Author(s) This pre-registration is currently anonymous to enable blind peer-review. It has 3 authors.
Pre-registered on 10/01/2020 04:10 PM (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 relationship between jolt and generosity behavior is moderated by a group member’s initial status, such that a jolt (versus no jolt) will cause members with higher initial status to engage in less generosity behavior, but will cause members with lower initial status to engage in more generosity behavior.
The conditional effect of the jolt on generosity, moderated by initial status, will be explained by experienced status-threat such that: a) the indirect negative effect of jolt (versus no jolt) on generosity behavior for group members with higher initial status is explained by their heightened experience of status threat, and b) the indirect positive effect of a jolt (versus no jolt) on generosity behavior for group members with lower initial status is explained by their diminished experience of status threat
We are also exploring other potential micro-mediators and parallel mediators in this study. Specifically, we are examining group-based self-esteem as a parallel mediator, and predicting that under the jolt condition, members with lower initial status are more likely to experience higher group-based self-esteem, which then predicts higher generosity behavior. In addition, we are also examining self-concern as a micro-mediator, such that under the jolt condition, members with higher initial status are more likely to experience higher threat, which then leads them to experience higher self-concern, which then predict higher learning opportunity.
3) Describe the key dependent variable(s) specifying how they will be measured. 1. Perceived Threat (3 items) – e.g., Frightening
2. Perceived challenge (3 items) – e.g., exciting
3. Status threat (3 items) - I will lose status in the teaching group.
4. Self-concern (3 items) – e.g., I am concerned about my own needs and interests.
5. Other-orientation (3 items) – e.g., I am concerned about the needs and interests of the teaching group.
6. Learning Opportunity (3 items) – e.g., I dedicate myself to develop new skills and knowledge
7. OCB-I (8 items) – e.g., Help others in the teaching group who have been absent
8. Generosity (6 items) – e.g., I am willing to sacrifice my self-interest for the good of the teaching group
9. Willingness to share resources (scenario) – e.g., How many contacts, out of 5, will you share with the group?
10. Help group member (scenario) – e.g., would you point this member in the right direction
4) How many and which conditions will participants be assigned to? We will employ a 2 (jolt: jolt versus no jolt) X 2 (initial group member status: higher vs. lower) between-subjects factorial design. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of these four conditions.
We manipulate jolt by telling participants in the jolt condition that the Head of the college has made the decision to move all classes online in the coming school semester. There will be no in-person classes - "Needless to say, the change to online teaching within the next two weeks will be disruptive. When you compare the new requirements for online teaching to your previous experience in in-person teaching, you realize that you will need to make significant adjustments to the way you teach. ".
We manipulate status by telling participants in the high status condition that "You are one of the higher status members of your teaching group. You generally have higher teaching ratings than other members of your teaching group and you have won awards for your teaching effectiveness. Therefore, you receive more respect, admiration, and regard than other members of the group"
5) Specify exactly which analyses you will conduct to examine the main question/hypothesis. We will run a two-way ANOVA on the mediators (e.g., status threat, group-based self-esteem, self-concern). We will then test the effect of conditional effect of jolt on generosity via the mediators using PROCESS (multicategorical moderated mediation analyses).
6) Describe exactly how outliers will be defined and handled, and your precise rule(s) for excluding observations. We will exclude participants who failed the two attention checks.
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. Based on a-priori power analysis (with an effect size of .30), we aim to collect 50 responses per condition using participants from an undergraduate business program in the Pacific Northwest. In total, our sample size will be 200.
8) Anything else you would like to pre-register? (e.g., secondary analyses, variables collected for exploratory purposes, unusual analyses planned?) 1. Manipulation checks for status (3 items)
2. Manipulation checks for jolt (3 items)
3. Attention check 1
4. Attention check 2
