Discrepant Data and Improbable Results: An Examination of Vohs, Mead, and Goode (2006).
Saved in:
| Title: | Discrepant Data and Improbable Results: An Examination of Vohs, Mead, and Goode (2006). |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Rohrer, Doug (AUTHOR), Pashler, Harold (AUTHOR), Harris, Christine R. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Basic & Applied Social Psychology. Jul/Aug2019, Vol. 41 Issue 4, p263-271. 9p. 1 Diagram, 3 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Data, Money, Examinations |
| Abstract: | A highly cited article by Vohs, Mead, and Goode (2006) reported several experiments in which an incidental reminder of money produced large effects on subsequent behaviors unrelated to money. We attempted 2 high-powered direct replications of the first experiment, which found that money-primed subjects worked on a puzzle nearly twice as long as controls before quitting. The replication studies showed no evidence of money priming. Moreover, 25% of the subjects in our studies solved the puzzle correctly or incorrectly, whereas none reportedly did so in the original study. We also list anomalies in the reported results of the original study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Basic & Applied Social Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | A highly cited article by Vohs, Mead, and Goode (2006) reported several experiments in which an incidental reminder of money produced large effects on subsequent behaviors unrelated to money. We attempted 2 high-powered direct replications of the first experiment, which found that money-primed subjects worked on a puzzle nearly twice as long as controls before quitting. The replication studies showed no evidence of money priming. Moreover, 25% of the subjects in our studies solved the puzzle correctly or incorrectly, whereas none reportedly did so in the original study. We also list anomalies in the reported results of the original study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 01973533 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/01973533.2019.1624965 |
