Open Peer Commentary

The spatial grounding of politics

In three studies, we advance the research on the association between abstract concepts and spatial dimensions by examining the spatial anchoring of political categories in three different paradigms (spatial placement, memory, and classification) and using non-linguistic stimuli (i.e., photos of politicians). The general hypothesis that politicians of a conservative or socialist party are grounded spatially was confirmed across the studies. In Study 1, photos of politicians were spontaneously placed to the left or right of an unanchored horizontal line depending on their socialist-conservative party affiliation. In Study 2, the political orientation of members of parliament systematically distorted the recall of the spatial positions in which they were originally presented. Finally, Study 3 revealed that classification was more accurate and faster when the politicians were presented in spatially congruent positions (e.g., socialist politician presented on the left side of the monitor) rather than incongruent ones (e.g., socialist on the right side). Additionally, we examined whether participants' political orientation and awareness moderated these effects and showed that spatial anchoring seems independent of political preference but increases with political awareness.

Simple and rationale-providing SMS reminders to promote accelerometer use: a within-trial randomised trial comparing persuasive messages

BACKGROUND

Literature on persuasion suggests compliance increases when requests are accompanied with a reason (i.e. the "because-heuristic"). The reliability of outcomes in physical activity research is dependent on sufficient accelerometer wear-time. This study tested whether SMS reminders-especially those that provided a rationale-are associated with increased accelerometer wear-time.

METHODS

We conducted a within-trial partially randomised controlled trial during baseline data collection in a school-based physical activity intervention trial. Of 375 participants (mean age = 18.1), 280 (75%) opted to receive daily SMS reminders to wear their accelerometers. These 280 participants were then randomised to receive either succinct reminders or reminders including a rationale. Data was analyzed across groups using both frequentist and Bayesian methods.

RESULTS

No differences in total accelerometer wear minutes were detected between the succinct reminder group (Mdn = 4909, IQR = 3429-5857) and the rationale group (Mdn = 4808, IQR = 3571-5743); W = 8860, p = 0.65, CI95 = - 280.90-447.20. Similarly, we found no differences in wear time between participants receiving SMS reminders (Mdn = 4859, IQR = 3527-5808) and those not receiving them (Mdn = 5067, IQR = 3201-5885); W = 10,642.5, p = 0.77, CI95 = - 424.20-305.30. Bayesian ANOVA favored a model of equal weartime means, over one of unequal means, by a Bayes Factor of 12.05. Accumulated days of valid accelerometer wear data did not differ either. Equivalence testing indicated rejection of effects more extreme than a Cohen's d (standardised mean difference) of ±~0.3.

CONCLUSIONS

This study casts doubt on the effectiveness of using the because-heuristic via SMS messaging, to promote accelerometer wear time among youth. The because-heuristic might be limited to face-to-face communication and situations where no intention for or commitment to the behavior has yet been made. Other explanations for null effects include non-reading of messages, and reminder messages undermining the self-reminding strategies which would occur naturally in the absence of reminders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS DRKS00007721 . Registered 14.04.2015. Retrospectively registered.

A Short (Personal) Future History of Revolution 2.0

Crisis of replicability is one term that psychological scientists use for the current introspective phase we are in—I argue instead that we are going through a revolution analogous to a political revolution. Revolution 2.0 is an uprising focused on how we should be doing science now (i.e., in a 2.0 world). The precipitating events of the revolution have already been well-documented: failures to replicate, questionable research practices, fraud, etc. And the fact that none of these events is new to our field has also been well-documented. I suggest four interconnected reasons as to why this time is different: changing technology, changing demographics of researchers, limited resources, and misaligned incentives. I then describe two reasons why the revolution is more likely to catch on this time: technology (as part of the solution) and the fact that these concerns cut across social and life sciences—that is, we are not alone. Neither side in the revolution has behaved well, and each has characterized the other in extreme terms (although, of course, each has had a few extreme actors). Some suggested reforms are already taking hold (e.g., journals asking for more transparency in methods and analysis decisions; journals publishing replications) but the feared tyrannical requirements have, of course, not taken root (e.g., few journals require open data; there is no ban on exploratory analyses). Still, we have not yet made needed advances in the ways in which we accumulate, connect, and extract conclusions from our aggregated research. However, we are now ready to move forward by adopting incremental changes and by acknowledging the multiplicity of goals within psychological science.

Does Global and Local Vision Have an Impact on Creative and Analytic Thought? Two Failed Replications

According to GLOMOsys (the GLObal versus LOcal processing MOdel, a systems account), an important distinction is that between a local and a global processing system: The former processes information in parts, the latter processes it globally. These systems can be activated by perceptual processing and carry over to subsequent conceptual processing, in particular to analytical and creative thought. A conceptual and a high-powered close replication of previously reported studies test predictions of GLOMOsys for analytical thought and for analytical and creative thought, respectively. The present studies found no evidence that processing style primed via the Navon letter task has an impact on creative or analytic thought.