Clipboard weight did not affect cogn. elaboration (#154)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Nils Jostmann. Clipboard weight did not affect cogn. elaboration. (2013, March 22). Retrieved 16:12, October 22, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU0

MLA Style

"Clipboard weight did not affect cogn. elaboration" Nils Jostmann. 22 Mar 2013 10:41 22 Oct 2017, 16:12 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU0>

MHRA Style

'Clipboard weight did not affect cogn. elaboration', Nils Jostmann, , 22 March 2013 10:41 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU0> [accessed 22 October 2017]

Chicago Style

"Clipboard weight did not affect cogn. elaboration", Nils Jostmann, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU0 (accessed October 22, 2017)

CBE/CSE Style

Clipboard weight did not affect cogn. elaboration [Internet]. Nils Jostmann; 2013 Mar 22, 10:41 [cited 2017 Oct 22]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU0

Reference to Original Report of Finding Jostmann, N. B., Lakens, D., & Schubert, T. W. (2009). Weight as an embodiment of importance. Psychological Science, 20, 1169-1174.
Title Clipboard weight did not affect cogn. elaboration
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'. Study 4
Link to PDF of Original ReportView Article
Brief Statement of Original Result Participants who held a heavy clipboard showed more polarization between agreement with strong attitude items and disagreement with weak items compared to those holding a light clipboard.
Type of Replication Attempted Fairly Direct Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? No
Number of Subjects 41
Number of Subjects in Original Study 40
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2007
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Nils Jostmann
Detailed Description of Method/Results The study was set up as a replication study of the successful Study 4 of our 2009 paper. The main difference was that we ran the study with commuters at a busy Amsterdam train station (another difference was that we included two more between-subject conditions, one in which participants could see the additional weight in the heavy condition, and another one in which they couldn't but in which the weight was even more increased). At hindsight we should have mentioned this study in the original submission. Back then, I (addmittedly) naively concluded that the attempt was not worth mentioning because I blamed the noisy conditions at the train station. I certainly know better now. All raw data and materials are available upon request from the main investigator.
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
The location and sample characteristics were different. Perhaps train commuters were very distracted and/or hastened. Lack of power could have been an additional problem.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Suzanne van Gils collected the data; Nils Jostmann analyzed the data
Location of Projectcommuter train station
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
Other
non-paid visitors of train station Amsterdam Zuid
Where did these subjects reside?Netherlands
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 Platayplomo on Mon 03/25/2013 04:09 am CDT (4 years ago)
another possible reason for non-replication

Another reason why this study was not successful could be that at the time we ran it public attitudes about the building of the subway in Amsterdam changed rapidly in the local media. I believe that the topic is no longer suitable to investigate the weight --> importance link.

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

Post Unpublished
Post Published