Table 3.
Evaluating replication outcomes.
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORIGINAL | REPLICATION | EVALUATION | |||
|
|
|
||||
| d | 95% CI | SCENARIO | d | 95% CI | |
|
| |||||
| Including those who did not choose the star | |||||
|
| |||||
| 0.44 | [0.09, 0.79] | Gender | –0.38 | [–0.61, –0.14] | Signal – inconsistent, opposite |
|
| |||||
| Ethnicity | 0.08 | [–0.14, 0.30] | No signal – inconsistent | ||
|
| |||||
| Excluding those who did not choose the star | |||||
|
| |||||
| 0.59 | [0.20, 0.98] | Gender | –0.50 | [–0.75, –0.24] | Signal – inconsistent, opposite |
|
| |||||
| Ethnicity | 0.03 | [–0.23, 0.27] | No signal – inconsistent | ||
|
| |||||
Note. For direct comparison, here we included those who indicated preferences towards women/Blacks when calculating the replication effect sizes, as these participants were included in the analysis in the original study.