Macbeth effect

Collection type: Multi-effect Multi-method Multi-lab Replications 11

Collection contains 11 replications of 2 Macbeth effects across 3 methods.

Last updated by: chiefeditor 9 days ago Edit Collection

Forest plots

Replications 11

Original Studies & Replications Effect size (r) [95% CI]
Effect #1 Method #1: Moral purity threat (transcribe text) boosts need to cleanse oneself (cleaning products desirability)
Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 2
Earp et al. (2014) Study 3
Siev (2012) Study 2
Earp et al. (2014) Study 2
Siev (2012) Study 1
Earp et al. (2014) Study 1
Gamez et al. (2011) Study 2
Current meta-analytic estimate of Effect #1 Method #1 replications:
Effect #1 Method #2: Moral purity threat (recall [un]ethical act) boosts need to cleanse oneself (product choice)
Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 3
Fayard et al. (2009) Study 1
Gamez et al. (2011) Study 3
Current meta-analytic estimate of Effect #1 Method #2 replications:
Effect #2 Method #1: Physical cleansing (antiseptic wipe) reduced volunteerism (helping RA)
Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 4
Fayard et al. (2009) Study 2
Gamez et al. (2011) Study 4
Reuven et al. (2013)
Current meta-analytic estimate of Effect #2 Method #1 replications:

Summary: The claim that a threat to one's moral purity induces the need to cleanse oneself (the "Macbeth effect") currently exhibits replication difficulties (overall meta-analytic effect: r = -.02 [+/-.05]). This appears to be the case whether moral purity threat is manipulated via transcribing text describing an unethical vs. ethical act (Study 2) or by recalling an unethical vs. ethical deed (Studies 3) and whether need to cleanse onself is measured via desirability of cleansing products (Study 2), product choice (Study 3), or reduced volunteerism after cleansing (Study 4). Of course, it is possible the "Macbeth effect" is replicable under different operationalizations and/or experimental designs (e.g., within-subjects).



Replication Details

Replications 11

Related Collections