Computational protocol: Feeling younger and identifying with older adults: Testing two routes to maintaining well-being in the face of age discrimination

Similar protocols

Protocol publication

[…] Participants of all three studies were located in the U.S.A. and were aged 50 to 75 years. We selected people above 50 years of age as the United States anti-age discrimination law protects applicants/employees above age 40 and adults above 50 are considered older adults in organizational settings. Participants were unaware of this age-based selection, those who indicated being of ages between 50 and 75 on an initial demographic survey were invited to participate in the present follow up study. Not knowing the power of the effect a priori, in Study 1 we aimed for, and stopped collecting data, when we reached a sample size of 60 participants per cell. This was based on a rule of thumb that this gives 90% power of detecting a medium size effect (r = .30), see Cohen [], p.384). Post-hoc analyses confirmed that the main results achieved adequate power. According to power analyses based on the results of Study 1 on the two routes, in Study 2 we aimed at 144 participants to achieve 80% power on the main results. According to power analyses based on the results of Studies 1 and 2 on the two routes, in Study 3 we aimed at 100 participants per cell to achieve 80% power on the main results.Study 1 and Study 2 included 126 and 145 participants, respectively, who were recruited online via Amazon’s Mturk. Mturk or Mechanical Turk is a site from Amazon Web Services that recruits participants around the world to do small jobs through the internet, such as completing questionnaires for businesses or researchers. We ensured that participants of Study 2 had not participated in Study 1 via participants’ Mturk identification numbers. Participants who had participated in Study 1, as identifiable via their ID numbers, were not given access to Study 2. Study 3 included 217 participants recruited online via Qualtrics Panels who was contracted to distribute the survey to the targeted respondents, and to collect the data. Participants of Studies 1 and 2 viewed an advertisement of our study in MTurk’s webpage as a short demographic questionnaire with the possibility of participating in a follow up study about “general experiences” based on their demographics. Following MTurk typical payment rates [], participants in Studies 1 and 2 received 0.90 dollars for survey completion. Participants in Study 3 received an email invitation of Qualtrics Panels informing them that the survey was for research purposes only, how long the survey was expected to take and what incentives were available. Following Qualtrics Panels’ regulations, remuneration of participants in Study 3 varied depending on the length of survey, panelist profile and acquisition difficulty. The reward type varied and included cash, airline miles, gift cards, redeemable points, sweepstakes entrance and vouchers. Members could unsubscribe at any time.In Study 1, a total number of 1285 participants replied to the demographic screening survey of which 143 complied with the age requirement. Of these, 11 participants did not complete the survey’s main questions and were excluded from analyses. In Study 2, a total number of 1556 participants replied to the demographic screening survey of which 164 complied with the age requirement. Of these, 11 participants did not complete the survey’s main questions and were excluded from analyses. In Study 3, a total number of 235 participants completed the survey reported in this manuscript (see Design and Procedure for a clarification on this issue) of which 34 did not complete the survey’s main questions and were excluded from analyses. (see for more information on the samples). [...] The Results section presents the results of each individual study as well as a meta-analysis on the combined results. The meta-analysis was computed using the Metafor package (version 1.9–9) in R (version 3.2.4). The most conservative random-effects model was chosen in which the random variance component was determined using restricted maximum likelihood []. Effect sizes (standardized regression coefficients β) were calculated for the examined relationships. […]

Pipeline specifications