rouco14, Paul T Fuglestad15, Rebecca M Goldberg13, Frank D Golom12, Elçin Gündog˘du-Aktürk5, Lisa B Hoplock16, Petr Houdek17, Heidi S Kane4, John S Kim18, Sue Kraus19, Christopher T Leone15, Norman P Li20, Jill M Logan11, Roanne D Millman11, Marian M Morry21, Jennifer C Pink11, Taylor Ritchey13, Lindsey M Root Luna8, H Colleen Sinclair13, Danu Anthony Stinson16, Tamara A Sucharyna21, Natasha D Tidwell19, Ahmet Uysal5, Marek Vranka22, Lauren A Winczewski7, Jose C Yong20.
Abstract
Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, and Hannon (2002, Study 1) demonstrated a causal link between subjective commitment to a relationship and how people responded to hypothetical betrayals of that relationship. Participants primed to think about their commitment to their partner (high commitment) reacted to the betrayals with reduced exit and neglect responses relative to those primed to think about their independence from their partner (low commitment). The priming manipulation did not affect constructive voice and loyalty responses. Although other studies have demonstrated a correlation between subjective commitment and responses to betrayal, this study provides the only experimental evidence that inducing changes to subjective commitment can causally affect forgiveness responses. This Registered Replication Report (RRR) meta-analytically combines the results of 16 new direct replications of the original study, all of which followed a standardized, vetted, and preregistered protocol. The results showed little effect of the priming manipulation on the forgiveness outcome measures, but it also did not observe an effect of priming on subjective commitment, so the manipulation did not work as it had in the original study. We discuss possible explanations for the discrepancy between the findings from this RRR and the original study.Entities:
Keywords: commitment; preregistration; rejection; relationships; replication
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27694468 DOI: 10.1177/1745691616664694
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Perspect Psychol Sci ISSN: 1745-6916