Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm (#139)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Erin Maley, Linden Reed, Marijka Nakonezcny. Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm. (2012, December 07). Retrieved 23:54, January 17, 2018 from

MLA Style

"Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm" Erin Maley, Linden Reed, Marijka Nakonezcny. 07 Dec 2012 18:14 17 Jan 2018, 23:54 <>

MHRA Style

'Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm', Erin Maley, Linden Reed, Marijka Nakonezcny, , 07 December 2012 18:14 <> [accessed 17 January 2018]

Chicago Style

"Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm", Erin Maley, Linden Reed, Marijka Nakonezcny, , (accessed January 17, 2018)


Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm [Internet]. Erin Maley, Linden Reed, Marijka Nakonezcny; 2012 Dec 07, 18:14 [cited 2018 Jan 17]. Available from:

Reference to Original Report of Finding von Hippel, W., & Gonsalkorale, K. (2005). “That Is Bloody Revolting!’ Inhibitory Control of Thoughts Better Left Unsaid. Psychological Science, 16(7), 497-500. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01563.x
Title Inhibitory Control and Its Impact On Socially Norm
If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'.
Link to PDF of Original ReportView Article
Brief Statement of Original Result Participants in the low pressure group showed less inhibition when their attention was divided and participants int he high pressure group showed more inhibition even when their attention was divided.
Type of Replication Attempted Conceptual Replication
Result Type Successful Replication
Difference? Same Direction, .05
Number of Subjects 20
Number of Subjects in Original Study
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2012
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Erin Maley, Linden Reed, Marijka Nakonezcny
Detailed Description of Method/Results Each individual upon arrival was administered a Stroop color-naming test, which is used as an indication of her or her inclination toward uninhibited behavior. The Stroop test had the participant first name the ink colors of 44 colored blocks. In the first set of words the color of the word matched the name of the color written (example: the color red written in red ink).
Following this procedure, the participants were asked to name the ink color of words that were written in a different color (example: the word green printed in red ink). After completion of the Stroop task, each participant drew a number out of a hat and was randomly assigned to one of two groups: high social pressure and low social pressure. Within both of these groups was a subcategory of participants who were asked to remember an eight-digit number (5 out of the 10 in each group).
In the high social-pressure group, the Asian experimented presented the chicken feet dish. The participants were made to believe that this dish was a traditional delicacy, a favorite of the experimenter, and that it also held some form of some cultural significance. Each participant was presented individually with the dish, and their reaction was recorded for later review.
In the low social-pressure group, the non-Asian experimenter presented the chicken feet dish. In this group, the participants were told that they are lucky to be in the selected group because they would have the opportunity to try a Chinese meal. As in the high social-pressure group, each participant was presented with the dish individually, with the reactions recorded for later observation.
The participants who chose not to eat the chicken foot are reassured that their results will still be useful, and those that tried the meal were encouraged to eat a few of the toes. Those participants who also had to remember the eight-digit number were then asked to recall the number; this was done to ensure that those participants were cognitively-divided during their encounter with the chicken foot.
Concluding the experiment, participants were asked to take part in the Ten Item Personality Inventory, which was designed to determine how likely participants were to have seen a chicken foot presented as food.

Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Linden Reed ran subjects and Marijka Nakoneczny
Location of ProjectStudent Center, Temple University, Philadelphia PA
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
University students from subject pool
Where did these subjects reside?Unspecified
Was this a Class Project?Yes
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