Registered Replication Report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988).

Autor: Acosta A; Universidad de Granada, Adams RB Jr; The Pennsylvania State University, Albohn DN; The Pennsylvania State University, Allard ES; Cleveland State University, Beek T; Department of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Benning SD; University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Blouin- Hudon EM; Carleton University, Bulnes LC; Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Caldwell TL; Dominican University, Calin-Jageman RJ; Carleton University, Capaldi CA; Carleton University, Carfagno NS; University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Chasten KT; Dominican University, Cleeremans A; Université Libre de Bruxelles, Connell L; Lancaster University, DeCicco JM; Holy Family University, Dijkhoff L; Department of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Dijkstra K; Erasmus University, Fischer AH; University of Amsterdam, Foroni F; International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), Gronau QF; Department of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Hess U; Humboldt-Universität, Holmes KJ; Colorado College, Jones JLH; Colorado College, Klein O; Université Libre de Bruxelles, Koch C; George Fox University, Korb S; International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), Lewinski P; Kozminski University, Liao JD; Colorado College, Lund S; Lancaster University, Lupiáñez J; Universidad de Granada, Lynott D; Lancaster University, Nance CN; University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Oosterwijk S; University of Amsterdam, Özdog˘ru A; Üsküdar University, Pacheco-Unguetti AP; Universidad de Granada, Pearson B; Lancaster University, Powis C; Lancaster University, Riding S; Lancaster University, Roberts TA; Colorado College, Rumiati RI; International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), Senden M; Université Libre de Bruxelles, Shea-Shumsky NB; Colorado College, Sobocko K; Carleton University, Soto JA; The Pennsylvania State University, Steiner TG; The Pennsylvania State University, Talarico JM; Lafayette College, vanAllen ZM; Carleton University, Wagenmakers EJ; Department of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands EJ.Wagenmakers@gmail.com., Vandekerckhove M; Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Wainwright B; Lancaster University, Wayand JF; Walsh University, Zeelenberg R; Erasmus University, Zetzer EE; Cleveland State University, Zwaan RA; Erasmus University
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science [Perspect Psychol Sci] 2016 Nov; Vol. 11 (6), pp. 917-928. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Oct 26.
DOI: 10.1177/1745691616674458
Abstrakt: According to the facial feedback hypothesis, people's affective responses can be influenced by their own facial expression (e.g., smiling, pouting), even when their expression did not result from their emotional experiences. For example, Strack, Martin, and Stepper (1988) instructed participants to rate the funniness of cartoons using a pen that they held in their mouth. In line with the facial feedback hypothesis, when participants held the pen with their teeth (inducing a "smile"), they rated the cartoons as funnier than when they held the pen with their lips (inducing a "pout"). This seminal study of the facial feedback hypothesis has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 17 independent direct replications of Study 1 from Strack et al. (1988), all of which followed the same vetted protocol. A meta-analysis of these studies examined the difference in funniness ratings between the "smile" and "pout" conditions. The original Strack et al. (1988) study reported a rating difference of 0.82 units on a 10-point Likert scale. Our meta-analysis revealed a rating difference of 0.03 units with a 95% confidence interval ranging from -0.11 to 0.16.
(© The Author(s) 2016.)
Databáze: MEDLINE