Processing fluency of hierarchical relationships (#217)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Erica J. Yoon, Michael C. Frank. Processing fluency of hierarchical relationships. (2015, April 22). Retrieved 00:51, February 22, 2018 from

MLA Style

"Processing fluency of hierarchical relationships" Erica J. Yoon, Michael C. Frank. 22 Apr 2015 18:01 22 Feb 2018, 00:51 <>

MHRA Style

'Processing fluency of hierarchical relationships', Erica J. Yoon, Michael C. Frank, , 22 April 2015 18:01 <> [accessed 22 February 2018]

Chicago Style

"Processing fluency of hierarchical relationships", Erica J. Yoon, Michael C. Frank, , (accessed February 22, 2018)


Processing fluency of hierarchical relationships [Internet]. Erica J. Yoon, Michael C. Frank; 2015 Apr 22, 18:01 [cited 2018 Feb 22]. Available from:

Reference to Original Report of Finding Zitek, E. M., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2012). The fluency of social hierarchy: the ease with which hierarchical relationships are seen, remembered, learned, and liked. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(1), 98.
Title Processing fluency of hierarchical relationships
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 ReportView Article
Brief Statement of Original Result The original study suggested that participants identified pairs of people in a hierarchy (i.e., dominant-submissive pairs) faster than pairs of people equal in their facial dominance (i.e., dominant-dominant, or submissive-submissive pairs).
Type of Replication Attempted Highly Direct Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? No
Number of Subjects 253
Number of Subjects in Original Study 104
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2015
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Erica J. Yoon, Michael C. Frank
Detailed Description of Method/Results Materials:
The current experiment closely followed what is reported in the original experiment:

Four sets of pairs of pictures were used as stimuli in the following four within-subjects conditions: equality (submissive), equality (dominant), hierarchy, and animal. In the equality (submissive) condition, faces of two submissive-looking people were paired together, and in the equality (dominant) condition, faces of two dominant-looking people were paired together. In the hierarchy condition, a dominant and a submissive face were paired together. Finally, in the animal condition, one animal face and one human face were paired together. The participants’ task was to decide whether the pictures represented two humans or one animal and one human, and the amount of time required to make this judgment was measured ...

The human pictures were black and white photographs taken from the 1950 West Point yearbook (Howitzer, 1950). All of the people in the pictures were White men. These pictures had been rated for facial dominance on a 7-point scale (1
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
The major difference of the current replication project from the original experiment is the site of identification task: whereas the original task was an in-lab experiment, the replication study will be an online paradigm where participants will perform the task on their own computers in a browser window running JavaScript code. This method has been shown to yield reliable reaction-time measurements in previous validation studies (Crump et al., 2013).
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Erica J. Yoon
Location of ProjectUnited States
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
Adults tested through internet
Where did these subjects reside?United States
Was this a Class Project?Yes
Further Details of Results as pdf PDF

Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information The mean response time for each condition was calculated for each participant, then the mean response rate for each condition across all participants was calculated. The visual comparison between the data from the current study and the original study is shown in Figure 1 in the attached paper.\r\n\r\nThe RTs in the current replication were overall slower compared the RTs in the original results. The means for the three conditions of interest (both human faces), dominant-submissive condition (M = 572.1, SD = 179.3), both-dominant condition (M = 572.5, SD = 181.9) and both-submissive condition (M = 571.8, SD = 177.6), were close to each other and did not show the expected pattern of differences, namely faster responses for dominant-submissive condition compared to the other two conditions. One-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with condition (both dominant, dominant-submissive, and both submissive) as a factor revealed no significant effect of condition on reaction times: F(2, 484) = 0.13, p > .87. Thus, the expected difference across the three conditions was not shown in the current study. \r\n\r\nThe original study performed an analysis using means computed over the reciprocal (inverse) of reaction time, and reported a significant difference between the dominant-submissive condition and the other two conditions. The means and standard deviations of these reciprocals were not reported in the original study, however. For the current study, the ANOVA on means of reciprocal reaction times did not reveal an effect of condition: F(2, 484) = 0.39, p > .68. \r\n
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