Elderly-Related Words Prime Slow Walking (#15)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Pashler, H., Harris, C., & Coburn, N.. Elderly-Related Words Prime Slow Walking . (2011, September 15). Retrieved 13:11, October 30, 2014 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU%3D

MLA Style

"Elderly-Related Words Prime Slow Walking " Pashler, H., Harris, C., & Coburn, N.. 15 Sep 2011 15:29 30 Oct 2014, 13:11 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU%3D>

MHRA Style

'Elderly-Related Words Prime Slow Walking ', Pashler, H., Harris, C., & Coburn, N., , 15 September 2011 15:29 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU%3D> [accessed 30 October 2014]

Chicago Style

"Elderly-Related Words Prime Slow Walking ", Pashler, H., Harris, C., & Coburn, N., , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU%3D (accessed October 30, 2014)

CBE/CSE Style

Elderly-Related Words Prime Slow Walking [Internet]. Pashler, H., Harris, C., & Coburn, N.; 2011 Sep 15, 15:29 [cited 2014 Oct 30]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU%3D

Reference to Original Report of Finding Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.
Title Elderly-Related Words Prime Slow Walking
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 ReportView Article
Brief Statement of Original Result Reading words related to the elderly causes subjects to walk more slowly as they leave the lab.
Type of Replication Attempted Fairly Exact Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? Opposite Direction, p=.38
Number of Subjects 66
Number of Subjects in Original Study 30
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2008
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Pashler, H., Harris, C., & Coburn, N.
Detailed Description of Method/Results Precautions were taken to keep experimenter blind to condition: Prior to subject running, the Scrambled Sentence Task forms for each condition (elderly, neutral) were folded in thirds and (lightly) taped shut. The forms were randomly mixed up, numbered, and placed in a cardboard box with an opening at the top large enough for subjects to comfortably reach in and select a form. The only constraint was that approximately equal number of participants received forms from each condition.

One subject took part in the experimental session each hour. Cover story indicated that the study was investigating language proficiency and would involve a scrambled-sentence task. Subjects selected the sealed scrambled sentence form from a cardboard box. They were instructed not to open or show the folded form to the experimenter, but to indicate the number on the outside of the paper (later used to determine the subject's priming condition.)

Ss were told that their task was to construct grammatically correct sentences using only 4 of the 5 words listed for each of 30 items. An example of the sentence was provided for them. The task was self-paced and once Ss were finished, they were to place the papers in a sealed box at their table. The experimenter asked Ss if they had any questions, before closing the door to allow them to begin the task.

After the task, the experimenter returned and provided a partial debrief. Ss were told that the study was exploring how individuals use words in various, flexible ways. The experimenter thanked them for participating, then reminded them where the exit was located. The participant gathered their belongings and exited the experiment room, while the experimenter remained seated in the room to fill out paperwork, thus ensuring that the S exited first.

A Nike digital timing cone was positioned 5 ft outside the door of the experiment room. When the S walked by this cone, the sensor was triggered and timing began. The second cone was positioned 32 ft away, just before the exit door to the building; this sensor terminated timing. After the S triggered this, the experimenter rushed to catch up with the S to ask a series of questions, probing for possible suspicions. Afterwards, a full debrief was provided.

A t-test revealed that participants in the elderly priming condition walked faster (M=7.82, SD=1.03) than subjects in the neutral priming condition (M=8.06, SD=1.15). This difference was not significant, t(64) = -.88, p=.38.
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
The original study used 1 version of the scrambled sentence task for each condition. Since the order of the items on their version was unknown, the present study used 10 versions for each condition, to allow for greater randomization. The original report stated that 30 words were used but only provided 28 of these. Of necessity, 2 additional items judged similar to the other 28 were added to make a set of 30. In the original study, it was not made clear whether the experimenter (and the confederate who did the timing by hand) were blind to condition throughout. The article stated that "participants were randomly assigned to either an elderly prime condition or a neutral prime condition. The experimenter kept himself blind to condition by prepackaging the various scrambled-sentence tasks and picking packets randomly when the participant arrived at the laboratory waiting area." However, after the subject completed the priming task and the experimenter returned to the room, there is no mention of whether the experimenter remained blind for the rest of the session (e.g., when measuring walking speed). The present study made strenuous efforts to keep the experimenter blind, by having a different individual (not involved in the study) randomize and number the forms in advance. In addition, the S did not open the form until after the experimenter left the room and, upon completion of the task, the S placed their form in a sealed box before allowing the experimenter to return for the partial debrief. Conditions were not matched to subject numbers until after the entire study was completed. The original study used a confederate to time walking speed with a stopwatch. The present study obtained objective measurement of walking speed through the use of hidden Nike digital timing cones (located 32 feet apart) that were triggered off/on as the subject walked past the sensor. These measured transit time to the nearest 10 milliseconds.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Sara Hire
Location of ProjectMcGill 1350, UCSD Dept of Psychology, La Jolla, CA
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
University students from subject pool
Where did these subjects reside?United States
Was this a Class Project?No
Further Details of Results as pdf PDF

Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information
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
(#1) By Bobbie Spellman on Sat 01/21/2012 05:07 pm CST (2 years ago)
Published failure...

Have you seen PLOS one's publication of two failures to replicate this study?

Check it out:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029081

(#2) By Bobbie Spellman on Thu 03/08/2012 02:59 pm CST (2 years ago)
And Bargh's reply...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-natural-unconscious/201203/nothing-in-their-heads

(#3) By H. Pashler on Sat 07/07/2012 09:58 am CDT (2 years ago)
Some other interesting links on this topic:

See also:

 

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/340408/title/The_Hot_and_Cold_of_Priming

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/18/primed-by-expectations-%E2%80%93-why-a-classic-psychology-experiment-isn%E2%80%99t-what-it-seemed/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-natural-unconscious/201205/priming-effects-replicate-just-fine-thanks

http://hardsci.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/some-reflections-on-the-bargh-doyen-elderly-walking-priming-brouhaha/

 

Are you posting an unpublished replication attempt that you conducted yourself, or noting a published replication attempt?

Post Unpublished
Post Published