Table 5.

Classification of the replication closeness, based on LeBel et al. (2018).

DESIGN FACET	REPLICATION	DETAILS OF DEVIATION
Effect/hypothesis	Same	–
IV construct	Same	–
DV construct	Same
IV operationalization	Similar	In the Study 1 replication, each participant rated 8 animals randomly selected out of 32 instead of rating all 32 animals.
DV operationalization	Similar	We randomized the presentation order of the mental capacity items in both Studies 1 and 2.
IV stimuli	Similar	In Study 1 replication, animal items “sheep” and “cow” were changed to “pig” and “ox”, given that the same animals were rated in Study 2.
DV stimuli	Similar	In Study 1 replication, one of the items on edibility, “Would you choose to each this animal?”, was corrected to “Would you choose to eat this animal?”
Procedural details	Different	1) In the original study, participants in Studies 1 and 2 were separately recruited. Whereas in our replication, the same participants participated in both Studies. 2) The unrelated task between the cow/lamb ratings in Study 2 was eliminated. 3) Vegetarians and vegans were excluded from participation in the survey instead of at the end of the survey. 4) Manipulation and attention checks were added to the replication.
Physical settings	Different	In the original study, it was conducted on an Australian university campus. Whereas in our replication, the study was conducted on Qualtrics, completed by online Prolific participants.
Contextual variables	Different
Replication classification	Very close replication	Based on the above analysis, we summarized our replications as a “very close” replication of the original studies.

Note. N = 959.