Literature DB >> 27784749

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

Alberto Acosta1, Reginald B Adams2, Daniel N Albohn2, Eric S Allard3, Titia Beek4, Stephen D Benning5, Eve-Marie Blouin- Hudon6, Luis Carlo Bulnes7, Tracy L Caldwell8, Robert J Calin-Jageman6, Colin A Capaldi6, Nicholas S Carfagno5, Kelsie T Chasten8, Axel Cleeremans9, Louise Connell10, Jennifer M. DeCicco11, Laura Dijkhoff4, Katinka Dijkstra12, Agneta H Fischer13, Francesco Foroni14, Quentin F Gronau4, Ursula Hess15, Kevin J Holmes16, Jacob L H Jones16, Olivier Klein9, Christopher Koch17, Sebastian Korb14, Peter Lewinski18, Julia D Liao16, Sophie Lund10, Juan Lupiáñez1, Dermot Lynott10, Christin N Nance5, Suzanne Oosterwijk13, Asil Ali Özdog˘ru19, Antonia Pilar Pacheco-Unguetti1, Bethany Pearson10, Christina Powis10, Sarah Riding10, Tomi-Ann Roberts16, Raffaella I Rumiati14, Morgane Senden9, Noah B Shea-Shumsky16, Karin Sobocko6, Jose A Soto2, Troy G Steiner2, Jennifer M Talarico20, Zack M vanAllen6, E-J Wagenmakers21, Marie Vandekerckhove7, Bethany Wainwright10, Joseph F Wayand22, Rene Zeelenberg12, Emily E Zetzer3, Rolf A Zwaan12.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  facial feedback hypothesis; many-labs; preregistration; replication

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27784749     DOI: 10.1177/1745691616674458

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci        ISSN: 1745-6916


  38 in total

1.  The in-out effect: examining the role of perceptual fluency in the preference for words with inward-wandering consonantal articulation.

Authors:  Sandra Godinho; Margarida V Garrido
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2019-08-10

2.  Should social scientists be distanced from or engaged with the people they study?

Authors:  Kalonji Nzinga; David N Rapp; Christopher Leatherwood; Matthew Easterday; Leoandra Onnie Rogers; Natalie Gallagher; Douglas L Medin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Estimating Emotions Through Language Statistics and Embodied Cognition.

Authors:  Richard Tillman; Max Louwerse
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2018-02

Review 4.  Five mechanisms of sound symbolic association.

Authors:  David M Sidhu; Penny M Pexman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-10

5.  Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects.

Authors:  Amanda Kvarven; Eirik Strømland; Magnus Johannesson
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2019-12-23

Review 6.  Addressing the theory crisis in psychology.

Authors:  Klaus Oberauer; Stephan Lewandowsky
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-10

7.  Happy you, happy me: expressive changes on a stranger's voice recruit faster implicit processes than self-produced expressions.

Authors:  Laura Rachman; Stéphanie Dubal; Jean-Julien Aucouturier
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Participant Nonnaiveté and the reproducibility of cognitive psychology.

Authors:  Rolf A Zwaan; Diane Pecher; Gabriele Paolacci; Samantha Bouwmeester; Peter Verkoeijen; Katinka Dijkstra; René Zeelenberg
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-10

9.  Pilot study of facial and bodily feedback.

Authors:  Chloë Hutchings-Hay; Marcela M Dapelo; Gisselle Briceño; Camila Fernández; Kate Tchanturia
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr       Date:  2022-08-26

10.  A multi-lab test of the facial feedback hypothesis by the Many Smiles Collaboration.

Authors:  Nicholas A Coles; David S March; Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos; Jeff T Larsen; Nwadiogo C Arinze; Izuchukwu L G Ndukaihe; Megan L Willis; Francesco Foroni; Niv Reggev; Aviv Mokady; Patrick S Forscher; John F Hunter; Gwenaël Kaminski; Elif Yüvrük; Aycan Kapucu; Tamás Nagy; Nandor Hajdu; Julian Tejada; Raquel M K Freitag; Danilo Zambrano; Bidisha Som; Balazs Aczel; Krystian Barzykowski; Sylwia Adamus; Katarzyna Filip; Yuki Yamada; Ayumi Ikeda; Daniel L Eaves; Carmel A Levitan; Sydney Leiweke; Michal Parzuchowski; Natalie Butcher; Gerit Pfuhl; Dana M Basnight-Brown; José A Hinojosa; Pedro R Montoro; Lady G Javela D; Kevin Vezirian; Hans IJzerman; Natalia Trujillo; Sarah D Pressman; Pascal M Gygax; Asil A Özdoğru; Susana Ruiz-Fernandez; Phoebe C Ellsworth; Lowell Gaertner; Fritz Strack; Marco Marozzi; Marco Tullio Liuzza
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2022-10-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.