Registered Replication Report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988)
2016 · paper · Psychology
A multi-laboratory registered replication of Strack, Martin and Stepper's 1988 study of the facial feedback hypothesis, which asks whether producing smiling or pouting expressions changes judgments in line with the associated emotions.
Checked: PDF from pure.uva.nl, fetched 5 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
5 findings
Substance Wayand lab: Table 1 gives "Total tested" 150, while Appendix A says "A total of 154 students (smile/teeth n = 77; pout/lips n = 77) were recruited" and that the lab "ran 4 extra participants".
- p. 7 Table 1, row Wayand, column 'Total tested'
Wayand U.S. English 150 110
- p. 13 Appendix A, Wayand lab paragraph
A total of 154 students (smile/teeth n = 77; pout/lips n = 77)
- p. 7 Table 1, row Wayand, Total tested
150
- p. 7 Table 1, Pacheco-Unguetti row
Pacheco-Unguetti Spain Spanish 150 120
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 7 image: Wayand row reads 150 tested, 110 included. Page 13 image: 154 students, 77 + 77, with 4 extra participants run beyond the stopping rule. For the labs whose appendix paragraph gives a pre-exclusion total (Allard 167, Benning 143, Bulnes 132, Capaldi 150, Chasten 108, Holmes 187, Koch 116, Korb 116, Lynott 158, Oosterwijk 150, Özdoğru 157, Talarico 160) the number equals Table 1's 'Total tested'. No statement in the article says the 4 extra participants were left out of the table. Only the authors can say which number is right. The Pacheco-Unguetti notes merged into this cluster are judged under C012.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Lead lab: Appendix A says "A total of 130 participants were recruited at the University of Amsterdam (smile/teeth n = 65; pout/lips n = 65)", while Table 1 gives 181 tested and 130 included for Wagenmakers.
- p. 11 Appendix A, Lead Lab paragraph
A total of 130 participants were recruited at the University of Amsterdam (smile/teeth n = 65; pout/lips n = 65)
- p. 7 Table 1, row Wagenmakers
Wagenmakers The Netherlands Dutch 181 130
- p. 7 Table 1, row Wagenmakers
181
- p. 7 Table 1, Albohn / Pacheco-Unguetti / Wagenmakers rows
Albohn U.S. English 163 139
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 11 image and the Table 1 row on the page 7 image. The appendix figure described as 'recruited' equals the post-exclusion 'Total included', and the paragraph mentions no exclusions, although 51 participants were excluded according to the table. Most other labs give the pre-exclusion number in the same sentence, and it equals 'Total tested'. The included totals in Table 1 sum to the 1,894 stated in the discussion, so the table's included column is consistent; the appendix wording mislabels the analysed sample as the recruited sample, or the table's 181 is wrong. The Albohn and Pacheco-Unguetti cases merged into this cluster are judged under C011 and C012.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Albohn lab: Appendix A says "A total of 139 students (smile/teeth n = 67; pout/lips n = 72) were recruited", while Table 1 gives 163 tested and 139 included.
- p. 11 Appendix A, Albohn lab paragraph
A total of 139 students (smile/teeth n = 67; pout/lips n = 72)
- p. 7 Table 1, row Albohn
Albohn U.S. English 163 139
- p. 7 Table 1, row Albohn
163
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 11 image and the Albohn row of Table 1 on the page 7 image. The number described as recruited equals 'Total included', and the paragraph mentions no exclusions, while the table shows 24 participants excluded. Same pattern as the lead lab (C010) and Pacheco-Unguetti (C012), but a separate lab and a separate sentence.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Pacheco-Unguetti lab: Appendix A says "A total of 120 students (smile/teeth n = 61; pout/lips n = 59) were recruited", while Table 1 gives 150 tested and 120 included.
- p. 13 Appendix A, Pacheco-Unguetti lab paragraph
A total of 120 students (smile/teeth n = 61; pout/lips n = 59)
- p. 7 Table 1, row Pacheco-Unguetti
Pacheco-Unguetti Spain Spanish 150 120
- p. 7 Table 1, row Pacheco-Unguetti
150
- p. 7 Table 1, Wayand row
Wayand U.S. English 150 110
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 13 image and the Pacheco-Unguetti row of Table 1 on the page 7 image. The number described as recruited equals 'Total included', and the paragraph mentions no exclusions, while the table shows 30 excluded. The Wayand notes merged into this cluster (150 against 154) are judged under C005.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "The experiment itself deviated from the original SMS study in four notable ways" is followed by five deviations: First, Second, Third, Fourth and "Finally, we omitted the neutral 'nondominant hand condition' from the design".
- p. 5 Introduction, left column, paragraph beginning 'The experiment itself deviated'
study in four notable ways. First, we selected and normed a
- p. 5 Introduction, left column, fifth listed deviation
Finally, we omitted the neutral “nondominant hand con-
- p. 5 Introduction, left column, paragraph 2
deviated from the original SMS study in four notable ways
- p. 5 Introduction, left column, last paragraph before Method
Finally, we omitted the neutral “nondominant hand con- dition” from the design
Judge's note: Page 5 image, left column. The list runs First (new cartoons), Second (minimal experimenter interaction), Third (video camera), Fourth (Study 2 phrasing), then 'Finally' (omitting the nondominant-hand condition, which SMS Study 1 had). The fifth item is a design difference from the study being replicated, presented in the same sequence. Nothing in the text says it is not counted.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
8 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording Fig. 3 caption says "the rating for the pout condition is plotted against that of the smile condition; the facial feedback hypothesis predicts the values to lie above the main diagonal", but the right panel has "Mean in Smile Condition" on the vertical axis and "Mean in Pout Condition" on the horizontal axis.
- p. 8 Fig. 3 caption
the rating for the pout condition is plotted against that of the smile condition; the facial feedback hypothesis predicts the values to lie above the main diagonal
- p. 8 Fig. 3 right panel, axis labels
Mean in Smile Condition
- p. 8 Results, Descriptives, left column
mean ratings in the pout condition versus those in the
- p. 8 Fig. 3 caption
the rating for the pout condition is plotted against that of the smile condition
Judge's note: Page 8 image. The panel plots smile (y) against pout (x), and with those axes points above the diagonal mean smile > pout, as the hypothesis predicts. The caption and the text below ('mean ratings in the pout condition versus those in the smile condition') name the variables in the opposite order to the usual 'y against x'. I counted the labs with smile mean above pout mean in Table 1: Albohn, Allard, Bulnes, Holmes, Korb, Lynott, Talarico, Wagenmakers, Zeelenberg = 9 of 17, which matches the text, so the figure is right and only the wording is loose.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The General Discussion relies on "the lack of heterogeneity across the 17 included studies", but the article reports no heterogeneity estimate or test for the random-effects meta-analysis.
- p. 10 General Discussion, right column
lack of heterogeneity across the 17 included studies
- p. 9 Figure 4 (forest plot)
0.03 [ -0.11 , 0.16 ]
Judge's note: I read the Results text on pages 8-9 and the Figure 4 forest plot on the page 9 image: the figure gives the study estimates and the pooled 0.03 [-0.11, 0.16] and no tau-squared, Q or I-squared. The only nearby statement, 'the average ratings are relatively homogeneous across the 17 labs' (page 9), concerns mean ratings, not effect sizes. The statistic may be in the OSF materials, which are not among the files. This is a reporting gap, not an error in a number.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The byline prints "J. Lupianez" and "A. A. Ozdoğru", while Table 1, Table 2 and Appendix A print "Özdoğru" and Appendix A prints "Juan Lupiáñez".
- p. 3 Author byline
J. Lupianez, D. Lynott, C. N. Nance, S. Oosterwijk, A. A. Ozdoğru,
- p. 13 Appendix A
Asil Ali Özdoğru, Üsküdar University
- p. 13 Appendix A
Juan Lupiáñez, Universidad de Granada
Judge's note: Page 3 image: the byline shows 'Lupianez' without accents and 'Ozdoğru' with the breve on g but a plain O. Page 13 image: 'Asil Ali Özdoğru, Üsküdar University' and 'Juan Lupiáñez, Universidad de Granada'. Table 1 on page 7 prints 'Özdoğru'. The inconsistency is in the typeset page, not the text layer.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The rating question is quoted as "What feeling was elicited in you by looking at the cartoons?" in the Introduction and as "What feeling was elicited in you by looking at the cartoon?" in the Procedure.
- p. 5 Introduction, fourth deviation
elicited in you by looking at the cartoons?”
- p. 6 Procedure
by looking at the cartoon?” by using a 10-point Likert
- p. 6 Procedure, paragraph 2
by looking at the cartoon?”
Judge's note: Page 5 image (plural, given as the SMS Study 2 phrasing) and the page 6 crop (singular, given as the question answered 'For each cartoon'). The two quotations differ by one letter. Either could be legitimate: the first may quote the original item and the second the per-cartoon item, so this is a consistency point only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The pen is named "the Stabilo Pen68" in Materials and "the Stabilo 68" in the Holmes lab paragraph of Appendix A.
- p. 5 Materials, item (f)
the Stabilo Pen68 or
- p. 12 Appendix, Holmes lab
very similar to the Stabilo 68
Judge's note: Page 5 image: '(f) suitable pens such as the Stabilo Pen68 or the Sharpie'. Page 12 crop: 'very similar to the Stabilo 68'. The same product is named two ways. The appendix paragraph was written by a contributing lab and the short form is understandable, so this is a trivial consistency point.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The text cites "Ly, Verhagen, & Wagenmakers, in press", while the reference list gives "Ly, A., Verhagen, A. J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2016) ... Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 19–32".
- p. 7 Preregistered analysis plan, left column
Ly, Verhagen, & Wagenmakers, in press
- p. 14 References
Ly, A., Verhagen, A. J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2016). Harold
Judge's note: Page 7 image, left column: 'in press'. Page 14 image: the entry is dated 2016 with volume and pages. The in-text citation was not updated to match the reference list. The reader can still find the work.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The in-text citation prints "Carretero-Dios, Benítez, Delgado Rico, Ruch & López-Benítez, 2014", while the reference list prints "Delgado-Rico, E.".
- p. 13 Appendix A, Pacheco-Unguetti lab paragraph
Carretero-Dios, Benítez, Delgado Rico, Ruch & López-Benítez,
- p. 14 References
Carretero-Dios, H., Benítez, I., Delgado-Rico, E., Ruch, W., &
- p. 14 References
Delgado-Rico, E., Ruch, W., &
Judge's note: Page 13 image: 'Delgado Rico' with a space, within one line. Page 14 image: 'Delgado-Rico, E.' with a hyphen, also within one line, so it is not a line-break artefact. Which form is the author's own cannot be told from the files; the two should match.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "Only three participants participated in exchange of €5." should read "in exchange for €5".
- p. 13 Appendix, Pacheco-Unguetti lab
Only three participants participated in exchange of €5.
Judge's note: Page 13 image, Pacheco-Unguetti paragraph. The same page (Oosterwijk paragraph) and page 12 (Korb) print 'in exchange for €5'.
Second check: none (judge only)