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).
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 299-317 |
Number of pages | 19 |
Journal | Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science |
Volume | 1 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Sep 2018 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© The Author(s) 2018.
Funding
This research was funded by Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) Grant 401.16.001/3873. The Association for Psychological Science and the Arnold Foundation provided funding to participating laboratories to defray the costs of running the study. The first two authors share first authorship. We thank Nina Mazar, On Amir, and Dan Ariely for providing materials for the study and for providing guidance about other tasks to include in the task battery; Chris Chabris for providing the abstract-reasoning task included as part of the battery; and Katherine Wood for assisting with the R scripts. This research was funded by Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) Grant 401.16.001/3873. The Association for Psychological Science and the Arnold Foundation provided funding to participating laboratories to defray the costs of running the study.
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
Laura and John Arnold Foundation | |
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek | 401.16.001/3873 |
Keywords
- Many Labs
- cheating
- honesty
- morality
- open data
- open materials
- preregistered
- replication