liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008)
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, Vol. 1, no 3, p. 299-317Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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).

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. Vol. 1, no 3, p. 299-317
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-154892DOI: 10.1177/2515245918781032OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-154892DiVA, id: diva2:1293241
Available from: 2019-03-04 Created: 2019-03-04 Last updated: 2019-03-04

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(857 kB)58 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 857 kBChecksum SHA-512
289f900a98e04f8b67d69eb8b89c76fd434b3aaa5aa25f53c8718c8d4ce754fce14cc3e17d19cf536eb4fc9c659d0d4ee4549cbde2fbbd55f11dbf9de05599c0
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Koppel, LinaTinghög, GustavVästfjäll, Daniel

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Koppel, LinaTinghög, GustavVästfjäll, Daniel
By organisation
Center for Social and Affective NeuroscienceFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesEconomicsFaculty of Arts and SciencesPsychology
Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 58 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 96 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf