Process model of affect misattribution procedure (#157)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Etienne P. LeBel. Process model of affect misattribution procedure. (2013, April 29). Retrieved 13:12, January 16, 2018 from

MLA Style

"Process model of affect misattribution procedure" Etienne P. LeBel. 29 Apr 2013 14:33 16 Jan 2018, 13:12 <>

MHRA Style

'Process model of affect misattribution procedure', Etienne P. LeBel, , 29 April 2013 14:33 <> [accessed 16 January 2018]

Chicago Style

"Process model of affect misattribution procedure", Etienne P. LeBel, , (accessed January 16, 2018)


Process model of affect misattribution procedure [Internet]. Etienne P. LeBel; 2013 Apr 29, 14:33 [cited 2018 Jan 16]. Available from:

Reference to Original Report of Finding Payne, B., Hall, D. L., Cameron, C. D., & Bishara, A. J. (2010, Exp 1). A process model of affect misattribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1397-1408.
Title Process model of affect misattribution procedure
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
Brief Statement of Original Result MPT process model of AMP is validated disentangling 3 component processes, affect toward prime (A), affect toward pictographs (P), and misattribution of A onto P).
Type of Replication Attempted Highly Direct Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? Not Applicable
Number of Subjects 143
Number of Subjects in Original Study 68
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2012
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Etienne P. LeBel
Detailed Description of Method/Results Exact instructions and task used as in original study; all original stimuli acquired from original author, including Excel spreadsheet to fit the MPT model.

Though the MPT model fit the data very well, even given the much larger sample size of N = 143 (G-squared (df=2) = .84, p > .05, critical value = 5.99), the CRITICAL difference in parameter M across pictograph duration condition was in the opposite direction (i.e., M = .91 in the 1,000 ms pictograph duration condition vs. M = .82 in the 100 ms pictograph duration). Differences in the A and P parameters across prime pleasantness and pictograph pleasantness were, however, in the expected direction and statistically significant (nested model with additional relevant constraint led to significant increases in Gsquared).
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
Two minor differences which were not anticipated a priori – based on published and intuitive bases – to alter the likelihood of replicating the effect: (1) Canadian undergraduates will be used rather than American undergraduates (2) Participants will be run in groups of 1 to 5 rather than separately as in original study
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Experienced 5th-year undergraduate research assistant
Location of ProjectCanada
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
University students from subject pool
Where did these subjects reside?Canada
Was this a Class Project?No
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