Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 696–700 | Cite as

Big secrets do not necessarily cause hills to appear steeper

  • Etienne P. LeBel
  • Christopher J. Wilbur
Brief Report


Slepian, Masicampo, Toosi, and Ambady (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 619–624, 2012, Study 1) found that individuals recalling and writing about a big, meaningful secret judged a pictured hill as steeper than did those who recalled and wrote about a small, inconsequential secret (with estimates unrelated to physical effort unaffected). From an embodied cognition perspective, this result was interpreted as suggesting that important secrets weigh people down. Answering to mounting calls for the crucial need of independent direct replications of published findings to ensure the self-correcting nature of our science, we sought to corroborate Slepian et al.’s finding in two extremely high-powered, preregistered studies that were very faithful to all procedural and methodological details of the original study (i.e., same cover story, study title, manipulation, measures, item order, scale anchors, task instructions, sampling frame, population, and statistical analyses). In both samples, we were unsuccessful in replicating the target finding. Although Slepian et al. reported three other studies supporting the secret burdensomeness phenomenon, we advise that these three other findings need to be independently corroborated before the general phenomenon informs theory or health interventions.


Embodied cognition Secrecy Concealment of secrets Independent direct replication 


Author Notes

We would like to thank Michael Slepian for his cooperation in providing study materials and procedural and methodological details. We also thank Yang Ye for preparing online study materials and for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. This research was supported by a Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) postdoctoral fellowship to the first author.


  1. Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J. A, Fiedler, K, …, Wicherts, J. M. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27, 108-119.Google Scholar
  2. Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhalla, M., & Proffit, D. R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1076–1096.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole, S., Balcetis, E., & Zhang, S. (2013). Visual perception and regulatory conflict: Motivation and physiology influence distance perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. IJzerman, H., & Semin, G. R. (2009). The thermometer of social relations: Mapping social proximity on temperature. Psychological Science, 20, 1214–1220.Google Scholar
  8. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7, 645–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koole, S. L., & Lakens, D. (2012). Rewarding replications: A sure and simple way to improve psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 608–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1045–1067.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. LeBel, E. P., & Peters, K. R. (2011). Fearing the future of empirical psychology: Bem’s (2011) evidence of psi as a case study of deficiencies in modal research practice. Review of General Psychology, 15, 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. LeBel, E. P., Borsboom, D., Giner-Sorolla, R., Hasselman, F., Peters, K. R., Ratliff, K. A., & Smith, C. T. (2013). Grassroots support for reforming reporting standards in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 424–432.Google Scholar
  13. Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., & Hagerty, B. (2012). Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 537–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Neuliep, J. W., & Crandall, R. (1990). Editorial bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 85–90.Google Scholar
  15. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 531–536.Google Scholar
  17. Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Oxford, UK: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t-tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychological Methods, 17, 551–566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008). With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science, 19, 1219–1222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Simonsohn, U. (2013). Evaluating replication results. Unpublished manuscript available at SSRN: or
  24. Slepian, M. L., Masicampo, E. J., Toosi, N. R., & Ambady, N. (2012). The physical burdens of secrecy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 619–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vess, M. (2012). Warm thoughts: Attachment anxiety and sensitivity to temperature cues. Psychological Science, 23, 472–474.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 426–432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 627–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322, 606–607.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Montclair State UniversityMontclairUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin – CollegesMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations