- I am pretty sure that these were the actual images used in most of the studies reported in Bar-Anan, Liberman, Trope & Algom (2007). However, perhaps the arrows have changed locations a bit. I remember that at a certain point we repeated a couple of the studies after changing the position of the arrows in some photos to reduce the confound between the vertical location of the target (bottom vs. top) and the distance (near vs. far). So, these might be the photos after the fix, rather than the exact photos we used in most of the experiments.
- The printed words are a later addition, when I tested a simple prediction of CLT:
the word abstract will be compatible with distant targets and the word concrete will be compatible with near targets
(the results were highly confusing: different studies found significant results, but the results in one study were the opposite of the results of the other).
- I assume that it would be easy to replace those words with paint and other similar programs.
- Under pic.zip, are a few more pictures that might be the original bitmaps that I used in most of the experiments in that paper.
- I found the powerpoint files in the same directory as the photos. These might be the files I used to create those photos. I am not sure what the difference between the two powerpoint files is.
- Over the years, the easiest replication was with social distance. Temporal distance also shows good results in most cases, but it sometimes failed
in English. I don't think that I have ever seen a replication of the hypotheticality dimension in English (e.g., sure vs. maybe), but I haven't tried that much.
As mentioned above, abstract vs. concrete (in English) produced opposite results in different studies.
- For anyone who wishes to test their procedure, I recommend starting with the words far vs. near. If you find congruency effect with 'far' and 'near', you can consider that a successful manipulation check.
