Big secrets weigh people down (#158)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Etienne P. LeBel, Yang Ye, Christopher Wilbur. Big secrets weigh people down. (2013, April 29). Retrieved 00:56, February 22, 2018 from

MLA Style

"Big secrets weigh people down" Etienne P. LeBel, Yang Ye, Christopher Wilbur. 29 Apr 2013 15:00 22 Feb 2018, 00:56 <>

MHRA Style

'Big secrets weigh people down', Etienne P. LeBel, Yang Ye, Christopher Wilbur, , 29 April 2013 15:00 <> [accessed 22 February 2018]

Chicago Style

"Big secrets weigh people down", Etienne P. LeBel, Yang Ye, Christopher Wilbur, , (accessed February 22, 2018)


Big secrets weigh people down [Internet]. Etienne P. LeBel, Yang Ye, Christopher Wilbur; 2013 Apr 29, 15:00 [cited 2018 Feb 22]. Available from:

Reference to Original Report of Finding Slepian, M. L., Masicampo, E. J., Toosi, N. R., & Ambady, N. (2012, Study 1). The physical burdens of secrecy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 619-624.
Title Big secrets weigh people down
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 1
Link to PDF of Original Report
Brief Statement of Original Result Consistent with an embodiment account, Slepian et al. found that individuals who wrote about a big (compared to small) secret perceived a hill as steeper, suggesting that holding big secrets weigh people down.
Type of Replication Attempted Highly Direct Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? Same Direction, .21
Number of Subjects 241
Number of Subjects in Original Study 40
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2013
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Etienne P. LeBel, Yang Ye, Christopher Wilbur
Detailed Description of Method/Results Same cover story, instructions, manipulation, and measures used as in original (all materials acquired from original author).

Mixed-model ANOVA (2 [condition: big vs. small secret] x 2 (measure type: hill slant vs. control items) did not reveal expected interaction, F (1, 239) = .62, p > .43.

More specifically, Ps recalling BIG secretes did not perceive the hill as steeper than Ps recalling SMALL secrets (M_big=37.8, SD=15.3 vs. M_small=35.2, SD=14.2), t(239)=1.26, p>.21, d=.15.

Sample had power of .99 to detect an effect as large as that reported by Slepian et al., i.e., d=.78
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
No known differences have been identified between replication study and original study.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
No experimenter (online MechanicalTurk sample, as in original); Etienne P. LeBel analyzed data.
Location of ProjectCanada
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
Adults tested through internet
Where did these subjects reside?United States
Was this a Class Project?No
Further Details of Results as 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

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

Post Unpublished
Post Published