SynthesisPloS one2015
No Effect of Weight on Judgments of Importance in the Moral Domain and Evidence of Publication Bias from a Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- p-Uniform* is an estimator of the three-parameter selection model: Commentary on van Aert and van Assen (2026).Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Correcting for publication bias in a meta-analysis with the p-uniform* method.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- PHONETIC UNDERPINNINGS OF SOUND SYMBOLISM ACROSS MULTIPLE DOMAINS OF MEANING.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects.Nature human behaviour · 2020Article
- "Big men" in the office: The gender-specific influence of weight upon persuasiveness.PloS one · 2019Article
- Adjusting Sample Sizes for Different Categories of Embodied Cognition Research.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Embodied learning: introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2018Article
- Bodily Effort Enhances Learning and Metacognition: Investigating the Relation Between Physical Effort and Cognition Using Dual-Process Models of Embodiment.Advances in cognitive psychology · 2017Article
- Conducting Meta-Analyses Based on p Values: Reservations and Recommendations for Applying p-Uniform and p-Curve.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2016Article
- A Heavy Heart: The Association between Weight and Emotional Words.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In different cultures, people use the concept of weight to refer to important matters. Recent studies in grounded cognition suggested that experiences of weight affect unrelated judgments of importance in metaphor-congruent ways. Theories in grounded cognition and prime-to-behavior effects state that sensations of weight activate concepts of importance, which may affect morality-related variables that are influenced by judgments of importance. The present research aimed to test the effect of carrying a heavy (or light) clipboard on the perceived importance of helping and on the judged severity of moral transgressions. After finding no significant effects in two experiments, a third study explored whether these results were due to a specific lack of effect of weight on morality-related variables or to the concept of importance not being grounded in sensations of weight in Brazilian samples. Specifically, in Study 3 we attempted to replicate two seminal studies but found no significant effects. Together with evidence of publication bias in a meta-analysis of published studies, the current results suggest that the concept of importance may not be as universally grounded in sensations of weight as previously assumed. We discuss the implications of these results for grounded cognition theories and methodological and statistical aspects of priming studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.