IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0140806.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Direct and Conceptual Replications of Burgmer & Englich (2012): Power May Have Little to No Effect on Motor Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Margaret Cusack
  • Nadya Vezenkova
  • Christopher Gottschalk
  • Robert J Calin-Jageman

Abstract

Burgmer and Englich (2012) have reported that manipulating feelings of power can substantially improve performance on two motor tasks: golf and darts. We conducted two high-powered direct replications of the effects of power on golf, two online conceptual replications using mirror-tracing as a performance measure, and an additional conceptual replication using a cognitive performance measure (word-search). Overall, we found little to no effect of power on motor skill (d = 0.09, 95% CI[-0.07, 0.22], n = 603). We varied task difficulty, re-analyzed data without participants showing weak responses on manipulation checks, and tried adjusting performance scores for age, gender, and initial task skill. None of these secondary analyses revealed a strong effect of power on performance. A meta-analysis integrating our data with Burgmer & Englich leaves open the possibility that manipulating power could provide a modest boost in motor skill (d = 0.19, 95% CI [0.001, 0.38], n = 685). Unfortunately, the pattern of performance changes we observed was unrelated to group differences in perceived and rated power, suggesting that what motor effects do occur with this protocol may not be directly related to the construct of power. [Burgmer, P., &Englich, B. (2012). Bullseye!: How Power Improves Motor Performance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(2), 224–232.]

Suggested Citation

  • Margaret Cusack & Nadya Vezenkova & Christopher Gottschalk & Robert J Calin-Jageman, 2015. "Direct and Conceptual Replications of Burgmer & Englich (2012): Power May Have Little to No Effect on Motor Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0140806
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140806
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140806
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140806&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0140806?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew J C Crump & John V McDonnell & Todd M Gureckis, 2013. "Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioral Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    3. David G. Rand & Alexander Peysakhovich & Gordon T. Kraft-Todd & George E. Newman & Owen Wurzbacher & Martin A. Nowak & Joshua D. Greene, 2014. "Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, May.
    4. Neal S Young, 2008. "Why Current Publication May Distort Science," Working Papers id:1757, eSocialSciences.
    5. Neal S Young & John P A Ioannidis & Omar Al-Ubaydli, 2008. "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-5, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Clinton Sanchez & Brian Sundermeier & Kenneth Gray & Robert J Calin-Jageman, 2017. "Direct replication of Gervais & Norenzayan (2012): No evidence that analytic thinking decreases religious belief," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-8, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kirmayer, Laurence J., 2012. "Cultural competence and evidence-based practice in mental health: Epistemic communities and the politics of pluralism," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 249-256.
    2. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    5. Rebekka Kesberg & Stefan Pfattheicher, 2019. "Democracy matters: a psychological perspective on the beneficial impact of democratic punishment systems in social dilemmas," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Chris Doucouliagos & T.D. Stanley, 2013. "Are All Economic Facts Greatly Exaggerated? Theory Competition And Selectivity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 316-339, April.
    7. Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Shaping the Agenda of a Grand Challenge: Institutional Mediation of Priorities in Avian Influenza Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    8. Wallace, Matthew L. & Ràfols, Ismael, 2018. "Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1975-1989.
    9. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Dana Suskind, 2019. "The science of using science: Towards an understanding of the threats to scaling experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00670, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. Stephan B. Bruns, 2013. "Identifying Genuine Effects in Observational Research by Means of Meta-Regressions," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-040, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    11. Judith G M Bergboer & Maša Umićević-Mirkov & Jaap Fransen & Martin den Heijer & Barbara Franke & Piet L C M van Riel & Joost Schalkwijk & Marieke J H Coenen & on behalf of the Nijmegen Biomedical Stud, 2012. "A Replication Study of the Association between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Deletion of the Late Cornified Envelope Genes LCE3B and LCE3C," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-5, February.
    12. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List & Dana L. Suskind, 2017. "What Can We Learn from Experiments? Understanding the Threats to the Scalability of Experimental Results," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 282-286, May.
    13. Brian P Walcott & Sameer A Sheth & Brian V Nahed & Jean-Valery Coumans, 2012. "Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-4, August.
    14. Mark D Lindner & Richard K Nakamura, 2015. "Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-12, June.
    15. Mangirdas Morkunas & Elzė Rudienė & Lukas Giriūnas & Laura Daučiūnienė, 2020. "Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, October.
    16. Gregory S Barsh & Gregory P Copenhaver, 2009. "Scientists←Editors←Scientists: The Past, Present, and Future of PLoS Genetics," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-2, July.
    17. Boomsma, Mirthe, 2021. "On the transition to a sustainable economy : Field experimental evidence on behavioral interventions," Other publications TiSEM a0a27602-10ed-4ab1-87a5-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Mitesh Kataria, 2010. "The Role of Preferences in Disagreements over Scientific Hypothesis: An Empirical Inquiry into Environmental and Economic Decision Making," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-088, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    19. Nelson, Jon P., 2014. "Estimating the price elasticity of beer: Meta-analysis of data with heterogeneity, dependence, and publication bias," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 180-187.
    20. T.D. Stanley, 2013. "Does economics add up? An introduction to meta-regression analysis," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 10(2), pages 207-220.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0140806. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.