Christopher J. Carpenter

The Legitimization of Paltry Favors Effect: A Review and Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis was conducted on the legitimization of paltry favors (LPF) effect (Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976). A total of 19 studies met the inclusion criteria, with a combined sample of 2,730 subjects. Excluding studies in which the LPF request was delivered via mail and those studies that accepted pledges as the dependent variable resulted in a homogeneous set of effect sizes (r = .18, OR = 2.41). While the data provide clues as to possible mediating mechanisms, the cause of the effect is still not clear. Directions for future research are suggested.

A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of the “But You Are Free” Compliance-Gaining Technique

The “but you are free” (BYAF) compliance-gaining technique operates by telling the target that he or she is free to refuse the request. A meta-analysis of 42 studies of the effectiveness of that technique indicated that it was an effective means of increasing compliance rates in most contexts. It was effective regardless of type of request, but effectiveness diminished when the decision to enact the target behavior was not made immediately, consistent with a self-presentation explanation of the techniques effectiveness.

Exploring romantic relationships on social networking sites using the self-expansion model

Several hypotheses were derived from the self-expansion model (Aron & Aron, 1986) concerning romantic relationships and social networking sites (SNSs). A sample of 276 participants responded to questions about their relationship history and SNS uses and a subset of those (N=149) responded to additional questions about a current romantic partner. Results suggest that past self-expansion leaves a residue shown by more interests. This finding was moderated by overall Facebook use. Particular Facebook behaviors such as tagging ones partner in status updates, appearing together in photographs, and listing similar interests on profiles are indicative of self-expansion processes typically found in romantic relationships.

A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of the Disrupt-Then-Reframe Compliance Gaining Technique

The disrupt-then-reframe compliance gaining technique (DTR; Davis & Knowles, 1999) uses confusing language and then follows it with an additional reason to comply. The effectiveness of the DTR was meta-analyzed by calculating the weighted mean correlation coefficient (r = .28) and the weighted mean odds ratio (OR = 3.47). Using the DTR in a sales context versus a nonprofit context was a moderator of the techniques effectiveness such that the DTR was more effective in the nonprofit context (r = .32, OR = 4.14) than in the sales context (r = .20, OR = 2.46). A trim and fill test (Duval & Tweedie, 2000a, 2000b) found no evidence of publication bias.

Employing interpersonal influence to promote multivitamin use.

Boster, Kotowski, Andrews, and Serota (2011) proposed that superdiffusers are well connected, persuasive, and a maven in a content area. They proposed that superdiffusers, if recruited, could promote the adoption of health practices. In this article a model of this process is presented, and an intervention designed to test the efficacy of this influence strategy is introduced. Specifically, superdiffusers were recruited to persuade their peers to take a daily multivitamin. Evidence was found consistent with the interventions effectiveness.

Measuring the Construct of Warranting Value and Testing Warranting Theory

Warranting theory has been used extensively to explain how people evaluate information across a variety of online settings. However, no validated measurement instrument exists to assess the construct of warranting value that is at the core of the theory. Two studies were conducted to develop and validate a General Warranting Value Scale and three scales that assess specific forms of information control: Modification Control, Dissemination Control, and Source Obfuscation. In addition, we tested predictions of warranting theory using multiple stimuli and samples—including a nationally representative sample of adults. Overall, evidence for scale validity was obtained: Confirmatory factor analyses were consistent with measurement model fit. All scales were sensitive to theoretically predicted manipulations and were correlated with theoretically predicted outcomes.

The Impact of Accusatory, Non-Accusatory, Bait, and False Evidence Questioning on Deception Detection

This research examines question effects in deception detection. A first set of participants (N = 104) were given the opportunity to cheat to obtain a cash prize, and were then interviewed with accusatory, non-accusatory, bait, or false evidence questioning. A second set of participants (N = 157) watched videotapes of the interviews and made honesty judgments. Finally, interviewee behaviors were coded for demeanor. Overall, accuracy was high (72% overall, 70% excluding confessions, and 62% excluding confessions and adjusting for base rate). The type of question set made little difference in truth bias, accuracy, or demeanor, but false evidence questioning yielded 80% confessions compared to 20% confessions with non-accusatory questioning. No false confessions were obtained.

A Trim and Fill Examination of the Extent of Publication Bias in Communication Research

Publication bias can occur when a study is not published in an academic journal because the study did not find a statistically significant result. It can bias meta-analytic estimates upwards because the meta-analyses are missing studies that provide small estimates of the effect size under study. This paper describes the trim and fill technique of estimating the impact of publication bias on meta-analyses (Duval & Tweedie, 2000a, 2000b) and provides a working example. A sample of 68 meta-analyses of communication research were tested for publication bias using the trim and fill technique. The results suggest that most communication meta-analyses are not substantially affected by publication bias.

Do Superdiffusers Argue Differently? an Analysis of Argumentation Style as a Function of Diffusion Ability

Boster et al.s (2006) dimensions of diffusion ability were used to determine if the argumentation of superdiffusers of health information (those who are well-connected, persuasive, and knowledgeable about healthy lifestyles) is different from those who are not. In Study 1, 164 undergraduates completed the measures of diffusion ability. They were then asked how they would try to persuade a target either to lose weight or to avoid smoking. The scenario they were given was either simple or complex. For the participants who responded to the avoiding smoking scenario a 2 (superdiffuser or not) X 2 (scenario complexity: simple or complex) interaction was found such that superdiffusers who responded to the complex scenario produced more arguments, more overall themes in their arguments, and addressed more elements of the scenario than any of the other three groups. Superdiffusers produced more arguments when they responded to the weight loss scenario. A second study was conducted with 35 participants who were interviewed about their beliefs on dieting. Their responses were coded for argument complexity. Superdiffusers produced more complex arguments than non-superdiffusers. In sum, results indicated that superdiffusers argue in ways that would facilitate the effective diffusion of health information.

A critical look at meta-analytic evidence for the cognitive approach to lie detection: A re-examination of Vrij, Fisher, and Blank (2017)

Vrij, Fisher, and Blank (2017) published the first meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of Vrij’s (2015) new cognitive approach to lie detection. Their basic premise is that verbal andnonverbal deception cues canbe amplified bymaking lyingmore cognitively effortful. Cues can be amplified in threeways: (1) instilling additional cognitive load, (2) prompting additional information, and (3) employing unexpected questions. Amplified cues lead to more accurate deception detection. Vrij et al. (2017) reported that their cognitive approach showed a 15-point advantage over the traditional standard approach. They claimed 71% correct classification for their cognitive approach compared to 56% for the standard approach in head-to-head experimental comparisons. This essay provides a critical look at Vrij et al.’s (2017) claims, methods, and data. Vrij et al.’s meta-analysis averaged across two conceptually, empirically, and pragmatically different types of outcomes. As a result of conflated outcomes, evidence for the cognitive approach was exaggerated and important patterns of findings were hidden. Specifically, accuracy in the controls and reliability in assessment correlate negativelywith support for the cognitive approach.