Weight did not affect value & importance judgments (#193)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Francesca Citron, Michael Kucharski, Adele Goldberg. Weight did not affect value & importance judgments. (2014, June 13). Retrieved 00:55, February 22, 2018 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTkz

MLA Style

"Weight did not affect value & importance judgments" Francesca Citron, Michael Kucharski, Adele Goldberg. 13 Jun 2014 15:57 22 Feb 2018, 00:55 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTkz>

MHRA Style

'Weight did not affect value & importance judgments', Francesca Citron, Michael Kucharski, Adele Goldberg, , 13 June 2014 15:57 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTkz> [accessed 22 February 2018]

Chicago Style

"Weight did not affect value & importance judgments", Francesca Citron, Michael Kucharski, Adele Goldberg, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTkz (accessed February 22, 2018)


Weight did not affect value & importance judgments [Internet]. Francesca Citron, Michael Kucharski, Adele Goldberg; 2014 Jun 13, 15:57 [cited 2018 Feb 22]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTkz

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 Weight did not affect value & importance judgments
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'. Experiments 1, 2 & 4
Link to PDF of Original Report
Brief Statement of Original Result Participants holding a heavy cliboard made higher judgements of the monetary values of different currencies than participants holding a light clipboard; they also rated as more important that the university committee would listen to the opinion of the students. Finally, participants holding the heavy clipboard gave more polarised agreement ratings with strong vs. weak arguments concerning a subway under construction in the city.
Type of Replication Attempted Highly Direct Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? Opposite Direction, .08; .09
Number of Subjects 31
Number of Subjects in Original Study 40
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2012
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Francesca Citron, Michael Kucharski, Adele Goldberg
Detailed Description of Method/Results Participants came to our lab for the experiment, were handed either a heavy or light clipboard, containing the German translation of the questionnaires used in the original Exp. 1 (judgement of monetary value of different currencies) and 2 (scenario in which a university did not allow students to express their opinion regarding a grant to study abroad), as well as a German adaptation of the questionnaire in the original Exp. 4: short text on the extension of the tube line U5 in Berlin. The original questionnaires were kindly provided by the authors of the original study.
Exp. 1 & 2: Currency estimation as well as ratings of how important it was that the committe would listen to the students were numerically higher for light than heavy clipboards, hence in the opposite direction than the original studies, but the differences were only marginally significant (ts(29) < 1.81, ps > .08);
Exp. 4: No main effect of argument (i.e., higher agreement with stronger argument, F(1,29) = 1.28, ns) and no interaction between argument and weight (i.e., higher polarisation in the heavy vs. leight clipboard condition, F(1,29) = 0.31, ns) were found, therefore not replicating previous results.

Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
Location: Berlin. Sample of native German speakers, study conducted in German and slightly adapted when necessary (see Methods: Exp. 4).
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Michael Kucharski tested the participants, screened and entered the data. Francesca Citron analysed the data.
Location of ProjectOur lab, Freie University Berlin, Germany
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
Mainly students from Freie Universit├Ąt from different faculties, but also non-students living in the Berlin area (most of them were paid, some Psychology students received course credit).
Where did these subjects reside?Germany
Was this a Class Project?No
Further Details of Results as pdf
Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information Exp. 1: Heavy (M = 91.26; SD = 23.86) vs. light clipboard (M = 106.37; SD = 22.44);\r\nExp. 2: Heavy (M = 5.21; SD = 1.85) vs. light clipboard (M = 6.18; SD = 1.24);\r\nExp. 4: Heavy clipboard, strong (M = 3.55; SD = 1.17) vs. weak arguments (M = 3.38; SD = 0.89);\r\nLight clipboard, strong (M = 3.96; SD = 1.45) vs. weak arguments (M = 3.47; SD = 0.94).
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