Williams & Bargh Spatial Distance (#165)
How to Cite this Report
APA StyleDavid Johnson and Joseph Cesario. Williams & Bargh Spatial Distance. (2013, June 29). Retrieved 12:32, April 29, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTY1
MLA Style"Williams & Bargh Spatial Distance" David Johnson and Joseph Cesario. 29 Jun 2013 23:07 29 Apr 2017, 12:32 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTY1>
MHRA Style'Williams & Bargh Spatial Distance', David Johnson and Joseph Cesario, , 29 June 2013 23:07 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTY1> [accessed 29 April 2017]
Chicago Style"Williams & Bargh Spatial Distance", David Johnson and Joseph Cesario, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTY1 (accessed April 29, 2017)
CBE/CSE StyleWilliams & Bargh Spatial Distance [Internet]. David Johnson and Joseph Cesario; 2013 Jun 29, 23:07 [cited 2017 Apr 29]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTY1
|Reference to Original Report of Finding||Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Keeping one's distance: The influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation. Psychological Science, 19, 302-308.|
|Title||Williams & Bargh Spatial Distance|
|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 4|
|Link to PDF of Original Report||View Article|
|Brief Statement of Original Result||Priming participants with spatial distance (via graphing points on paper) influences emotional closeness to ones family members and hometown.|
|Type of Replication Attempted||Highly Direct Replication|
|Result Type||Failure to Replicate|
|Difference?||Same Direction, .86|
|Number of Subjects||286|
|Number of Subjects in Original Study||84|
|Year in which Replication Attempt was Made||2012|
|Name of Investigators (Real Names Required)||David Johnson and Joseph Cesario|
|Detailed Description of Method/Results||
Spatial distance was primed by graphing a pair of points on a coordinate plane. In the three conditions the points were increasingly far apart. |
Participants completed the task in between a series of unrelated experimental tasks. They were provided with a sheet of paper (face down) and told not to flip it over until directed to. No other cover story was given. During the experiment the computer gave instructions to flip over the paper, which told participants to graph (one of three) coordinate points on the coordinate plane. Upon completing the task, participants responded to three questions, measuring the strength of their bond to their parents, siblings, and hometown on a scale from 1(not at all strong) to 7 (extremely strong).
At the conclusion of the experiment participants were probed for suspicion and debriefed.
Twenty participants failed to complete the grid correctly and were removed from the analysis, leaving 265 useful participants. (Removal of participants did not change the results of the analyses.) A one-way ANOVA was used to test differences in bond strength between the three spatial-prime groups. As Figure 1 shows, the data showed no significant differences between conditions (close prime: M = 5.14, SD = 1.11; intermediate prime: M = 5.09, SD = 0.99; distance prime: M = 5.05, SD = 1.07), F(2, 262) = 0.15, p = .86. CohenÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â€ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â™s d for the close v. distance conditions was .08 (original d = .64).
The data were combined with another replication attempt made by the same authors (also available on psychfiledrawer) and examined with Bayesian parameter estimation. By specifying a region of practical equivalence (ROPE) around the null it is possible to accept the null if parameter estimates do not exceed this ROPE. We selected a ROPE of -0.1 to 0.1 for the standardized mean difference (effect size) of spatial prime when comparing close vs. distance conditions as effect sizes must be greater than |0.1| to be considered ÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â€ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚ÂœsmallÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â€ÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â (Cohen, 1988).
We used a vague prior to estimate the standardized mean difference between spatial distance and family bond strength given the combined sample of 412 participants. Using R scripts (Kruschke, 2011), we implemented Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms to generate a set of 100,000 standardized mean difference parameter values.
The R script outputs a histogram of credible parameter estimates (Figure 2) and reports the highest density interval (HDI) that contains 95% of the estimates of effect size. The mean effect size estimate when comparing close vs. distance conditions was .14, 95% HDI [-.05, .36]. The HDI does not completely fall within our ROPE (-.10 to .10), preventing us from concluding in favor of the null hypothesis. However, given that 10.5% of the credible estimates of effect size were less than zero, and the mean effect size was d = .14, we find little support for the original medium sized effect reported (d = .64).
Data and experimenter script are available at both https://davidjjohnson.wordpress.com/data-materials/ or https://www.msu.edu/~cesario/data_materials.html
|Any Known Methodological Differences |
(between original and present study)?
|In the original study the experimenter provided plotting instructions, coordinates, and bond ratings together in a paper packet. To reduce expectancy effects, in our replications experimenters were blind to the purpose of the grid task. The experimenter provided only the coordinate grid and plotting instructions; all bond questions were administered on the computer.|
|Email of Investigator|
|Name of individuals who |
actually carried out the project
|Experimenter: David Johnson RAs: Jessica Chan, Zach Franken, Arti Ghandi, & Joshua Theisen|
|Location of Project||Michigan State University|
|Characteristics of Subjects |
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
|University students from subject pool|
|Where did these subjects reside?||Unspecified|
|Was this a Class Project?||No|
|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|