Search

Your search keyword '"Wiggins, Bradford J."' showing total 10 results
Start Over Author "Wiggins, Bradford J." Database OAIster
10 results on '"Wiggins, Bradford J."'

1. A Multisite Preregistered Paradigmatic Test of the Ego-Depletion Effect

Author

Vohs, Kathleen D., Schmeichel, Brandon J., Lohmann, Sophie, Gronau, Quentin F., Finley, Anna J., Ainsworth, Sarah E., Alquist, Jessica L., Baker, Michael D., Brizi, Ambra, Bunyi, Angelica, Butschek, Grant J., Campbell, Collier, Capaldi, Jonathan, Cau, Chuting, Chambers, Heather, Chatzisarantis, Nikos L.D., Christensen, Weston J., Clay, Samuel L., Curtis, Jessica, De Cristofaro, Valeria, del Rosario, Kareena, Diel, Katharina, Doğruol, Yasemin, Doi, Megan, Donaldson, Tina L., Eder, Andreas B., Ersoff, Mia, Eyink, Julie R., Falkenstein, Angelica, Fennis, Bob M., Findley, Matthew B., Finkel, Eli J., Forgea, Victoria, Friese, Malte, Fuglestad, Paul, Garcia-Willingham, Natasha E., Geraedts, Lea F., Gervais, Will M., Giacomantonio, Mauro, Gibson, Bryan, Gieseler, Karolin, Gineikiene, Justina, Gloger, Elana M., Gobes, Carina M., Grande, Maria, Hagger, Martin S., Hartsell, Bethany, Hermann, Anthony D., Hidding, Jasper J., Hirt, Edward R., Hodge, Josh, Hofmann, Wilhelm, Howell, Jennifer L., Hutton, Robert D., Inzlicht, Michael, James, Lily, Johnson, Emily, Johnson, Hannah L., Joyce, Sarah M., Joye, Yannick, Kaben, Jan Helge, Kammrath, Lara K., Kelly, Caitlin N., Kissell, Brian L., Koole, Sander L., Krishna, Anand, Lam, Christine, Lee, Kelemen T., Lee, Nick, Leighton, Dana C., Loschelder, David D., Maranges, Heather M., Masicampo, E. J., Mazara, Kennedy, McCarthy, Samantha, McGregor, Ian, Mead, Nicole L., Mendes, Wendy B., Meslot, Carine, Michalak, Nicholas M., Milyavskaya, Marina, Miyake, Akira, Moeini-Jazani, Mehrad, Muraven, Mark, Nakahara, Erin, Patel, Krishna, Petrocelli, John V., Pollak, Katja M., Price, Mindi M., Ramsey, Haley J., Rath, Maximilian, Robertson, Jacob A., Rockwell, Rachael, Russ, Isabella F., Salvati, Marco, Saunders, Blair, Scherer, Anne, Schütz, Astrid, Schmitt, Kristin N., Segerstrom, Suzanne C., Serenka, Benjamin, Sharpinskyi, Konstantyn, Shaw, Meaghan, Sherman, Janelle, Song, Yu, Sosa, Nicholas, Spillane, Kaitlyn, Stapels, Julia, Stinnett, Alec J., Strawser, Hannah R., Sweeny, Kate, Theodore, Dominic, Tonnu, Karine, van Oldenbeuving, Yasmijn, vanDellen, Michelle R., Vergara, Raiza C., Walker, Jasmine S., Waugh, Christian E., Weise, Feline, Werner, Kaitlyn M., Wheeler, Craig, White, Rachel A., Wichman, Aaron L., Wiggins, Bradford J., Wills, Julian A., Wilson, Janie H., Wagenmakers, Eric Jan, Albarracín, Dolores, Vohs, Kathleen D., Schmeichel, Brandon J., Lohmann, Sophie, Gronau, Quentin F., Finley, Anna J., Ainsworth, Sarah E., Alquist, Jessica L., Baker, Michael D., Brizi, Ambra, Bunyi, Angelica, Butschek, Grant J., Campbell, Collier, Capaldi, Jonathan, Cau, Chuting, Chambers, Heather, Chatzisarantis, Nikos L.D., Christensen, Weston J., Clay, Samuel L., Curtis, Jessica, De Cristofaro, Valeria, del Rosario, Kareena, Diel, Katharina, Doğruol, Yasemin, Doi, Megan, Donaldson, Tina L., Eder, Andreas B., Ersoff, Mia, Eyink, Julie R., Falkenstein, Angelica, Fennis, Bob M., Findley, Matthew B., Finkel, Eli J., Forgea, Victoria, Friese, Malte, Fuglestad, Paul, Garcia-Willingham, Natasha E., Geraedts, Lea F., Gervais, Will M., Giacomantonio, Mauro, Gibson, Bryan, Gieseler, Karolin, Gineikiene, Justina, Gloger, Elana M., Gobes, Carina M., Grande, Maria, Hagger, Martin S., Hartsell, Bethany, Hermann, Anthony D., Hidding, Jasper J., Hirt, Edward R., Hodge, Josh, Hofmann, Wilhelm, Howell, Jennifer L., Hutton, Robert D., Inzlicht, Michael, James, Lily, Johnson, Emily, Johnson, Hannah L., Joyce, Sarah M., Joye, Yannick, Kaben, Jan Helge, Kammrath, Lara K., Kelly, Caitlin N., Kissell, Brian L., Koole, Sander L., Krishna, Anand, Lam, Christine, Lee, Kelemen T., Lee, Nick, Leighton, Dana C., Loschelder, David D., Maranges, Heather M., Masicampo, E. J., Mazara, Kennedy, McCarthy, Samantha, McGregor, Ian, Mead, Nicole L., Mendes, Wendy B., Meslot, Carine, Michalak, Nicholas M., Milyavskaya, Marina, Miyake, Akira, Moeini-Jazani, Mehrad, Muraven, Mark, Nakahara, Erin, Patel, Krishna, Petrocelli, John V., Pollak, Katja M., Price, Mindi M., Ramsey, Haley J., Rath, Maximilian, Robertson, Jacob A., Rockwell, Rachael, Russ, Isabella F., Salvati, Marco, Saunders, Blair, Scherer, Anne, Schütz, Astrid, Schmitt, Kristin N., Segerstrom, Suzanne C., Serenka, Benjamin, Sharpinskyi, Konstantyn, Shaw, Meaghan, Sherman, Janelle, Song, Yu, Sosa, Nicholas, Spillane, Kaitlyn, Stapels, Julia, Stinnett, Alec J., Strawser, Hannah R., Sweeny, Kate, Theodore, Dominic, Tonnu, Karine, van Oldenbeuving, Yasmijn, vanDellen, Michelle R., Vergara, Raiza C., Walker, Jasmine S., Waugh, Christian E., Weise, Feline, Werner, Kaitlyn M., Wheeler, Craig, White, Rachel A., Wichman, Aaron L., Wiggins, Bradford J., Wills, Julian A., Wilson, Janie H., Wagenmakers, Eric Jan, and Albarracín, Dolores

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. A Multisite Preregistered Paradigmatic Test of the Ego-Depletion Effect

Author

Vohs, Kathleen D., Schmeichel, Brandon J., Lohmann, Sophie, Gronau, Quentin F., Finley, Anna J., Ainsworth, Sarah E., Alquist, Jessica L., Baker, Michael D., Brizi, Ambra, Bunyi, Angelica, Butschek, Grant J., Campbell, Collier, Capaldi, Jonathan, Cau, Chuting, Chambers, Heather, Chatzisarantis, Nikos L. D., Christensen, Weston J., Clay, Samuel L., Curtis, Jessica, De Cristofaro, Valeria, Del Rosario, Kareena, Diel, Katharina, Dogruol, Yasemin, Doi, Megan, Donaldson, Tina L., Eder, Andreas B., Ersoff, Mia, Eyink, Julie R., Falkenstein, Angelica, Fennis, Bob M., Findley, Matthew B., Finkel, Eli J., Forgea, Victoria, Friese, Malte, Fuglestad, Paul, Garcia-Willingham, Natasha E., Geraedts, Lea F., Gervais, Will M., Giacomantonio, Mauro, Gibson, Bryan, Gieseler, Karolin, Gineikiene, Justina, Gloger, Elana M., Gobes, Carina M., Grande, Maria, Hagger, Martin S., Hartsell, Bethany, Hermann, Anthony D., Hidding, Jasper J., Hirt, Edward R., Hodge, Josh, Hofmann, Wilhelm, Howell, Jennifer L., Hutton, Robert D., Inzlicht, Michael, James, Lily, Johnson, Emily, Johnson, Hannah L., Joyce, Sarah M., Joye, Yannick, Kaben, Jan Helge, Kammrath, Lara K., Kelly, Caitlin N., Kissell, Brian L., Koole, Sander L., Krishna, Anand, Lam, Christine, Lee, Kelemen T., Lee, Nick, Leighton, Dana C., Loschelder, David D., Maranges, Heather M., Masicampo, E. J., Jr, Kennedy Mazara, McCarthy, Samantha, McGregor, Ian, Mead, Nicole L., Mendes, Wendy B., Meslot, Carine, Michalak, Nicholas M., Milyavskaya, Marina, Miyake, Akira, Moeini-Jazani, Mehrad, Muraven, Mark, Nakahara, Erin, Patel, Krishna, Petrocelli, John, V, Pollak, Katja M., Price, Mindi M., Ramsey, Haley J., Rath, Maximilian, Robertson, Jacob A., Rockwell, Rachael, Russ, Isabella F., Salvati, Marco, Saunders, Blair, Scherer, Anne, Schutz, Astrid, Schmitt, Kristin N., Segerstrom, Suzanne C., Serenka, Benjamin, Sharpinskyi, Konstantyn, Shaw, Meaghan, Sherman, Janelle, Song, Yu, Sosa, Nicholas, Spillane, Kaitlyn, Stapels, Julia, Stinnett, Alec J., Strawser, Hannah R., Sweeny, Kate, Theodore, Dominic, Tonnu, Karine, van Oldenbeuving, Yasmijn, VanDellen, Michelle R., Vergara, Raiza C., Walker, Jasmine S., Waugh, Christian E., Weise, Feline, Werner, Kaitlyn M., Wheeler, Craig, White, Rachel A., Wichman, Aaron L., Wiggins, Bradford J., Wills, Julian A., Wilson, Janie H., Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Albarracin, Dolores, Vohs, Kathleen D., Schmeichel, Brandon J., Lohmann, Sophie, Gronau, Quentin F., Finley, Anna J., Ainsworth, Sarah E., Alquist, Jessica L., Baker, Michael D., Brizi, Ambra, Bunyi, Angelica, Butschek, Grant J., Campbell, Collier, Capaldi, Jonathan, Cau, Chuting, Chambers, Heather, Chatzisarantis, Nikos L. D., Christensen, Weston J., Clay, Samuel L., Curtis, Jessica, De Cristofaro, Valeria, Del Rosario, Kareena, Diel, Katharina, Dogruol, Yasemin, Doi, Megan, Donaldson, Tina L., Eder, Andreas B., Ersoff, Mia, Eyink, Julie R., Falkenstein, Angelica, Fennis, Bob M., Findley, Matthew B., Finkel, Eli J., Forgea, Victoria, Friese, Malte, Fuglestad, Paul, Garcia-Willingham, Natasha E., Geraedts, Lea F., Gervais, Will M., Giacomantonio, Mauro, Gibson, Bryan, Gieseler, Karolin, Gineikiene, Justina, Gloger, Elana M., Gobes, Carina M., Grande, Maria, Hagger, Martin S., Hartsell, Bethany, Hermann, Anthony D., Hidding, Jasper J., Hirt, Edward R., Hodge, Josh, Hofmann, Wilhelm, Howell, Jennifer L., Hutton, Robert D., Inzlicht, Michael, James, Lily, Johnson, Emily, Johnson, Hannah L., Joyce, Sarah M., Joye, Yannick, Kaben, Jan Helge, Kammrath, Lara K., Kelly, Caitlin N., Kissell, Brian L., Koole, Sander L., Krishna, Anand, Lam, Christine, Lee, Kelemen T., Lee, Nick, Leighton, Dana C., Loschelder, David D., Maranges, Heather M., Masicampo, E. J., Jr, Kennedy Mazara, McCarthy, Samantha, McGregor, Ian, Mead, Nicole L., Mendes, Wendy B., Meslot, Carine, Michalak, Nicholas M., Milyavskaya, Marina, Miyake, Akira, Moeini-Jazani, Mehrad, Muraven, Mark, Nakahara, Erin, Patel, Krishna, Petrocelli, John, V, Pollak, Katja M., Price, Mindi M., Ramsey, Haley J., Rath, Maximilian, Robertson, Jacob A., Rockwell, Rachael, Russ, Isabella F., Salvati, Marco, Saunders, Blair, Scherer, Anne, Schutz, Astrid, Schmitt, Kristin N., Segerstrom, Suzanne C., Serenka, Benjamin, Sharpinskyi, Konstantyn, Shaw, Meaghan, Sherman, Janelle, Song, Yu, Sosa, Nicholas, Spillane, Kaitlyn, Stapels, Julia, Stinnett, Alec J., Strawser, Hannah R., Sweeny, Kate, Theodore, Dominic, Tonnu, Karine, van Oldenbeuving, Yasmijn, VanDellen, Michelle R., Vergara, Raiza C., Walker, Jasmine S., Waugh, Christian E., Weise, Feline, Werner, Kaitlyn M., Wheeler, Craig, White, Rachel A., Wichman, Aaron L., Wiggins, Bradford J., Wills, Julian A., Wilson, Janie H., Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, and Albarracin, Dolores

Abstract

We conducted a preregistered multilaboratory project (k = 36; N = 3,531) to assess the size and robustness of ego-depletion effects using a novel replication method, termed the paradigmatic replication approach. Each laboratory implemented one of two procedures that was intended to manipulate self-control and tested performance on a subsequent measure of self-control. Confirmatory tests found a nonsignificant result (d = 0.06). Confirmatory Bayesian meta-analyses using an informed-prior hypothesis (delta = 0.30, SD = 0.15) found that the data were 4 times more likely under the null than the alternative hypothesis. Hence, preregistered analyses did not find evidence for a depletion effect. Exploratory analyses on the full sample (i.e., ignoring exclusion criteria) found a statistically significant effect (d = 0.08); Bayesian analyses showed that the data were about equally likely under the null and informed-prior hypotheses. Exploratory moderator tests suggested that the depletion effect was larger for participants who reported more fatigue but was not moderated by trait self-control, willpower beliefs, or action orientation.

Published
2021

3. A Multisite Preregistered Paradigmatic Test of the Ego-Depletion Effect

Author

Vohs, Kathleen D., Schmeichel, Brandon J., Lohmann, Sophie, Gronau, Quentin F., Finley, Anna J., Ainsworth, Sarah E., Alquist, Jessica L., Baker, Michael D., Brizi, Ambra, Bunyi, Angelica, Butschek, Grant J., Campbell, Collier, Capaldi, Jonathan, Cau, Chuting, Chambers, Heather, Chatzisarantis, Nikos L. D., Christensen, Weston J., Clay, Samuel L., Curtis, Jessica, De Cristofaro, Valeria, Del Rosario, Kareena, Diel, Katharina, Dogruol, Yasemin, Doi, Megan, Donaldson, Tina L., Eder, Andreas B., Ersoff, Mia, Eyink, Julie R., Falkenstein, Angelica, Fennis, Bob M., Findley, Matthew B., Finkel, Eli J., Forgea, Victoria, Friese, Malte, Fuglestad, Paul, Garcia-Willingham, Natasha E., Geraedts, Lea F., Gervais, Will M., Giacomantonio, Mauro, Gibson, Bryan, Gieseler, Karolin, Gineikiene, Justina, Gloger, Elana M., Gobes, Carina M., Grande, Maria, Hagger, Martin S., Hartsell, Bethany, Hermann, Anthony D., Hidding, Jasper J., Hirt, Edward R., Hodge, Josh, Hofmann, Wilhelm, Howell, Jennifer L., Hutton, Robert D., Inzlicht, Michael, James, Lily, Johnson, Emily, Johnson, Hannah L., Joyce, Sarah M., Joye, Yannick, Kaben, Jan Helge, Kammrath, Lara K., Kelly, Caitlin N., Kissell, Brian L., Koole, Sander L., Krishna, Anand, Lam, Christine, Lee, Kelemen T., Lee, Nick, Leighton, Dana C., Loschelder, David D., Maranges, Heather M., Masicampo, E. J., Jr, Kennedy Mazara, McCarthy, Samantha, McGregor, Ian, Mead, Nicole L., Mendes, Wendy B., Meslot, Carine, Michalak, Nicholas M., Milyavskaya, Marina, Miyake, Akira, Moeini-Jazani, Mehrad, Muraven, Mark, Nakahara, Erin, Patel, Krishna, Petrocelli, John, V, Pollak, Katja M., Price, Mindi M., Ramsey, Haley J., Rath, Maximilian, Robertson, Jacob A., Rockwell, Rachael, Russ, Isabella F., Salvati, Marco, Saunders, Blair, Scherer, Anne, Schutz, Astrid, Schmitt, Kristin N., Segerstrom, Suzanne C., Serenka, Benjamin, Sharpinskyi, Konstantyn, Shaw, Meaghan, Sherman, Janelle, Song, Yu, Sosa, Nicholas, Spillane, Kaitlyn, Stapels, Julia, Stinnett, Alec J., Strawser, Hannah R., Sweeny, Kate, Theodore, Dominic, Tonnu, Karine, van Oldenbeuving, Yasmijn, VanDellen, Michelle R., Vergara, Raiza C., Walker, Jasmine S., Waugh, Christian E., Weise, Feline, Werner, Kaitlyn M., Wheeler, Craig, White, Rachel A., Wichman, Aaron L., Wiggins, Bradford J., Wills, Julian A., Wilson, Janie H., Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Albarracin, Dolores, Vohs, Kathleen D., Schmeichel, Brandon J., Lohmann, Sophie, Gronau, Quentin F., Finley, Anna J., Ainsworth, Sarah E., Alquist, Jessica L., Baker, Michael D., Brizi, Ambra, Bunyi, Angelica, Butschek, Grant J., Campbell, Collier, Capaldi, Jonathan, Cau, Chuting, Chambers, Heather, Chatzisarantis, Nikos L. D., Christensen, Weston J., Clay, Samuel L., Curtis, Jessica, De Cristofaro, Valeria, Del Rosario, Kareena, Diel, Katharina, Dogruol, Yasemin, Doi, Megan, Donaldson, Tina L., Eder, Andreas B., Ersoff, Mia, Eyink, Julie R., Falkenstein, Angelica, Fennis, Bob M., Findley, Matthew B., Finkel, Eli J., Forgea, Victoria, Friese, Malte, Fuglestad, Paul, Garcia-Willingham, Natasha E., Geraedts, Lea F., Gervais, Will M., Giacomantonio, Mauro, Gibson, Bryan, Gieseler, Karolin, Gineikiene, Justina, Gloger, Elana M., Gobes, Carina M., Grande, Maria, Hagger, Martin S., Hartsell, Bethany, Hermann, Anthony D., Hidding, Jasper J., Hirt, Edward R., Hodge, Josh, Hofmann, Wilhelm, Howell, Jennifer L., Hutton, Robert D., Inzlicht, Michael, James, Lily, Johnson, Emily, Johnson, Hannah L., Joyce, Sarah M., Joye, Yannick, Kaben, Jan Helge, Kammrath, Lara K., Kelly, Caitlin N., Kissell, Brian L., Koole, Sander L., Krishna, Anand, Lam, Christine, Lee, Kelemen T., Lee, Nick, Leighton, Dana C., Loschelder, David D., Maranges, Heather M., Masicampo, E. J., Jr, Kennedy Mazara, McCarthy, Samantha, McGregor, Ian, Mead, Nicole L., Mendes, Wendy B., Meslot, Carine, Michalak, Nicholas M., Milyavskaya, Marina, Miyake, Akira, Moeini-Jazani, Mehrad, Muraven, Mark, Nakahara, Erin, Patel, Krishna, Petrocelli, John, V, Pollak, Katja M., Price, Mindi M., Ramsey, Haley J., Rath, Maximilian, Robertson, Jacob A., Rockwell, Rachael, Russ, Isabella F., Salvati, Marco, Saunders, Blair, Scherer, Anne, Schutz, Astrid, Schmitt, Kristin N., Segerstrom, Suzanne C., Serenka, Benjamin, Sharpinskyi, Konstantyn, Shaw, Meaghan, Sherman, Janelle, Song, Yu, Sosa, Nicholas, Spillane, Kaitlyn, Stapels, Julia, Stinnett, Alec J., Strawser, Hannah R., Sweeny, Kate, Theodore, Dominic, Tonnu, Karine, van Oldenbeuving, Yasmijn, VanDellen, Michelle R., Vergara, Raiza C., Walker, Jasmine S., Waugh, Christian E., Weise, Feline, Werner, Kaitlyn M., Wheeler, Craig, White, Rachel A., Wichman, Aaron L., Wiggins, Bradford J., Wills, Julian A., Wilson, Janie H., Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, and Albarracin, Dolores

Abstract

We conducted a preregistered multilaboratory project (k = 36; N = 3,531) to assess the size and robustness of ego-depletion effects using a novel replication method, termed the paradigmatic replication approach. Each laboratory implemented one of two procedures that was intended to manipulate self-control and tested performance on a subsequent measure of self-control. Confirmatory tests found a nonsignificant result (d = 0.06). Confirmatory Bayesian meta-analyses using an informed-prior hypothesis (delta = 0.30, SD = 0.15) found that the data were 4 times more likely under the null than the alternative hypothesis. Hence, preregistered analyses did not find evidence for a depletion effect. Exploratory analyses on the full sample (i.e., ignoring exclusion criteria) found a statistically significant effect (d = 0.08); Bayesian analyses showed that the data were about equally likely under the null and informed-prior hypotheses. Exploratory moderator tests suggested that the depletion effect was larger for participants who reported more fatigue but was not moderated by trait self-control, willpower beliefs, or action orientation.

Published
2021

4. Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008)

Author

Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, Selle, Nathalie klein, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdog˘ru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Hiel, Alain Van, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, Yıldız, Ezgi, Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, Selle, Nathalie klein, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdog˘ru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Hiel, Alain Van, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, and Yıldız, Ezgi

Abstract

The self-concept maintenance theory holds that many people will cheat in order to maximize self-profit, but only to the extent that they can do so while maintaining a positive self-concept. Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008, Experiment 1) gave participants an opportunity and incentive to cheat on a problem-solving task. Prior to that task, participants either recalled the Ten Commandments (a moral reminder) or recalled 10 books they had read in high school (a neutral task). Results were consistent with the self-concept maintenance theory. When given the opportunity to cheat, participants given the moral-reminder priming task reported solving 1.45 fewer matrices than did those given a neutral prime (Cohen’s d = 0.48); moral reminders reduced cheating. Mazar et al.’s article is among the most cited in deception research, but their Experiment 1 has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the aggregated result of 25 direct replications (total N = 5,786), all of which followed the same preregistered protocol. In the primary meta-analysis (19 replications, total n = 4,674), participants who were given an opportunity to cheat reported solving 0.11 more matrices if they were given a moral reminder than if they were given a neutral reminder (95% confidence interval = [−0.09, 0.31]). This small effect was numerically in the opposite direction of the effect observed in the original study (Cohen’s d = −0.04).

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008)

Author

Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, Selle, Nathalie klein, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdog˘ru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Hiel, Alain Van, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, Yıldız, Ezgi, Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, Selle, Nathalie klein, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdog˘ru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Hiel, Alain Van, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, and Yıldız, Ezgi

Abstract

The self-concept maintenance theory holds that many people will cheat in order to maximize self-profit, but only to the extent that they can do so while maintaining a positive self-concept. Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008, Experiment 1) gave participants an opportunity and incentive to cheat on a problem-solving task. Prior to that task, participants either recalled the Ten Commandments (a moral reminder) or recalled 10 books they had read in high school (a neutral task). Results were consistent with the self-concept maintenance theory. When given the opportunity to cheat, participants given the moral-reminder priming task reported solving 1.45 fewer matrices than did those given a neutral prime (Cohen’s d = 0.48); moral reminders reduced cheating. Mazar et al.’s article is among the most cited in deception research, but their Experiment 1 has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the aggregated result of 25 direct replications (total N = 5,786), all of which followed the same preregistered protocol. In the primary meta-analysis (19 replications, total n = 4,674), participants who were given an opportunity to cheat reported solving 0.11 more matrices if they were given a moral reminder than if they were given a neutral reminder (95% confidence interval = [−0.09, 0.31]). This small effect was numerically in the opposite direction of the effect observed in the original study (Cohen’s d = −0.04).

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008)

Author

Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, Selle, Nathalie klein, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdog˘ru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Hiel, Alain Van, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, Yıldız, Ezgi, Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, Selle, Nathalie klein, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdog˘ru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Hiel, Alain Van, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, and Yıldız, Ezgi

Abstract

The self-concept maintenance theory holds that many people will cheat in order to maximize self-profit, but only to the extent that they can do so while maintaining a positive self-concept. Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008, Experiment 1) gave participants an opportunity and incentive to cheat on a problem-solving task. Prior to that task, participants either recalled the Ten Commandments (a moral reminder) or recalled 10 books they had read in high school (a neutral task). Results were consistent with the self-concept maintenance theory. When given the opportunity to cheat, participants given the moral-reminder priming task reported solving 1.45 fewer matrices than did those given a neutral prime (Cohen’s d = 0.48); moral reminders reduced cheating. Mazar et al.’s article is among the most cited in deception research, but their Experiment 1 has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the aggregated result of 25 direct replications (total N = 5,786), all of which followed the same preregistered protocol. In the primary meta-analysis (19 replications, total n = 4,674), participants who were given an opportunity to cheat reported solving 0.11 more matrices if they were given a moral reminder than if they were given a neutral reminder (95% confidence interval = [−0.09, 0.31]). This small effect was numerically in the opposite direction of the effect observed in the original study (Cohen’s d = −0.04).

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979)

Author

McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gerlsma, Coby, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Huntjens, Rafaele J. C., Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, klein Selle, Nathalie, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdoğru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Van Hiel, Alain, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, Yıldız, Ezgi, McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gerlsma, Coby, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Huntjens, Rafaele J. C., Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, klein Selle, Nathalie, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdoğru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Van Hiel, Alain, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, and Yıldız, Ezgi

Abstract

Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80% of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20% described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the primary analyses) of Srull and Wyer?s Experiment 1, each of which followed a preregistered and vetted protocol. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that the protagonist was seen as 0.08 scale points more hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.16]). The ambiguously hostile behaviors were seen as 0.08 points less hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% CI = [?0.18, 0.01]). Although the confidence interval for one outcome excluded zero and the observed effect was in the predicted direction, these results suggest that the currently used methods do not produce an assimilative priming effect that is practically and routinely detectable.

Published
2018

8. Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008)

Author

Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, Selle, Nathalie klein, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdog˘ru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Hiel, Alain Van, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, Yıldız, Ezgi, Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, Selle, Nathalie klein, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdog˘ru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Hiel, Alain Van, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, and Yıldız, Ezgi

Abstract

The self-concept maintenance theory holds that many people will cheat in order to maximize self-profit, but only to the extent that they can do so while maintaining a positive self-concept. Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008, Experiment 1) gave participants an opportunity and incentive to cheat on a problem-solving task. Prior to that task, participants either recalled the Ten Commandments (a moral reminder) or recalled 10 books they had read in high school (a neutral task). Results were consistent with the self-concept maintenance theory. When given the opportunity to cheat, participants given the moral-reminder priming task reported solving 1.45 fewer matrices than did those given a neutral prime (Cohen’s d = 0.48); moral reminders reduced cheating. Mazar et al.’s article is among the most cited in deception research, but their Experiment 1 has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the aggregated result of 25 direct replications (total N = 5,786), all of which followed the same preregistered protocol. In the primary meta-analysis (19 replications, total n = 4,674), participants who were given an opportunity to cheat reported solving 0.11 more matrices if they were given a moral reminder than if they were given a neutral reminder (95% confidence interval = [−0.09, 0.31]). This small effect was numerically in the opposite direction of the effect observed in the original study (Cohen’s d = −0.04).

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008)

Author

Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, Selle, Nathalie klein, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdog˘ru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Hiel, Alain Van, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, Yıldız, Ezgi, Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, Selle, Nathalie klein, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdog˘ru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Hiel, Alain Van, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, and Yıldız, Ezgi

Abstract

The self-concept maintenance theory holds that many people will cheat in order to maximize self-profit, but only to the extent that they can do so while maintaining a positive self-concept. Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008, Experiment 1) gave participants an opportunity and incentive to cheat on a problem-solving task. Prior to that task, participants either recalled the Ten Commandments (a moral reminder) or recalled 10 books they had read in high school (a neutral task). Results were consistent with the self-concept maintenance theory. When given the opportunity to cheat, participants given the moral-reminder priming task reported solving 1.45 fewer matrices than did those given a neutral prime (Cohen’s d = 0.48); moral reminders reduced cheating. Mazar et al.’s article is among the most cited in deception research, but their Experiment 1 has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the aggregated result of 25 direct replications (total N = 5,786), all of which followed the same preregistered protocol. In the primary meta-analysis (19 replications, total n = 4,674), participants who were given an opportunity to cheat reported solving 0.11 more matrices if they were given a moral reminder than if they were given a neutral reminder (95% confidence interval = [−0.09, 0.31]). This small effect was numerically in the opposite direction of the effect observed in the original study (Cohen’s d = −0.04).

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

10. Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979)

Author

McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gerlsma, Coby, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Huntjens, Rafaele J. C., Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, klein Selle, Nathalie, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdoğru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Van Hiel, Alain, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, Yıldız, Ezgi, McCarthy, Randy J., Skowronski, John J., Verschuere, Bruno, Meijer, Ewout H., Jim, Ariane, Hoogesteyn, Katherine, Orthey, Robin, Acar, Oguz A., Aczel, Balazs, Bakos, Bence E., Barbosa, Fernando, Baskin, Ernest, Bègue, Laurent, Ben-Shakhar, Gershon, Birt, Angie R., Blatz, Lisa, Charman, Steve D., Claesen, Aline, Clay, Samuel L., Coary, Sean P., Crusius, Jan, Evans, Jacqueline R., Feldman, Noa, Ferreira-Santos, Fernando, Gamer, Matthias, Gerlsma, Coby, Gomes, Sara, González-Iraizoz, Marta, Holzmeister, Felix, Huber, Juergen, Huntjens, Rafaele J. C., Isoni, Andrea, Jessup, Ryan K., Kirchler, Michael, klein Selle, Nathalie, Koppel, Lina, Kovacs, Marton, Laine, Tei, Lentz, Frank, Loschelder, David D., Ludvig, Elliot A., Lynn, Monty L., Martin, Scott D., McLatchie, Neil M., Mechtel, Mario, Nahari, Galit, Özdoğru, Asil Ali, Pasion, Rita, Pennington, Charlotte R., Roets, Arne, Rozmann, Nir, Scopelliti, Irene, Spiegelman, Eli, Suchotzki, Kristina, Sutan, Angela, Szecsi, Peter, Tinghög, Gustav, Tisserand, Jean-Christian, Tran, Ulrich S., Van Hiel, Alain, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Västfjäll, Daniel, Verliefde, Thomas, Vezirian, Kévin, Voracek, Martin, Warmelink, Lara, Wick, Katherine, Wiggins, Bradford J., Wylie, Keith, and Yıldız, Ezgi

Abstract

Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80% of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20% described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the primary analyses) of Srull and Wyer?s Experiment 1, each of which followed a preregistered and vetted protocol. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that the protagonist was seen as 0.08 scale points more hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.16]). The ambiguously hostile behaviors were seen as 0.08 points less hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% CI = [?0.18, 0.01]). Although the confidence interval for one outcome excluded zero and the observed effect was in the predicted direction, these results suggest that the currently used methods do not produce an assimilative priming effect that is practically and routinely detectable.

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results