Williams & Bargh Spatial Distance Priming

APA Style

H. Pashler, C. Harris, & N. Coburn. Williams & Bargh Spatial Distance Priming. (2011, September 22). Retrieved 20:13, June 19, 2013 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=NDQ%3D

MLA Style

"Williams & Bargh Spatial Distance Priming" H. Pashler, C. Harris, & N. Coburn. 22 Sep 2011 17:34 19 Jun 2013, 20:13 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=NDQ%3D>

MHRA Style

'Williams & Bargh Spatial Distance Priming', H. Pashler, C. Harris, & N. Coburn, , 22 September 2011 17:34 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=NDQ%3D> [accessed 19 June 2013]

Chicago Style

"Williams & Bargh Spatial Distance Priming", H. Pashler, C. Harris, & N. Coburn, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=NDQ%3D (accessed June 19, 2013)

CBE/CSE Style

Williams & Bargh Spatial Distance Priming [Internet]. H. Pashler, C. Harris, & N. Coburn; 2011 Sep 22, 17:34 [cited 2013 Jun 19]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=NDQ%3D

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 Priming
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	Graphing a pair of points on paper primes people's reports about their emotional closeness to their family members.
Type of Replication Attempted	Fairly Exact Replication
Result Type	Failure to Replicate
Difference?	Same Direction, p=.85
Number of Subjects	90
Number of Subjects in Original Study	84
Year in which Replication Attempt was Made	2010
Name of Investigators (Real Names Required)	H. Pashler, C. Harris, & N. Coburn
Detailed Description of Method/Results	The priming manipulation involved graphing a pair of numerically specified points, which had varying degree of spatial separation (Close, Intermediate, or Distant). The coordinates were (2, 4) and (-3, -1) for Close, (8, 3) and (-6, 5) for Intermediate, and (12, 10) and (-11, -8) for Distant. As a cover story, participants were told they would be providing feedback on some material for a new type of standardized test that was being developed. They were provided with a paper displaying a Cartesian grid. Once the experimenter left the room, participants were instructed to hit the start button on the computer screen. The computer presented two coordinates and instructed participants to plot them on the Cartesian grid paper in front of them. Then, they were to place the completed paper in an open tray sitting to the left of the keyboard and to hit the space bar to continue. Participants were then instructed to assess the strength of their bond to their parents, siblings, and hometown on a scale from 1 (not at all strong) to 7 (extremely strong). Once participants completed their bond ratings, the program presented the funneled questionnaire to probe for suspicions about the purpose of the study. When participants finished inputting their feedback, a full debrief was provided. RESULTS: *20 subjects were discarded. One participant indicated suspicion to the purpose of the study. Six participants experienced problems plotting the points (eg. plotting the wrong coordinates). Thirteen participants reported that they were unable to rate the strength of their bonds for personal reasons (e.g., they were an only child, parents deceased or estranged, etc). (The result of all analyses did not depend on inclusion of these subjects.) A one-way ANOVA was used to test for differences in reported bond strength between the three spatial-prime groups. The data showed no significant differences between the groups, nor even any trends of interest (Distant prime: M= 5.36, SD = 1.28; Intermediate prime: M = 5.59, SD = 1.05; Close prime: M = 5.40, SD = .76), F(2, 68) = .16, p = .85).
Any Known Methodological Differences (between original and present study)?	Precautions to minimize potential for experimenter expectancy effects. The original study had the experimenter provide the plotting instructions, coordinates, and bond ratings together in a paper packet. The replication attempt provided this same information on the computer; subjects launched the program only after the experimenter left the room. We also had subjects place the completed Cartesian grid paper in a tray sitting to the left of the keyboard and hit the space bar to continue. The original study did not state if the order of the dependent variables was randomized separately for each S. The current computerized version, presented the DVs (parents, siblings, hometown) in a different randomized order each time. The current study added an additional question to the end of the original study's "funnel debrief" questionnaire, in order to verify that subjects had no problems performing the actual tasks (i.e., plotting the coordinates and rating the categories, etc.)
Email of Investigator
Name of individuals who actually carried out the project	Janet Park, Lauralyn Pasion, Charlie Moore, Cindy Truong, Stephanie Cheung, Tiffany Nguyen, Noriko Coburn
Location of Project	Mandler 1586
Characteristics of Subjects (subject pool, paid, etc.)	University students from subject pool
Where did these subjects reside?	United States
Was this a Class Project?	No
Further Details of Results as pdf
Additional Comments
Email of Original Investigator
Quantitive Information
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