Does one well-powered failure overturn a small original study? The replication assessment for GB793 Unit 8 weighs Ranehill and colleagues' 2015 power-posing test outcome by outcome. Searches like "gb 793 unit 8 assignment example", "gb793 unit 8 sample" and "gb793 unit 8 example" land here.
What a finished GB793 Unit 8 replication assessment looks like
Five pages divided into four parts, with a comparison table. Part one sets the two studies side by side: sample size, population, pose duration, instructions, outcomes measured and the result for each outcome. Part two evaluates fidelity, listing the procedural differences the replicators acknowledged and judging which could plausibly erase a hormonal effect. Part three applies Simonsohn's 2015 small telescopes test, asking whether the replication rules out an effect the original study had only a one-in-three chance of detecting. Part four reaches a verdict by outcome. Hormones and risk taking are judged very unlikely to show the effect originally reported; self-reported feelings of power, which did move in the replication, are judged still open. A closing note records Carney's 2016 statement that she no longer believed the effects were real.
How a GB793 Unit 8 example is structured
Comparison precedes judgment so a reader can check every later claim against the table. Fidelity comes before statistics because a replication that changed the procedure substantially tests a different hypothesis, whatever its sample size. The assessment finds the differences real but unlikely to explain a complete absence of hormonal change, since none plausibly suppresses hormones rather than merely weakening an effect. Simonsohn's method then asks the statistical question properly: not whether the replication was significant, but whether its estimate is precise enough to rule out effects the original could have detected. For hormones and risk, it is. The verdict is given outcome by outcome, which is the assessment's main argument: one failed replication can settle some claims in a paper while leaving others untouched, and treating a study as one undivided verdict loses that.
Two studies, one table
Sample, population, duration, instructions and each outcome's result appear in parallel columns, so later judgments can be checked row by row.
Fidelity before statistics
The replicators listed their own departures, including longer poses. The assessment asks whether any could plausibly erase, rather than shrink, a hormonal effect.
The small telescopes question
Could the original study have seen an effect of the size the replication excludes? Framing it that way avoids treating nonsignificance as proof of absence.
Separate verdicts for separate claims
Hormonal and risk effects are judged very unlikely; feelings of power remain open. One paper yields different verdicts for different claims.
When an author withdraws support
The first author's 2016 statement is recorded as context. It strengthens the verdict without substituting for the evidence, and the assessment keeps the two apart.
Where marks go in GB793 Unit 8
Assessments that call the original debunked because a replication failed treat a single study as decisive without weighing it, and graders expect that weighing to be shown. Ignoring fidelity is the opposite error: a replication differing in procedure tests something slightly different, and doctoral readers expect those differences judged, not just listed. Comparison tables omitting pose duration or instructions hide the very differences the fidelity section must weigh. Reading nonsignificance as evidence of absence is flagged in almost every section. Collapsing all outcomes into one verdict misses that the replication found a feelings effect while finding nothing on hormones. Relying on the first author's disavowal as evidence confuses testimony with data. Misreporting either study's sample or measures loses specific credit, and recommendations about training programs lie outside the assignment.
Get a GB793 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Which finding and which failed replication does your Unit 8 prompt concern? Pass along both citations, the instructions and the rubric. The assessment you receive tabulates the two studies, judges fidelity before statistics, applies a formal test of what the replication can rule out and gives its verdict claim by claim. The initial custom sample arrives without cost, in 24-48h for most requests.
GB793 Unit 8 questions, answered
What is the small telescopes approach?
Simonsohn proposed judging a replication by whether it rules out an effect large enough that the original study would have had about a one-in-three chance of detecting it. If the replication's estimate excludes that size, the original's evidence is judged too weak to support its claim. The approach avoids treating any nonsignificant replication as a refutation, which is why the assessment uses it.
Why is power posing treated as a management finding?
Because its reach was organizational. The original study appeared in a psychology journal, but the claim spread through leadership development programs and executive coaching, where it was presented as a tool for managers. A replication assessment in a management seminar examines exactly that path, from a small laboratory result to advice applied in workplaces.
Could the assessment choose a different replication?
Yes. Any published failed replication with a clear original works, including ones on priming, ego depletion or decision biases, and your section may assign one. The structure stays the same: tabulate both studies, judge fidelity, apply a formal test and give a verdict by outcome. Power posing is used here because both studies are unusually well documented.