Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm (#139)
How to Cite this Report
APA StyleErin Maley, Linden Reed, Marijka Nakonezcny. Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm. (2012, December 07). Retrieved 16:47, April 28, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTM5
MLA Style"Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm" Erin Maley, Linden Reed, Marijka Nakonezcny. 07 Dec 2012 18:14 28 Apr 2017, 16:47 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTM5>
MHRA Style'Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm', Erin Maley, Linden Reed, Marijka Nakonezcny, , 07 December 2012 18:14 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTM5> [accessed 28 April 2017]
Chicago Style"Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm", Erin Maley, Linden Reed, Marijka Nakonezcny, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTM5 (accessed April 28, 2017)
CBE/CSE StyleInhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm [Internet]. Erin Maley, Linden Reed, Marijka Nakonezcny; 2012 Dec 07, 18:14 [cited 2017 Apr 28]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTM5
|Reference to Original Report of Finding||von Hippel, W., & Gonsalkorale, K. (2005). Ã¢Â€ÂœThat Is Bloody Revolting!Ã¢Â€Â™ Inhibitory Control of Thoughts Better Left Unsaid. Psychological Science, 16(7), 497-500. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01563.x|
|Title||Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm|
|If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'.|
|Link to PDF of Original Report||View Article|
|Brief Statement of Original Result||Participants in the low pressure group showed less inhibition when their attention was divided and participants int he high pressure group showed more inhibition even when their attention was divided.|
|Type of Replication Attempted||Conceptual Replication|
|Result Type||Successful Replication|
|Difference?||Same Direction, .05|
|Number of Subjects||20|
|Number of Subjects in Original Study|
|Year in which Replication Attempt was Made||2012|
|Name of Investigators (Real Names Required)||Erin Maley, Linden Reed, Marijka Nakonezcny|
|Detailed Description of Method/Results||
Each individual upon arrival was administered a Stroop color-naming test, which is used as an indication of her or her inclination toward uninhibited behavior. The Stroop test had the participant first name the ink colors of 44 colored blocks. In the first set of words the color of the word matched the name of the color written (example: the color red written in red ink). |
Following this procedure, the participants were asked to name the ink color of words that were written in a different color (example: the word green printed in red ink). After completion of the Stroop task, each participant drew a number out of a hat and was randomly assigned to one of two groups: high social pressure and low social pressure. Within both of these groups was a subcategory of participants who were asked to remember an eight-digit number (5 out of the 10 in each group).
In the high social-pressure group, the Asian experimented presented the chicken feet dish. The participants were made to believe that this dish was a traditional delicacy, a favorite of the experimenter, and that it also held some form of some cultural significance. Each participant was presented individually with the dish, and their reaction was recorded for later review.
In the low social-pressure group, the non-Asian experimenter presented the chicken feet dish. In this group, the participants were told that they are lucky to be in the selected group because they would have the opportunity to try a Chinese meal. As in the high social-pressure group, each participant was presented with the dish individually, with the reactions recorded for later observation.
The participants who chose not to eat the chicken foot are reassured that their results will still be useful, and those that tried the meal were encouraged to eat a few of the toes. Those participants who also had to remember the eight-digit number were then asked to recall the number; this was done to ensure that those participants were cognitively-divided during their encounter with the chicken foot.
Concluding the experiment, participants were asked to take part in the Ten Item Personality Inventory, which was designed to determine how likely participants were to have seen a chicken foot presented as food.
|Any Known Methodological Differences |
(between original and present study)?
|Email of Investigator|
|Name of individuals who |
actually carried out the project
|Linden Reed ran subjects and Marijka Nakoneczny|
|Location of Project||Student Center, Temple University, Philadelphia PA|
|Characteristics of Subjects |
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
|University students from subject pool|
|Where did these subjects reside?||Unspecified|
|Was this a Class Project?||Yes|
|Further Details of Results as pdf|
|Email of Original Investigator|
|I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.|
|TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking|