'AFF - Power granting at work - Paragominas' (AsPredicted #71,610)
Author(s) This pre-registration is currently anonymous to enable blind peer-review. It has 3 authors.
Pre-registered on 2021/07/28 01:11 (PT)
1) Have any data been collected for this study already? No, no data have been collected for this study yet.
2) What's the main question being asked or hypothesis being tested in this study? The study is part of a research package targeting the main question if a target's benevolence promotes power granting, especially when a target also shows integrity, due to higher social responsibility attributed to the target. The specific predictions tested for this study are:
H1: Leaders who are granted power will be higher in benevolence, integrity, and social responsibility than leaders who are not granted power.
H2: Benevolence and integrity interact in determining power granting: Higher benevolence predicts more power granting-especially under higher (rather than lower) integrity.
H3: This effect (in H2) is mediated via more social responsibility.
3) Describe the key dependent variable(s) specifying how they will be measured. Ps answer questions about the respective leader's characteristics:
1. perceived benevolence (5 items; Mayer & Davis, 1999; predictor)
2. perceived integrity (6 items; adapted from Mayer & Davis; moderator)
3. social responsibility (mediator, 4 items)
4) How many and which conditions will participants be assigned to? 2 power granting conditions, between subjects-design (power granting: high vs. low)
Participants think about a leader in their organization (not their current leader) with whom they would like to (vs. be reluctant to) work (i.e., whom they would grant high or low power)
5) Specify exactly which analyses you will conduct to examine the main question/hypothesis. We will analyze the data in two ways:
Following the experimental setup, in line with H1, we test whether leaders granted power (high power granting condition) differ from those not granted power (low power granting condition) in a MANOVA; power granting serves as IV and the three indicators mentioned under 3) as DVs.
To test H2 and H3, we conduct analyses reversing the order of the experimental setup (i.e., use the manipulated variable as DV and the assessed indicators as predictors):
Logistic Regression (via Bootstrapping with PROCESS) for moderation analysis (Model 1, to test H2): benevolence, integrity, benevolence x integrity => predict power granting (high vs. low)
Logistic regression (via Bootstrapping with PROCESS) for moderated mediation (Model 7, to test H3): benevolence, integrity, benevolence x integrity => social responsibility => power granting (high vs. low)
6) Describe exactly how outliers will be defined and handled, and your precise rule(s) for excluding observations. Ps are excluded from analyses:
If they fail the attention check (1 item)
If they are not fluent in English
If they indicate that they are not employed (due to the design of the manipulation).
7) How many observations will be collected or what will determine sample size? No need to justify decision, but be precise about exactly how the number will be determined. MANOVA (repeated measures, between factors) with f =0.10 (previous studies yielded around .20, but effect likely smaller in the field), 2 groups, 3 measurements (integrity, benevolence, social resp; correlation r=.40), alpha .05 and power of .80 yield an ideal N=474
8) Anything else you would like to pre-register? (e.g., secondary analyses, variables collected for exploratory purposes, unusual analyses planned?) Power granting check (1 item) that assesses whether ps would want this person as their leader
Likability of the leader (1 item); gender of the leader they thought about (1 item)
10 filler items between the assessment of benevolence/integrity and social responsibility to disguise the subject of this study
