Interpreting a failure to replicate is complicated by the fact that the failure could be due to the original finding being a false positive, unrecognized moderating influences between the original and replication procedures, or faulty implementation of the procedures in the replication. One strategy to maximize replication quality is involving the original authors in study design. We (N = 17 Labs and N = 1,550 participants, after exclusions) experimentally tested whether original author involvement improved replicability of a classic finding from Terror Management Theory (Greenberg et al., 1994). Our results were non-diagnostic of whether original author involvement improves replicability because we were unable to replicate the finding under any conditions. This suggests that the original finding was either a false positive or the conditions necessary to obtain it are not fully understood or no longer exist. Data, materials, analysis code, preregistration, and supplementary documents can be found on the OSF page: https://osf.io/8ccnw/
In an ultimatum game, participants were randomly assigned to the role of allocator or recipient and to interact face-to-face (FtF) or over computer text chat (computermediated communication [CMC]). The allocator was given money to divide. The recipient was unaware of the amount given, so the allocator could deceive the recipient. Perception of the allocator having a dishonest demeanor increased recipient suspicion of deception, but reduced detection accuracy for truths. Demeanor cues did not help detect deception. Recipients were better at detecting lies CMC than FtF. Overall, truth bias did not differ between CMC and FtF. Rates of deception did not differ between CMC and FtF, but type of deception marginally differed. There was more deceptive omission used in FtF and more deceptive commission (bald-faced lies) used in CMC. Results are discussed in terms of demeanor and truth bias.Most people are bad at detecting deception in deception experiments and have detection rates slightly above chance (Bond & DePaulo, 2006). This article uses an ultimatum game to examine how sender demeanor and truth bias affect suspicion and
Using the linguistic software Linguistic Inquiry Word Count, we analyzed transcripts of group discussions of whether the words “under God” should be in the Pledge of Allegiance. We hypothesized that members with an extreme opinion would use less complex language and more you pronouns than other members. Furthermore, extreme members would have less influence when they used you pronouns or more complex language consistent with the illusion of understanding. Extreme members were more confident and perceived themselves as more knowledgeable, but they did not use less complex language than other members. When extreme members did use complex language, they were less influential. Extreme members used more you pronouns and use of you pronouns reduced their influence in the group. Groups containing at least one extreme member had a much lower level of complexity in their discourse than groups without extreme members. Results are situated within research in integrative complexity, illusion of understanding, and attitude extremity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.