Table 3.

Overview of Study Differences between Original Study and Our Close Replication.

	FEYGINA ET AL. (2010, STUDY 3)	OUR CLOSE REPLICATION
Sample	41 New York University undergraduate students (30 women, 11 men). No age or nationality information reported.	567 adults living in, and identifying their nationality as, United States of America (276 women, 272 men). Ages ranged from 18 to 93 years (M = 37.06, SD = 13.92).
Setting	Computers in a controlled, in-person laboratory setting.	Online study; participants took part in their own environment.
Conditions	1) Original control condition, 2) System-preservation experimental condition.	1) Original control condition, 2) System-preservation experimental condition, 3) True control condition.
PEB intentions	Identical; pro-environmental behaviour intentions (10 items, 9-point response scale). Analysis used the mean score of 10 items as the dependent variable in a linear regression analysis.
Petitions	Seven pro-environmental petitions presented after a false debrief, ostensibly unrelated to the study. Created a 3-point measure by recoding data into: no petitions signed (34.1% of participants), a few petitions signed (i.e., one to three petitions, 29.3%), most petitions signed (i.e., four to seven petitions, 36.6%), to use in an ordered logistic regression.	Seven pro-environmental petitions presented online and before the debrief, updated for relevance. Created a 3-point measure by recoding data into: no petitions signed (34.0% of participants), a few petitions signed (i.e., one to three petitions, 16.9%), most petitions signed (i.e., four to seven petitions, 49.0%), to use in an ordered logistic regression. In addition, analysed data using the count of how many petitions were signed, using a negative binomial regression.