Cleanliness reminders affect political attitudes (#221)
How to Cite this Report
APA StyleAllison-Godfrey, A., Bronson, K., Luby, E., Salazar, A. & Holmes, K. J.. Cleanliness reminders affect political attitudes. (2015, April 30). Retrieved 18:57, March 24, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjIx
MLA Style"Cleanliness reminders affect political attitudes" Allison-Godfrey, A., Bronson, K., Luby, E., Salazar, A. & Holmes, K. J.. 30 Apr 2015 16:01 24 Mar 2017, 18:57 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjIx>
MHRA Style'Cleanliness reminders affect political attitudes', Allison-Godfrey, A., Bronson, K., Luby, E., Salazar, A. & Holmes, K. J., , 30 April 2015 16:01 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjIx> [accessed 24 March 2017]
Chicago Style"Cleanliness reminders affect political attitudes", Allison-Godfrey, A., Bronson, K., Luby, E., Salazar, A. & Holmes, K. J., , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjIx (accessed March 24, 2017)
CBE/CSE StyleCleanliness reminders affect political attitudes [Internet]. Allison-Godfrey, A., Bronson, K., Luby, E., Salazar, A. & Holmes, K. J.; 2015 Apr 30, 16:01 [cited 2017 Mar 24]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjIx
|Reference to Original Report of Finding||Helzer, E. G., & Pizarro, D. A. (2010). Dirty liberals! Reminders of physical cleanliness influence moral and political attitudes. Psychological Science, 22, 517-522.|
|Title||Cleanliness reminders affect political attitudes|
|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||View Article|
|Brief Statement of Original Result||College students reported more conservative political attitudes when standing next to a hand sanitizer dispenser than when standing by a blank wall.|
|Type of Replication Attempted||Highly Direct Replication|
|Result Type||Failure to Replicate|
|Difference?||Opposite Direction, .24|
|Number of Subjects||60|
|Number of Subjects in Original Study||52|
|Year in which Replication Attempt was Made||2014|
|Name of Investigators (Real Names Required)||Allison-Godfrey, A., Bronson, K., Luby, E., Salazar, A. & Holmes, K. J.|
|Detailed Description of Method/Results||
The experiment took place over four days in the same week and was located in an open student center. A pillar was located about 10 feet away from the doors of the main entrance. A hand sanitizer dispenser was on one side of the pillar, and separate tables were on both sides of the pillar. As individuals entered the student center near the main entrance doors, they were approached and randomly assigned to complete the experiment either at the table under the hand sanitizer or at the table on the other side of the pillar, where there was no hand sanitizer dispenser. |
Every ninth person was asked whether he or she would be willing to complete a two minute demographic survey. The survey asked participants their age, major in school, and their political attitudes in the moral, social, and fiscal realms on a scale from 1 (extremely conservative) to 7 (extremely liberal). Following Helzer and Pizarro’s procedure, in the control condition, the experimenter told participants to “step over to the table to complete the questionnaire” while gesturing toward the table on the empty side of the pillar. In the experimental condition, the experimenter told participants to “step over to the hand sanitizer dispenser to complete the questionnaire.”
Manipulation checks at the end of the demographic questionnaire (using an awareness scale from 0 to 5) confirmed that those in the control condition were less aware of the hand sanitizer dispenser (M = .57, SD = 1.28) than were those in the experimental condition (M = 2.10, SD = 2.01), t(57) = -3.52, p =.001.
As in Helzer and Pizarro’s (2011) study, participants’ ratings for the three political-oriented items (moral, social, and fiscal) were positively correlated, and were therefore combined into a composite political orientation index, α=.68. Contrary to the original findings, there was no significant difference in political orientation between the experimental and control conditions, t(57) = -1.20, p = 0.24, d = .32, and political orientation was descriptively more liberal in the experimental condition (M = 5.17, SD = .83) than in the control condition (M = 4.48, SD = 0.97).
|Any Known Methodological Differences |
(between original and present study)?
|Whereas Helzer and Pizarro’s (2011) study took place in a hallway, the present study was conducted in an open student center.|
|Email of Investigator|
|Name of individuals who |
actually carried out the project
|Colorado College Psychology students|
|Location of Project||Colorado College, Colorado Springs|
|Characteristics of Subjects |
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
|University students from subject pool|
Sixty Colorado College students (30 female; age: M =19.41, SD = 1.08) participated in exchange for entry into a raffle for a $20 gift card.
|Where did these subjects reside?||United States|
|Was this a Class Project?||Yes|
|Further Details of Results as pdf|
|Email of Original Investigator|
|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 kjholmes on Tue 09/13/2016 02:41 pm CDT (7 months ago)|
|Correction to Allison-Godfrey et al. (2014)|
The following corrections should be made to the report posted above:
-The number of subjects should be 59, not 60. One participant in the experimental condition was excluded for being under the age of 18 and unable to provide informed consent.
-The last sentence of the Detailed Description of Method/Results should be as follows: “Contrary to the original findings, there was no significant difference between the experimental and control conditions, t(57) = -1.24, p = 0.22, d = .32, and political orientation was descriptively more liberal in the experimental condition (M = 5.13, SD = 0.83) than in the control condition (M = 4.84, SD = 0.97).” The descriptive statistics and analyses were corrected to account for the excluded participant (see previous point), and the mean for the control condition was also corrected (originally reported as 4.48; the last two digits were inadvertently transposed).
Kevin J. Holmes