Clipboard weight did not effect issue seriousness (#151)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Rebecca Hadley, Chloe Ring, Morrisa Gold and Kimberly Daubman. Clipboard weight did not effect issue seriousness. (2013, February 23). Retrieved 22:22, November 17, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTUx

MLA Style

"Clipboard weight did not effect issue seriousness" Rebecca Hadley, Chloe Ring, Morrisa Gold and Kimberly Daubman. 23 Feb 2013 14:27 17 Nov 2017, 22:22 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTUx>

MHRA Style

'Clipboard weight did not effect issue seriousness', Rebecca Hadley, Chloe Ring, Morrisa Gold and Kimberly Daubman, , 23 February 2013 14:27 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTUx> [accessed 17 November 2017]

Chicago Style

"Clipboard weight did not effect issue seriousness", Rebecca Hadley, Chloe Ring, Morrisa Gold and Kimberly Daubman, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTUx (accessed November 17, 2017)

CBE/CSE Style

Clipboard weight did not effect issue seriousness [Internet]. Rebecca Hadley, Chloe Ring, Morrisa Gold and Kimberly Daubman; 2013 Feb 23, 14:27 [cited 2017 Nov 17]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTUx

Reference to Original Report of Finding Jostmann, N. B., Lakens, D., & Schubert, T. W. (2009). Weight as an embodiment of importance. Psychological Science, 20, 1169-1174.
Title Clipboard weight did not effect issue seriousness
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 2
Link to PDF of Original ReportView Article
Brief Statement of Original Result Participants holding the heavier clipboard found it more important for the committee to listen to students' opinions regarding size of grants to study abroad than did participants given the light clipboard.
Type of Replication Attempted Fairly Direct Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? No
Number of Subjects 60
Number of Subjects in Original Study 51
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2013
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Rebecca Hadley, Chloe Ring, Morrisa Gold and Kimberly Daubman
Detailed Description of Method/Results Participants were approached in public locations around campus by one of the student researchers. Half of them (randomly determined) were handed a clipboard with one piece of paper attached (light condition). The other half were handed a clipboard with a one-subject spiral notebook and one piece of paper attached (heavy condition). The piece of paper informed participants that the University was considering shortening winter break and then asked them to rate how important it was for the administration to listen to students' opinions about this issue (1=not at all and 7=very much).
The results were not significant. Ratings of participants in the heavy condition (M=6.13, SD=1.33) did not differ from those of participants in the light condition (M= 5.77, SD=1.48), t<1 . Our results could have been affected by the fact that most participants had strong views on the issue. In fact, most (53%) rated the issue as maximally important (7 on a 7-point scale). Nevertheless, student researchers in the same class last semester did replicate the original results with the same question we used.
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
We had a bigger sample size than was used in the original study. Also we used a different question that was more pertinent to our campus. Our participants were enrolled in an American university whereas participants in the original study were enrolled in a Dutch university.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Morrisa Gold, Rebecca Hadley and Chloe Ring under the supervision of Kimberly Daubman
Location of ProjectVarious public locations around Bucknell University campus.
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
University students from subject pool
Undergraduate students who were not paid and were not part of the General Psychology subject pool.
Where did these subjects reside?United States
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