Computational protocol: Physical Warmth and Perceptual Focus: A Replication of IJzerman and Semin (2009)

Similar protocols

Protocol publication

[…] A power analysis using G*Power , based on IJ&S' effect size.30 indicated that our study required 115 Participants to obtain a power of.8 with an alpha of.05. We conducted our calculations including three independent variables. We measured attachment prior to our manipulations. See also . To account for potential dropout, we recruited 145 participants in Tilburg University's public areas. Participants were approached on weekdays in a two-week time frame in April from 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM. Participants were not approached within 15 minutes before the start of classes and during lunch (12:00–0 PM).Our sample closely resembles IJ&S' in their Study 3 concerning age and gender (current study: M age = 23.15 years, SD = 6.78; 48.4% female, IJ&S: M age = 21.05 years, SD = 3.27; 43.6% female). We excluded 17 participants who either indicated suspicion towards the manipulation 1:0through our debriefing (N = 6), or were non-native Dutch (N = 11; see IJ&S), leaving 128 participants in our final sample. [...] A second experimenter invited people to participate in a “consumer” study about the paper cups in the University's cafeteria. The guise of the consumer study was used to avoid suspicion towards our temperature manipulation. Before starting the study, participants were requested to sign a consent form. We did not seek approval from the ethics committee since only adults were involved in the study and there was no risk for either emotional or physical health.A first experimenter filled the mugs and randomly assigned participants to the warm (N = 66) or the cold (N = 62) fluid condition (out of sight for the second experimenter). Then she put the mug in front of the participant without further interacting. The second experimenter, who approached and instructed participants, was thus not aware of the temperature condition. In the case of a participant asking why the cup was filled with water, the second experimenter would state that this would provide a more realistic view for the consumer test (note that only the second, “blind” experimenter interacted with the participant).The warm or cold water was poured into a paper cup purchased from the University's cafeteria, which allowed the cover story concerning our “consumer test” to be credible. The temperature of the water was preserved in two unmarked thermos flasks filled with water when the faucet was turned to its hottest (or coldest). Temperature was checked at random, using a fluid thermometer (See Table S1 in the ). We refilled the flask when the warm water dropped below 50°C or when above 20°C (cold water), every two hours maximum. The same faucet was used for every refill moment.The questionnaire programmed in Qualtrics was offered in Dutch and took on average 15 minutes to complete (on a notebook (Acer) or an iPad; the exact questionnaire in Dutch are available via Dataverse). After completing an attachment questionnaire, participants read on their screen that they had to hold the paper cup, but were not allowed to drink from the cup (to avoid any confounding influences). In keeping our cover story credible, participants had to evaluate the attractiveness of the cup by answering three statements (e.g., ‘I find this an attractive mug’; effects were not significant, all ps>.33) and one open question (‘What would you like to change about his mug’). After answering these ‘consumer questions’, a perceptual focus task was presented. The perceptual focus task was modeled after Kimchi and Palmer's , as used by IJ&S, see . We tested participants' suspicion towards the manipulation with one open question at the end. Finally, the experimenter thanked and debriefed participants upon completing the questionnaire. […]

Pipeline specifications

Software tools G*Power, Dataverse
Applications Miscellaneous, Genome annotation
Organisms Homo sapiens