Author(s) Moritz Ingendahl (Ruhr-Universität Bochum) - moritz.ingendahl@rub.de Franziska Schäfer (University of Mannheim) - franziska.schaefer@uni-mannheim.de
Pre-registered on 04/25/2023 10:30 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? We investigate the role of metamemory in evaluative conditioning (EC).
We expect that pairings with positive/neutral/negative USs lead to corresponding evaluations of CSs, such that positive > neutral > negative.
We expect that US valence also impacts JOLs, such that positive and negative USs lead to higher JOLs than neutral USs.
We expect that EC effects are stronger for pairings where participants can identify the correct US.
We expect that higher JOLs are associated with stronger EC effects.
In this study, we investigate the role of identity vs. valence (meta-)memory. In one condition, JOLs and the memory test will target the specific US identity, whereas in the other condition, JOLs and the memory test will only target US valence. We explore in this study whether the expectations formulated above depend on the respective memory type, without an hypothesis in a certain direction.
3) Describe the key dependent variable(s) specifying how they will be measured. In the identity condition, we assess JOLs with the question: "How likely is it that you will remember this picture if your are presented with this brand name?", and a scale from 0 -100% for each of the 24 CS. The memory test will be based on the Walther & Nagengast (2006) test and follow the same instructions and layout as used by Ingendahl and Vogel (2023).
In the valence condition, we assess JOLs with the question: "How likely is it that you will remember the valence of this picture (i.e., whether it is positive, neutral, or negative) if your are presented with this brand name?", and a scale from 0 -100% for each of the 24 CS. The memory test will only have the three buttons "negative", "neutral", "positive", together with the question "What was the valence of the picture that had been shown with this brand name?".
We assess CS Evaluations and US evaluations with the same instructions and tasks as Ingendahl and Vogel (2023).
4) How many and which conditions will participants be assigned to? US valence (positive/neutral/negative, within-subjects). There are 8 CS-US pairs per valence level.
Memory type (Identity vs. Valence, between-subjects).
5) Specify exactly which analyses you will conduct to examine the main question/hypothesis. We will analyze each dependent variable with a multilevel regression in lme4, using the highest converging random effect structure. For CS-US memory, we will use a binomial multilevel regression. In each model, we will use two dummy variables (positive + negative valence, baseline = neutral) as predictors. Each dummy will interact with the effect-coded condition (1 = valence, -1 = identity).
For CS evaluations, we expect a positive effect of positive valence and a negative effect of negative valence.
For JOLs, we expect two positive effects.
For CS-US memory, we do not expect any effects.
For US evaluations, we expect a positive effect of positive valence and a negative effect of negative valence.
Next, we will compute within-subjects gamma correlations between JOLs and CS-US memory. We will test with a simple t-test whether gamma correlations differ between the memory type conditions.
Next, we will do one multilevel model where we add the z-standardized (within-person-centered) JOLs as a moderator to the model predicting CS evaluations. The model will have a main effect of within-person JOL, the two dummies, and two interaction terms. We expect two significant interaction terms (positive for positive, negative for negative interaction term). In addition, each term will be allowed to interact with the memory type variable.
Next, we will do one multilevel model where we add grand-mean centered standardized CS-US memory as a moderator to the model predicting CS evaluations. The model will have a main effect of memory, the two dummies, and two interaction terms. We expect two significant interaction terms (positive for positive, negative for negative interaction term). The model will contain also all interactions with the memory type variable.
Finally, we will add standardized memory (grand-mean centered) into the model with JOL as the moderator, again with the two interaction terms. We leave open whether the JOL*positive and JOL*negative interactions are still significant.
6) Describe exactly how outliers will be defined and handled, and your precise rule(s) for excluding observations. We do not plan any exclusions.
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. We will collect 70 finished interviews.
8) Anything else you would like to pre-register? (e.g., secondary analyses, variables collected for exploratory purposes, unusual analyses planned?) Nothing else to pre-register.
