We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance to examine variation in effect magnitudes across sample and setting. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples and 15,305 total participants from 36 countries and territories. Using conventional statistical significance (p < .05), fifteen (54%) of the replications provided evidence in the same direction and statistically significant as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), fourteen (50%) provide such evidence reflecting the extremely high powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications had effect sizes larger than the original finding and 21 (75%) had effect sizes smaller than the original finding. The median comparable Cohen’s d effect sizes for original findings was 0.60 and for replications was 0.15. Sixteen replications (57%) had small effect sizes (< .20) and 9 (32%) were in the opposite direction from the original finding. Across settings, 11 (39%) showed significant heterogeneity using the Q statistic and most of those were among the findings eliciting the largest overall effect sizes; only one effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity. Only one effect showed a Tau > 0.20 indicating moderate heterogeneity. Nine others had a Tau near or slightly above 0.10 indicating slight heterogeneity. In moderation tests, very little heterogeneity was attributable to task order, administration in lab versus online, and exploratory WEIRD versus less WEIRD culture comparisons. Cumulatively, variability in observed effect sizes was more attributable to the effect being studied than the sample or setting in which it was studied.

No abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Reinelt is now at the German Institute for International Educational Research, and Gabriele Permanent repository link:Oettingen, Psychology Department, New York University and University of Hamburg, Germany.The research reported in this article was supported by the German Science Foundation grant OE 237/13-1, awarded to Gabriele Oettingen. We thank ChessBase© for providing chess computer games.Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Andreas Kappes, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 7th floor, New York, NY 10003. Email:kappes.andreas@gmail.com. Mental Contrasting 2 AbstractMental contrasting of a desired future with the present reality strengthens goal pursuit when expectations of success are high, and weakens goal pursuit when expectations of success are low.We hypothesized that mental contrasting effects on selective goal pursuit are mediated by a change in the meaning of the present reality as an obstacle towards reaching the desired future.Using explicit evaluation of reality (Study 1), implicit categorization of reality as obstacle (Study 2), and detection of obstacle (Study 3) as indicators, we found that mental contrasting (versus relevant control groups) fostered the meaning of reality as obstacle when expectations of success were high, but weakened it when expectations of success were low. Importantly, the meaning of reality as obstacle mediated mental contrasting effects on goal pursuit (Study 1, 2). The findings suggest that mental contrasting produces selective goal pursuit by changing the meaning of a person's reality.Keywords: mental contrasting, expectations, obstacles, goal pursuit, self-regulation, meaningMental Contrasting 3 Mental Contrasting Changes the Meaning of RealityImagine two students wishing to finalize an important assignment over the weekend; the first one expecting to be able to do it, the second one not. While thinking about the assignment, both receive an email reminder about a Saturday night party. For the first student, seeing the party in the context of the assignment makes her realize that this party is standing in the way of completing her assignment. She had been looking forward to attending, but the party is not so alluring anymore; she cannot help but think of it as an obstacle to finishing her assignment. For the second student, seeing the party in the context of the assignment has the opposite effect. She realizes that she will probably not finish the assignment on the weekend anyway; she might as well enjoy the party! For her, the party is not an obstacle, but an opportunity for having fun. The different meanings that the two students give to the party shape their pursuit of finishing the assignment: the first is determined to complete it and refrains from attending the party, the second refrains from trying to finish and enjoys the party whole-heartedly.In these and similar situations, goal pursuit is influenced by the meaning t...

Humans tend to discount information that undermines past choices and judgements. This confirmation bias has significant impact on domains ranging from politics to science and education. Little is known about the mechanisms underlying this fundamental characteristic of belief formation. Here, we report a novel mechanism underlying the confirmation bias. Specifically, we provide evidence for a failure to use the strength of others' disconfirming opinions to alter confidence in judgements, but adequate use when opinions are confirmatory. This bias is related to reduced neural sensitivity to the strength of others' opinions in the posterior medial prefrontal cortex (pMFC) when opinions are disconfirming. Our results demonstrate that existing judgements alter the neural representation of information strength, leaving the individual less likely to alter opinions in the face of disagreement.

Uncertainty about how our choices will affect others infuses social life. Past research suggests uncertainty has a negative effect on prosocial behavior1–12 by enabling people to adopt self-serving narratives about their actions1,13. We show that uncertainty does not always promote selfishness. We introduce a distinction between two types of uncertainty that have opposite effects on prosocial behavior. Previous work focused on outcome uncertainty: uncertainty about whether or not a decision will lead to a particular outcome. But as soon as people’s decisions might have negative consequences for others, there is also impact uncertainty: uncertainty about how badly others’ well-being will be impacted by the negative outcome. Consistent with past research1–12, we found decreased prosocial behavior under outcome uncertainty. In contrast, prosocial behavior was increased under impact uncertainty in incentivized economic decisions and hypothetical decisions about infectious disease threats. Perceptions of social norms paralleled the behavioral effects. The effect of impact uncertainty on prosocial behavior did not depend on the individuation of others or the mere mention of harm, and was stronger when impact uncertainty was made more salient. Our findings offer insights into communicating uncertainty, especially in contexts where prosocial behavior is paramount, such as responding to infectious disease threats.