scholarly journals Does Honesty Require Time? Two Preregistered Direct Replications of Experiment 2 of Shalvi, Eldar, and Bereby-Meyer (2012)

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 460-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ine Van der Cruyssen ◽  
Jonathan D’hondt ◽  
Ewout Meijer ◽  
Bruno Verschuere
Keyword(s):  
Small Groups ◽  
Bayes Factor ◽  
Time Pressure ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Require Time ◽  
Point Biserial Correlation ◽  
True Effect ◽  
Biserial Correlation ◽  
Initial Tendency ◽  
Original Procedure

Shalvi, Eldar, and Bereby-Meyer (2012) found across two studies ( N = 72 for each) that time pressure increased cheating. These findings suggest that dishonesty comes naturally, whereas honesty requires overcoming the initial tendency to cheat. Although the study’s results were statistically significant, a Bayesian reanalysis indicates that they had low evidential strength. In a direct replication attempt of Shalvi et al.’s Experiment 2, we found that time pressure did not increase cheating, N = 428, point biserial correlation ( rpb) = .05, Bayes factor (BF)01 = 16.06. One important deviation from the original procedure, however, was the use of mass testing. In a second direct replication with small groups of participants, we found that time pressure also did not increase cheating, N = 297, rpb = .03, BF01 = 9.59. These findings indicate that the original study may have overestimated the true effect of time pressure on cheating and the generality of the effect beyond the original context.

scholarly journals Does honesty require time? Two preregistered replications of Experiment 2 of Shalvi, Eldar, and Bereby-Meyer (2012)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ine Van der Cruyssen ◽  
Jonathan D'hondt ◽  
Ewout Meijer ◽  
Bruno Verschuere
Keyword(s):  
Small Groups ◽  
Time Pressure ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Require Time ◽  
True Effect ◽  
Initial Tendency ◽  
Original Procedure

Shalvi, Eldar, and Bereby-Meyer (2012) found across two studies (each N = 72) that time-pressure increased cheating. These findings suggest that dishonesty comes naturally, while honesty requires overcoming the initial tendency to cheat. While statistically significant, a Bayesian reanalysis indicates that the original results had low evidential strength. In a replication attempt of their Experiment 2, time-pressure did not increase cheating (N = 428, rpb = 0.05, BF01 = 16.06). One important deviation from the original procedure, however, was the use of mass testing. In a second - direct - replication with small groups of participants, time pressure also did not increase cheating (N = 297, rpb = 0.03, BF01 = 9.59). These findings indicate that the original study may have overestimated the true effect of time pressure on cheating and/or the generality of the effect beyond the original context.

Do sexist jokes increase rape proclivity among males high in hostile sexism? Evidence from two pre-registered direct replications of Thomae & Viki (2013)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil McLatchie ◽  
Manuela Thomae
Keyword(s):  
Bayes Factor ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Bayes Factors ◽  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Rape Proclivity

Thomae and Viki (2013) reported that increased exposure to sexist humour can increase rape proclivity among males, specifically those who score high on measures of Hostile Sexism. Here we report two pre-registered direct replications (N = 530) of Study 2 from Thomae and Viki (2013) and assess replicability via (i) statistical significance, (ii) Bayes factors, (iii) the small-telescope approach, and (iv) an internal meta-analysis across the original and replication studies. The original results were not supported by any of the approaches. Combining the original study and the replications yielded moderate evidence in support of the null over the alternative hypothesis with a Bayes factor of B = 0.13. In light of the combined evidence, we encourage researchers to exercise caution before claiming that brief exposure to sexist humour increases male’s proclivity towards rape, until further pre-registered and open research demonstrates the effect is reliably reproducible.

Validating the Creativity Scale for Diverse Domains Using Groups of Artists and Scientists

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Rawlings ◽  
Ann Locarnini
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Small Groups ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Student Groups ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Criterion Validation ◽  
Similar Factor ◽  
And Mathematics ◽  
Professional Artists ◽  
General Creativity

The Creativity Scale for Diverse Domains (CSDD) of Kaufman and Baer (2004), measures self-reported creativity in nine different domains, as well as “creativity in general.” The study reports a criterion validation of the scale, using small groups of professional scientists and artists, in addition to two groups of undergraduate students planning major studies in the arts/humanities or in science/mathematics. Similar patterns of inter-correlation between items, and a similar factor structure, were found to those reported in the original study. In support of the validity of the scale, professional scientists were clearly highest on items measuring creativity in science and mathematics; professional artists on items measuring creativity in art and general creativity. There were minimal differences between the student groups. The results provide substantial support for the usefulness of the CSDD when a short measure of creativity in different areas is sought.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document