What Counts as a Choice?
Has this study been replicated?
The atlas records 3 replications and 2 reproductions of this study. Recorded outcomes: 3 failed, 1 mixed, 1 successful. The earliest on record is from 2018.
Replications
- Eleven years of student replication projects provide evidence on the correlates of replicability in psychology, Boyce et al. (2023). Royal Society Open Science. Outcome recorded: failed.
Subjective replication success rating = 0 (failed). The replication report rated each sub-outcome on a 0-1 scale; the row is recorded as failed only when all sub-outcomes equal 0, successful only when all equal 1, and mixed for any value strictly between.
Outcome read from github.com. View paper - Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings, Klein et al. (2018). Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. Outcome recorded: mixed.
Though there was a significant main effect in the full sample, the absence of a significant main effect in this subsample, control- ling for importance, is inconsistent with the original finding that Indians are less likely to construe personal actions than interpersonal actions as choices. There was an interaction between condition and rating of the importance of the choice, with a pattern similar to that in the full sample. This moderation was not reported in the…
Outcome read from p. 20. View paper - SCORE new data replication of Savani et al. (2010), Safin et al. (2025). OSF. Outcome recorded: successful.
"The H focal test (two-way ANOVA) confirms a significant interaction, F(1,444) = 19.51, p = 1.26 × 10⁻⁵ in the predicted direction, such that Indian participants had fewer clicks than Americans in the experimental 'Choice' condition, but not in the control condition. The results are remarkably similar to the original paper, not only yielding the same overall effect, but also nearly identical means for each cell."
Outcome read from OSF report.
Reproductions
- Reproduction (with author data & code): Savani et al. (2010, Psychological Science), Fox et al. (2020). OSF. Outcome recorded: computational issues, not checked.
"The reproduction attempt was mostly successful... F(1, 123) = 6.12, p = 0.0147" vs original F(1,120)=5.69, p<.02
Outcome read from Reproduction result. View paper - Reproduction (with author data): Savani et al. (2010, Psychological Science), Loomas et al. (2022). OSF. Outcome recorded: computational issues, not checked.
Report evaluates 5 claims: my2n19 and m82do4 "did reproduce" while m526y2, boy4np, and bd4vqj "did not reproduce" (mixed results, but real comparable numbers were obtained for every claim, e.g. F=5.555 vs original F=5.56, t=0.247 vs 3.72).
Outcome read from per-claim Reproduction outcome statements. View paper
Cite this record
Savani, K., Markus, H. R., Naidu, N. V. R., Kumar, S., & Berlia, N. (2010). What Counts as a Choice? Psychological Science, 21(3), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609359908
Other studies in the atlas
Failed replications · Successful replications · All browse pages