TABLE 3.

Pearson’s correlations for replication items with NPI and t-test results for sex differences of studies 1 and 2.

	Study 1								Study 2
	r	95% CI	Men (n = 58)		Women (n = 234)		t(290)	d	r	95% CI	Men (n = 63)		Women (n = 192)		t(253)	d
			M	SD	M	SD					M	SD	M	SD
Number of lies	0.10	[−0.01, 0.21]	7.95	16.64	5.30	13.06	1.30	0.19	0.02	[−0.11, 0.14]	5.73	9.70	3.35	5.73	2.37*	0.34
Number of people lied to	0.10	[−0.02, 0.21]	3.55	6.55	3.18	9.49	0.28	0.04	0.10	[−0.03, 0.22]	2.22	1.85	2.09	2.73	0.36	0.05
Number of self-gain lies	0.13*	[0.10, 0.24]	3.78	7.77	3.14	10.16	0.45	0.07	0.05	[−0.07, 0.17]	2.49	5.30	2.28	5.11	0.29	0.04
Number of white lies	0.11	[−0.01, 0.22]	3.07	8.46	3.00	10.21	0.50	0.01	0.10	[−0.03, 0.22]	2.95	5.72	2.00	4.91	1.28	0.19
Number of no reason for lies	0.10	[−0.02, 0.21]	0.72	2.04	0.78	6.59	−0.07	−0.01	0.06	[−0.06, 0.18]	0.71	1.62	1.11	6.90	−0.46	−0.07
Self-rated lying ability	0.25***	[0.14, 0.35]	3.24	1.16	2.93	1.31	1.65	0.24	0.24***	[0.12, 0.35]	3.17	1.21	2.99	1.36	0.94	0.14

We excluded participants who indicated non-binary as gender, therefore N = 292 for Study 1 and N = 255 for Study 2. 95% CI, 95% confidence interval for r. Note that all replication items referred to participants’ general lying behavior also apart from their romantic relationship. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.