Weight did not affect importance/burdensomeness (#194)

Return to View Chart

How to Cite this Report

APA Style

Francesca Citron, Adele Goldberg. Weight did not affect importance/burdensomeness. (2014, June 13). Retrieved 19:04, February 25, 2017 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTk0

MLA Style

"Weight did not affect importance/burdensomeness" Francesca Citron, Adele Goldberg. 13 Jun 2014 16:19 25 Feb 2017, 19:04 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTk0>

MHRA Style

'Weight did not affect importance/burdensomeness', Francesca Citron, Adele Goldberg, , 13 June 2014 16:19 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTk0> [accessed 25 February 2017]

Chicago Style

"Weight did not affect importance/burdensomeness", Francesca Citron, Adele Goldberg, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTk0 (accessed February 25, 2017)


Weight did not affect importance/burdensomeness [Internet]. Francesca Citron, Adele Goldberg; 2014 Jun 13, 16:19 [cited 2017 Feb 25]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTk0

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 Weight did not affect importance/burdensomeness
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 4
Link to PDF of Original ReportView Article
Brief Statement of Original Result Participants holding a heavy clipboard judged issues related to a subway under construction in the city to be more important than those holding a light clipboard.
Type of Replication Attempted Conceptual Replication
Result Type Failure to Replicate
Difference? No
Number of Subjects 37
Number of Subjects in Original Study 40
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made 2011
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required) Francesca Citron, Adele Goldberg
Detailed Description of Method/Results Importance is often conceptualized as physical weight (e.g., “this is a weighty matter”) or as mental burden (e.g., “exams are a burden”). We ran two experiments in order to test whether experiencing physical weight affects people’s judgments of importance of different issues or judgments of strain or mental burden of different tasks.

A) Participants from Princeton University were asked to hold a heavy vs. light clipboard (N=19), while completing a questionnaire. The weights of the clipboards were identical to the original study in both conditions.
Other participants were asked to carry a heavy vs. light box (N=19) for a short distance and then were asked to fill out the questionnaire.
The questionnaire contained 18 statements and participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = I totally agree).
Six statements were about importance (of various general social issues), 6 about physical or cognitive burdens and 6 filler questions. A follow-up questionnaire attested participants’ tiredness on that day.
In Exp. A, we we covaried tiredness ratings and found no main effects when we analyzed box and clipboard data separately (all Fs(2,18) < 0.80, ns), nor when we merged box and clipboard data together (all Fs(4,37) < 0.16, ns). Furthermore, we found no significant interaction of type of weight (box vs. clipboard) and weight (heavy vs. light; all Fs(4,37) < 0.76, ns). Descriptive statistics (estimated mean values by having tiredness as covariate): Importance: Heavy box M = 2.43 SE = 0.37; Light box M = 3.22 SE = 0.35; Heavy clipboard M = 3.24 SE = 0.35; Light clipboard M = 3.45 SE = 0.37; Burdersomness: Heavy box M = 2.95 SE = 0.24; Light box M = 3.24 SE = 0.23; Heavy clipboard M = 3.15 SE = 0.22; Light clipboard M = 3.04 SE = 0.24; Fillers: Heavy box M = 3.34 SE = 0.50; Light box M = 3.27 SE = 0.48; Heavy clipboard M = 3.43 SE = 0.47; Light clipboard M = 3.49 SE = 0.50.

B) Participants from the Berlin area (N = 36) were asked to carry a heavy vs. light box from the experimenter’s office to the testing room.
We included questions about importance and burdensomeness as well as filler questions.
In Exp. B, we covaried tiredness ratings and found a trend toward higher burdensomeness ratings for participants who carried a heavy box over participants who carried a light box. However, this difference was only marginally significant (F(2,35) = 2.88, p = .099). We found no difference between the heavy and light box conditions in either importance ratings (F(2,35 = 0.13, ns; therefore not supporting the original study) or filler ratings (F(2,35 = 0.00, ns).
Descriptive statistics (estimated mean values by having tiredness as covariate): Burdersomness: Heavy box M = 2.57 SE = 0.11; Light box M = 2.31 SE = 0.11; Importance: Heavy box M = 4.10 SE = 0.16; Light box M = 4.02 SE = 0.16; Fillers: Heavy box M = 3.06 SE = 0.10; Light box M = 3.06 SE = 0.10.
Any Known Methodological Differences
(between original and present study)?
The original experiments compared weak arguments with strong arguments and looked at the polarization of ratings. They found that participants in the heavy clipboard condition judged there to be a greater difference between strong and weak arguments. In our studies, we looked at a uni-dimensional effect: participants in the high weight condition could be expected to agree more with importance statements (e.g., “Politics should be taken very seriously”) and burdensomeness (e.g., “Washing dishes often requires effort.”) than those in the light weight condition. We asked participants to judge a different set of sentences than was used in the original study. We also included questions about burdensomeness, with the aim of determining whether the weight of a box as opposed to the clipboard might cue a distinct metaphorical mapping (Heavy as a Burden as opposed to Heavy as Important). Study A was conducted in Princeton with native English speakers. Study B was conducted in Berlin with native German speakers.
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who
actually carried out the project
Francesca Citron tested the participants and analyzed the data.
Location of ProjectLabs at Freie University Berlin and at Princeton University, NJ.
Characteristics of Subjects
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
University students from subject pool
Participants were mainly students from Freie University from different faculties or from Princeton, but also non-students living in the Berlin area (most of them were paid, some Psychology students received course credit).
Where did these subjects reside?Germany
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