Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008)

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review


  • Bruno Verschuere
  • Ewout H. Meijer
  • Ariane Jim
  • Katherine Hoogesteyn
  • Robin Orthey
  • Randy J. McCarthy
  • John J. Skowronski
  • Oguz A. Acar
  • Balazs Aczel
  • Bence E. Bakos
  • Fernando Barbosa
  • Ernest Baskin
  • Laurent Bègue
  • Gershon Ben-Shakhar
  • Angie R. Birt
  • Lisa Blatz
  • Steve D. Charman
  • Aline Claesen
  • Samuel L. Clay
  • Sean P. Coary
  • Jan Crusius
  • Jacqueline R. Evans
  • Noa Feldman
  • Fernando Ferreira-Santos
  • Matthias Gamer
  • Sara Gomes
  • Marta González-Iraizoz
  • Felix Holzmeister
  • Juergen Huber
  • Andrea Isoni
  • Ryan K. Jessup
  • Michael Kirchler
  • Nathalie klein Selle
  • Lina Koppel
  • Marton Kovacs
  • Tei Laine
  • Frank Lentz
  • Elliot A. Ludvig
  • Monty L. Lynn
  • Scott D. Martin
  • Neil M. McLatchie
  • Galit Nahari
  • Asil Ali Özdoğru
  • Rita Pasion
  • Charlotte R. Pennington
  • Arne Roets
  • Nir Rozmann
  • Irene Scopelliti
  • Eli Spiegelman
  • Kristina Suchotzki
  • Angela Sutan
  • Peter Szecsi
  • Gustav Tinghög
  • Jean-Christian Tisserand
  • Ulrich S. Tran
  • Alain Van Hiel
  • Wolf Vanpaemel
  • Daniel Västfjäll
  • Thomas Verliefde
  • Kévin Vezirian
  • Martin Voracek
  • Lara Warmelink
  • Katherine Wick
  • Bradford J. Wiggins
  • Keith Wylie
  • Ezgi Yıldız
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 (Cohen?s d = 0.48); moral reminders reduced cheating. Mazar et al.?s 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).
Original languageEnglish
Journal Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)299-317
Number of pages19
Publication statusPublished - 01.09.2018

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The first two authors share first authorship. We thank Nina Mazar, On Amir, and Dan Ariely for providing materials for the study and for providing guidance about other tasks to include in the task battery; Chris Chabris for providing the abstract-reasoning task included as part of the battery; and Katherine Wood for assisting with the R scripts. This research was funded by Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) Grant 401.16.001/3873. The Association for Psychological Science and the Arnold Foundation provided funding to participating laboratories to defray the costs of running the study.

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2018.