Cleanliness cues do not influence conservatism (#253)
How to Cite this Report
APA StyleBryan R. Burnham. Cleanliness cues do not influence conservatism. (2016, May 17). Retrieved 06:42, March 25, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjUz
MLA Style"Cleanliness cues do not influence conservatism" Bryan R. Burnham. 17 May 2016 14:46 25 Mar 2017, 06:42 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjUz>
MHRA Style'Cleanliness cues do not influence conservatism', Bryan R. Burnham, , 17 May 2016 14:46 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjUz> [accessed 25 March 2017]
Chicago Style"Cleanliness cues do not influence conservatism", Bryan R. Burnham, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjUz (accessed March 25, 2017)
CBE/CSE StyleCleanliness cues do not influence conservatism [Internet]. Bryan R. Burnham; 2016 May 17, 14:46 [cited 2017 Mar 25]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjUz
|Reference to Original Report of Finding||Helzer, E. G., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). Dirty Liberals!: Reminders of Physical Cleanliness Influence Moral and Political Attitudes. Psychological Science, 22(4), 517-522. doi:10.1177/0956797611402514|
|Title||Cleanliness cues do not influence conservatism|
|If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'.||Experiment 1|
|Link to PDF of Original Report||View Article|
|Brief Statement of Original Result||Subjects completed a political attitude survey near a hand-sanitizer dispenser or empty wall. Subjects rated their political attitudes more conservative near the hand-sanitizer.|
|Type of Replication Attempted||Highly Direct Replication|
|Result Type||Failure to Replicate|
|Difference?||Same Direction, .374|
|Number of Subjects||86|
|Number of Subjects in Original Study||52|
|Year in which Replication Attempt was Made||2016|
|Name of Investigators (Real Names Required)||Bryan R. Burnham|
|Detailed Description of Method/Results||
A power analysis based on d = 89 reported in Helzer and Pizarro (2011) indicated a sample of at least n = 42 subjects was needed to detect an effect of that size with Power (1 - β) = .80 and α = .05. The ending sample included n = 86 subjects.|
Subjects were approached as they entered one of two sets of doors at the University campus center, which is busy with pedestrian traffic. On one side of each hallway was a hand-sanitizer dispenser, while the other side was free of objects. Subjects completed a survey on political attitudes near the hand-sanitizer dispenser or near the empty wall.
Every ninth student who entered the doors was asked if they would like to participate in a demographic survey. If they agreed, subjects were asked to “step over to the hand-sanitizer dispenser to take the survey” or “step over to the wall to take the survey.” Assignment of subjects to complete the survey near the hand-sanitizer dispenser or the wall was alternated every other subject. Once the subject was at the location, they were handed a survey that asked their age, major, and to rate their political attitude in the moral, social, and fiscal domains on a scale from 1 (extremely conservative) to 7 (extremely liberal). Subjects also rated their awareness of the hand-sanitizer dispenser on a scale from 0 (totally unaware) to 5 (totally aware). Subjects were more aware when near the hand-sanitizer dispenser (M = 3.67, SD = 1.32) than the wall (M = 2.30, SD = 1.79), t(84) = 4.038, SE = .340, p = .000119 (two-tailed), d = .88.
The three ratings of political attitude were positively correlated so they were averaged (α = .67) to form a single political attitude score. As seen in the figure, the average political attitude score was slightly more conservative in the presence of the hand-sanitizer dispenser, but the difference was not statistically significant, t(84) = 0.893, SE = .226, p = .374 (two-tailed), d = .19.
A 2(Location: Hand-Sanitizer Dispenser, Wall) x 3(Survey Scale: Moral, Social, Fiscal) ANOVA revealed a significant interaction, F(2,168) = 3.845, MSE = 1.047, p = .023 (note: Helzer & Pizarro, 2011, found this to be non-significant). As seen in the figure, in the presence of the hand-sanitizer dispenser subjects rated their political attitudes more conservative in the moral (p = .373) and social domains (p = .046), but not the fiscal domain (p = .361).
In sum, this replication attempt largely failed to replicate Experiment 1 of Helzer and Pizarro (2011). That is, a reminder of cleanliness (the hand-sanitizer dispenser) was unable to shift political attitudes toward being more conservative. It is important to note that subjects were more aware of the hand-sanitizer dispenser when standing near it compared to near the empty wall. Hence, the lack of an influence of the hand-sanitizer dispenser on political attitudes cannot be attributed to a lack of awareness.
|Any Known Methodological Differences |
(between original and present study)?
|The main difference was assigning subjects to hand-sanitizer and empty wall locations. Helzer and Pizarro (2011) ran both the experimental and control conditions in a blocked fashion, whereas we alternated between assigning subjects to the experimental and control conditions.|
|Email of Investigator|
|Name of individuals who |
actually carried out the project
|Students in a research methods class ran subjects, the data were analyzed as a group with the instructor (BRB).|
|Location of Project||The DeNaples Center, The University of Scranton|
|Characteristics of Subjects |
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
College-aged students who entered the student center at the University of Scranton.
|Where did these subjects reside?||United States|
|Was this a Class Project?||Yes|
|Further Details of Results as pdf|
|Email of Original Investigator|
|Quantitive Information||In the original report, the mean difference between the hand-sanitizer group and wall group was .63 (+/- .55, 95% CI). Our replication attempt resulted in a mean difference of .20 (+/- .45, 95% CI).|
|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|