Rights statement: The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Perspectives in Psychological Science, 11 (6), 2016, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Perspectives in Psychological Science page: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/pps on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/
Accepted author manuscript, 538 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Registered Replication Report
T2 - Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988)
AU - Wagenmakers, E. J.
AU - Beek, Titia
AU - Dijkhoff, Laura
AU - Gronau, Quentin F.
AU - Acosta, A.
AU - Adams, R. B.
AU - Albohn, D. N.
AU - Allard, E. S.
AU - Benning, S. D.
AU - Blouin-Hudon, E. M.
AU - Bulnes, L. C.
AU - Caldwell, T. L.
AU - Calin-Jageman, R. J.
AU - Capaldi, C. A.
AU - Carfagno, N. S.
AU - Chasten, K. T.
AU - Cleeremans, A.
AU - Connell, L.
AU - DeCicco, J. M.
AU - Dijkstra, K.
AU - Foroni, F.
AU - Hess, U.
AU - Holmes, K. J.
AU - Klein, O.
AU - Koch, C.
AU - Korb, S.
AU - Lewinski, P.
AU - Lund, S.
AU - Lupiáñez, J.
AU - Lynott, D.
AU - Oosterwijk, S.
AU - Özdoğru, A. A.
AU - Pacheco-Unguetti, A. P.
AU - Pearson, B.
AU - Powis, C.
AU - Riding, S.
AU - Rumiati, R. I.
AU - Senden, M.
AU - Shea-Shumsky, N. B.
AU - Sobocko, K.
AU - Soto, J. A.
AU - Steiner, T. G.
AU - Talarico, J. M.
AU - van Allen, Z. M.
AU - Vandekerckhove, M.
AU - Wainwright, B.
AU - Wayand, J. F.
AU - Zeelenberg, R.
AU - Zetzer, E. E.
AU - Zwaan, R. A.
N1 - The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Perspectives in Psychological Science, 11 (6), 2016, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Perspectives in Psychological Science page: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/pps on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/
PY - 2016/11
Y1 - 2016/11
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - facial feedback hypothesis
KW - many-labs
KW - preregistration
KW - replication
U2 - 10.1177/1745691616674458
DO - 10.1177/1745691616674458
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85002050794
VL - 11
SP - 917
EP - 928
JO - Perspectives on Psychological Science
JF - Perspectives on Psychological Science
SN - 1745-6916
IS - 6
ER -