1. |
- Buchanan, E. M., et al.
(author)
-
The Psychological Science Accelerator's COVID-19 rapid-response dataset
- 2023
-
In: Scientific Data. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2052-4463. ; 10:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data.
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
|
|
5. |
- McCarthy, Randy J., et al.
(author)
-
Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979)
- 2018
-
In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. - : SAGE Publications Inc. - 2515-2459 .- 2515-2467. ; 1:3, s. 321-336
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80% of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20% described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the primary analyses) of Srull and Wyer?s Experiment 1, each of which followed a preregistered and vetted protocol. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that the protagonist was seen as 0.08 scale points more hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.16]). The ambiguously hostile behaviors were seen as 0.08 points less hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% CI = [?0.18, 0.01]). Although the confidence interval for one outcome excluded zero and the observed effect was in the predicted direction, these results suggest that the currently used methods do not produce an assimilative priming effect that is practically and routinely detectable.
|
|
6. |
- Verschuere, Bruno, et al.
(author)
-
Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008)
- 2018
-
In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. - : SAGE Publications. - 2515-2459 .- 2515-2467. ; 1:3, s. 299-317
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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 (Cohenâs d = 0.48); moral reminders reduced cheating. Mazar et al.âs 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).
|
|
7. |
- Vrij, A, et al.
(author)
-
Collective interviewing of suspects
- 2012
-
In: Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. - 2211-3681. ; 1:4, s. 41-44
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- When people are interviewed about possible wrongdoing that has been committed in groups, they typically are interviewed separately. Yet, in several settings it would be more intuitive and convenient to interview suspects together. Importantly, such collective interviews could yield verbal cues to deception. This is the first deception experiment to investigate collective interviewing. Twenty-one pairs of truth tellers and 22 pairs of liars were interviewed pair-wise about having had lunch together in a restaurant. Given that truth tellers adopt a “tell it all” strategy in the interviews while, in contrast, liars prefer to keep their stories simple, we predicted that pairs of truth tellers would (i) interrupt and (ii) correct each other more, and would (iii) add more information to each other’s answers than pairs of liars. The results supported these hypotheses. Theory-driven interventions to elicit more cues to deception through simultaneous interviewing are discussed.
|
|
8. |
- Mann, S., et al.
(author)
-
Windows to the Soul? Deliberate Eye Contact as a Cue to Deceit
- 2012
-
In: Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0191-5886 .- 1573-3653. ; 36:3, s. 205-215
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Although people overwhelmingly believe that liars avoid eye contact, meta-analyses of deception literature have shown a non-significant relationship between gaze and deception. In the present experiment we measured eye movements in an innovative way. We coded the extent to which interviewees deliberately made eye contact with the interviewer. Liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers. They therefore may have a greater desire to be convincing and hence more inclined to monitor the interviewer to determine whether they seem to be being believed. We therefore hypothesized that liars would give more appearance of deliberately making eye contact than truth tellers (a relationship which opposes the stereotypical belief that liars look away). A total of 338 passengers at an international airport told the truth or lied about their forthcoming trip. As well as the deliberate eye contact variable, we coded the amount of time the interviewees looked away from the interviewer (e.g., gaze aversion), which is typically examined in deception research. Liars displayed more deliberate eye contact than truth tellers, whereas the amount of gaze aversion did not differ between truth tellers and liars.
|
|
9. |
- Vrij, Aldert, et al.
(author)
-
Drawing as an innovative and successful lie detection tool
- 2010
-
In: Applied Cognitive Psychology. - : Wiley. - 0888-4080 .- 1099-0720. ; 24:4, s. 587-594
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We examined an innovative lie detection tool: Drawings. Participants were sent out on a mission to receive a package from a particular location and to deliver it somewhere else. They were told that they may be intercepted by agents belonging to the organisation they were to represent, or to a hostile organisation. They were instructed to reveal the actual details about their mission to friendly agents but to lie and make something up about all aspects of their mission to hostile agents. After the mission the participants were intercepted and interviewed by either friendly or hostile agents. In these interviews they were asked to describe the location where they received the package, and after the interview they were asked to sketch that location. The results showed that participants’ drawings revealed more cues to deceit than their speech.
|
|
10. |
|
|
11. |
- Warmelink, L., et al.
(author)
-
The effect of question expectedness and experience on lying about intentions
- 2012
-
In: Acta Psychologica. - : Elsevier BV. - 0001-6918. ; 141:2, s. 178-183
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In recent years researchers have started to focus on lying about intentions (Granhag, 2010). In the present experiment participants were interviewed about their forthcoming trip. We tested the hypothesis that liars (N = 43) compared to truth tellers (N = 43) would give fewer details to unexpected questions about planning, transportation and the core event, but an equal amount or more detail to expected questions about the purpose of the trip. We also tested the hypothesis that participants who had previously experienced the intention (i.e., they had made such a trip before) would give more detail than those who had never experienced the intended action. The unexpected question hypothesis was supported, whereas the previous experience effect only emerged in interactions. The benefit of using different types of questions for lie detection purposes is discussed. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|