Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam.
Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University.
Psychol Sci. 2020 Apr;31(4):460-467. doi: 10.1177/0956797620903716. Epub 2020 Mar 10.
Shalvi, Eldar, and Bereby-Meyer (2012) found across two studies ( = 72 for each) that time pressure increased cheating. These findings suggest that dishonesty comes naturally, whereas honesty requires overcoming the initial tendency to cheat. Although the study's results were statistically significant, a Bayesian reanalysis indicates that they had low evidential strength. In a direct replication attempt of Shalvi et al.'s Experiment 2, we found that time pressure did not increase cheating, = 428, point biserial correlation () = .05, Bayes factor (BF) = 16.06. One important deviation from the original procedure, however, was the use of mass testing. In a second direct replication with small groups of participants, we found that time pressure also did not increase cheating, = 297, = .03, BF = 9.59. These findings indicate that the original study may have overestimated the true effect of time pressure on cheating and the generality of the effect beyond the original context.
沙尔维、埃尔德和贝雷比-迈耶(2012)在两项研究中(每项研究有 72 人)发现,时间压力会增加作弊行为。这些发现表明,不诚实是人的天性,而诚实则需要克服最初的作弊倾向。尽管该研究的结果在统计学上具有显著意义,但贝叶斯重新分析表明,其证据强度较低。在对沙尔维等人的实验 2 的直接复制尝试中,我们发现时间压力并没有增加作弊行为,n = 428,二分相关系数()= 0.05,贝叶斯因子(BF)= 16.06。然而,与原始程序的一个重要区别是使用了大规模测试。在对小样本参与者进行的第二次直接复制中,我们发现时间压力也没有增加作弊行为,n = 297,= 0.03,BF = 9.59。这些发现表明,原始研究可能高估了时间压力对作弊行为的真实影响,以及该效应在原始背景之外的普遍性。