Does learning more about others impact liking them?: Replication and extension Registered Report of Norton et al. (2007)’s Lure of Ambiguityuse asterix (*) to get italics

Zöe Horsham, Ashleigh Haydock-Symonds, Hirotaka Imada, Hiu Ching Tai, Wing Lam Lau, Tsz Lui Shum, Yuqing Zeng, Hiu Tang Chow, Gilad FeldmanPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

2024

<p>[IMPORTANT: Abstract, method, and results were written using a randomized dataset produced by Qualtrics to simulate what these sections will look like after data collection. These will be updated following the data collection. For the purpose of the simulation, we wrote things in past tense, but no pre-registration or data collection took place yet.]</p> <p><br>Norton et al. (2007) demonstrated a counterintuitive phenomenon that knowing other people better and/or having more information about them is associated with decreased likings. They summarized it as - ambiguity leads to liking, whereas familiarity can breed contempt. In a Registered Report with a US Prolific undergraduate student sample (N= 800), we directly replicated Studies 1a, 1b, and 2, and conceptually replicated Studies 3 and 4 from Norton et al. (2007). Extending on their research, we also proposed that curiosity provides an alternative path to liking, hypothesizing that curiosity mediates the relationship between knowledge and liking. [The following is a demo placeholder based on the random simulated and will be updated following data collection in Stage 2] Overall, we found [weak/medium/strong] support for the original findings. With our extensions to the replication study, we found… [To be completed in Stage 2]. Materials, data, and code are available on: https://osf.io/j6tqr/&nbsp;</p>

impression formation, liking, less is more, similarity, ambiguity, curiosity, registered replication, decision making

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Social sciences

Paul Eastwick [eastwick@ucdavis.edu] suggested: Thanks for thinking of me, and I'm sorry I can't take this one on! You might try Michael Maniaci mmaniaci@fau.edu, Eli Finkel [finkel@northwestern.edu] suggested: Harry Reis, Balazs Aczel [balazs.aczel@gmail.com] suggested: Sorry, I'm too busy in the coming two months... , Balazs Aczel [balazs.aczel@gmail.com] suggested: Suggestions: , Balazs Aczel [balazs.aczel@gmail.com] suggested: szaszi.barnabas@ppk.elte.hu , Balazs Aczel [balazs.aczel@gmail.com] suggested: tamas.nagy@ppk.elte.hu , Balazs Aczel [balazs.aczel@gmail.com] suggested: zoltan.kekecs@ppk.elte.hu, Tamás Nagy [nagy.tamas@ppk.elte.hu] suggested: https://www.ppk.elte.hu/en/staff/barnabas-szaszi , Andrew Vonasch [andrew.vonasch@canterbury.ac.nz] suggested: Joe Simons (but he's surely busy) , Andrew Vonasch [andrew.vonasch@canterbury.ac.nz] suggested: Bethany Growns bethany.growns@canterbury.ac.nz, Philipp Schoenegger suggested: The authors have either made the requested changes or argued convincingly why they did not. While I do not agree with every choice, I do not think that they are of substantial scientific importance to warrant further revision. As such, I am happy to accept this Stage 1 RR: I'm looking forward to seeing the results!

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

2023-07-11 12:33:00

Yuki Yamada

Zoltan Kekecs