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

E Wagenmakers; T van Beek; L Dijkhoff; QF Gronau; A Acosta; R B Adams; D N Ahlbon; S Allard; S D Benning; E-M Blouin-Hudon; L C Bulnes; T L Caldwell; L J Calin-Jageman; C A Capaldi; N S Carfagno; K T Chasten; A Cleeremans; L Connell; J M DeCicco; Katinka Dijkstra; A H Fischer; F Foroni; K J Hess; K Holmes; J L H Jones; O Klein; C Koch; S Korb; P Lewinski; J D Liao; S Lund; J Lupiáñez; D Lynott; C N Nance; S Oosterwijk; A A Özdogru; A P Pacheco-Unguetti; B Pearson; C Powis; S Riding; T-A Roberts; R I Rumiati; M Senden; N B Shea-Shumsky; K Sobocko; J A Soto; T G Steiner; J M Talarico; Z M van Allen; M Vandekerckhove; B Wainwright; W F Wayand; Rene Zeelenberg; E E Zetzer; R A Zwaan

doi:10.1177/1745691616674458

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

E Wagenmakers, T van Beek, L Dijkhoff, QF Gronau, A Acosta, R B Adams, D N Ahlbon, S Allard, S D Benning, E-M Blouin-Hudon, L C Bulnes, T L Caldwell, L J Calin-Jageman, C A Capaldi, N S Carfagno, K T Chasten, A Cleeremans, L Connell, J M DeCicco, Katinka DijkstraA H Fischer, F Foroni, K J Hess, K Holmes, J L H Jones, O Klein, C Koch, S Korb, P Lewinski, J D Liao, S Lund, J Lupiáñez, D Lynott, C N Nance, S Oosterwijk, A A Özdogru, A P Pacheco-Unguetti, B Pearson, C Powis, S Riding, T-A Roberts, R I Rumiati, M Senden, N B Shea-Shumsky, K Sobocko, J A Soto, T G Steiner, J M Talarico, Z M van Allen, M Vandekerckhove, B Wainwright, W F Wayand, Rene Zeelenberg, E E Zetzer, R A Zwaan

Brain and Cognition

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

207 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	917-928
Number of pages	12
Journal	Perspectives on Psychological Science
Volume	11
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616674458
Publication status	Published - 2016

Access to Document

10.1177/1745691616674458

Cite this

Wagenmakers, E., van Beek, T., Dijkhoff, L., Gronau, QF., Acosta, A., Adams, R. B., Ahlbon, D. N., Allard, S., Benning, S. D., Blouin-Hudon, E-M., Bulnes, L. C., Caldwell, T. L., Calin-Jageman, L. J., Capaldi, C. A., Carfagno, N. S., Chasten, K. T., Cleeremans, A., Connell, L., DeCicco, J. M., ... Zwaan, R. A. (2016). Registered Replication Report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 917-928. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616674458

@article{b000be5747184f48b6d2ffd197972dfd,

title = "Registered Replication Report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988)",

abstract = "According to the facial feedback hypothesis, people{\textquoteright}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.",

author = "E Wagenmakers and {van Beek}, T and L Dijkhoff and QF Gronau and A Acosta and Adams, {R B} and Ahlbon, {D N} and S Allard and Benning, {S D} and E-M Blouin-Hudon and Bulnes, {L C} and Caldwell, {T L} and Calin-Jageman, {L J} and Capaldi, {C A} and Carfagno, {N S} and Chasten, {K T} and A Cleeremans and L Connell and DeCicco, {J M} and Katinka Dijkstra and Fischer, {A H} and F Foroni and Hess, {K J} and K Holmes and Jones, {J L H} and O Klein and C Koch and S Korb and P Lewinski and Liao, {J D} and S Lund and J Lupi{\'a}{\~n}ez and D Lynott and Nance, {C N} and S Oosterwijk and {\"O}zdogru, {A A} and Pacheco-Unguetti, {A P} and B Pearson and C Powis and S Riding and T-A Roberts and Rumiati, {R I} and M Senden and Shea-Shumsky, {N B} and K Sobocko and Soto, {J A} and Steiner, {T G} and Talarico, {J M} and {van Allen}, {Z M} and M Vandekerckhove and B Wainwright and Wayand, {W F} and Rene Zeelenberg and Zetzer, {E E} and Zwaan, {R A}",

year = "2016",

doi = "10.1177/1745691616674458",

language = "English",

volume = "11",

pages = "917--928",

journal = "Perspectives on Psychological Science",

issn = "1745-6916",

publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",

number = "6",

}

Wagenmakers, E, van Beek, T, Dijkhoff, L, Gronau, QF, Acosta, A, Adams, RB, Ahlbon, DN, Allard, S, Benning, SD, Blouin-Hudon, E-M, Bulnes, LC, Caldwell, TL, Calin-Jageman, LJ, Capaldi, CA, Carfagno, NS, Chasten, KT, Cleeremans, A, Connell, L, DeCicco, JM, Dijkstra, K, Fischer, AH, Foroni, F, Hess, KJ, Holmes, K, Jones, JLH, Klein, O, Koch, C, Korb, S, Lewinski, P, Liao, JD, Lund, S, Lupiáñez, J, Lynott, D, Nance, CN, Oosterwijk, S, Özdogru, AA, Pacheco-Unguetti, AP, Pearson, B, Powis, C, Riding, S, Roberts, T-A, Rumiati, RI, Senden, M, Shea-Shumsky, NB, Sobocko, K, Soto, JA, Steiner, TG, Talarico, JM, van Allen, ZM, Vandekerckhove, M, Wainwright, B, Wayand, WF, Zeelenberg, R, Zetzer, EE & Zwaan, RA 2016, 'Registered Replication Report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988)', Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 917-928. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616674458

TY - JOUR

T1 - Registered Replication Report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988)

AU - Wagenmakers, E

AU - van Beek, T

AU - Dijkhoff, L

AU - Gronau, QF

AU - Acosta, A

AU - Adams, R B

AU - Ahlbon, D N

AU - Allard, S

AU - Benning, S D

AU - Blouin-Hudon, E-M

AU - Bulnes, L C

AU - Caldwell, T L

AU - Calin-Jageman, L 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, Katinka

AU - Fischer, A H

AU - Foroni, F

AU - Hess, K J

AU - Holmes, K

AU - Jones, J L H

AU - Klein, O

AU - Koch, C

AU - Korb, S

AU - Lewinski, P

AU - Liao, J D

AU - Lund, S

AU - Lupiáñez, J

AU - Lynott, D

AU - Nance, C N

AU - Oosterwijk, S

AU - Özdogru, A A

AU - Pacheco-Unguetti, A P

AU - Pearson, B

AU - Powis, C

AU - Riding, S

AU - Roberts, T-A

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, W F

AU - Zeelenberg, Rene

AU - Zetzer, E E

AU - Zwaan, R A

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

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.

U2 - 10.1177/1745691616674458

DO - 10.1177/1745691616674458

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 917

EP - 928

JO - Perspectives on Psychological Science

JF - Perspectives on Psychological Science

SN - 1745-6916

IS - 6

ER -

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

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this