Table 2.

Effect sizes of the experiments in the current and original investigation demonstrating the effect of having people sign a veracity statement attesting to their honest reporting placed before versus after reporting

Study	Sample size	Number of conditions	Cheating task	Population	Average performance reported effect size (d) [95% CI]*
This study
Study 1	444	6	Die rolling	Community laboratory	0.11 [−0.09, 0.30]
Study 2	408	4	Anagrams	Community laboratory	−0.01 [−0.20, 0.18]
Study 3	442	2	Anagrams	MTurk	0.05 [−0.14, 0.24]
Study 4	743	3	Anagrams	MTurk	−0.05 [−0.19, 0.10]
Study 5	2,522	2	Anagrams	Naive MTurk	0.01 [−0.07, 0.09]
Study 6 (direct replication of PNAS study 1)	1,235	2	Paper matrix; self-reported travel expenses	Community laboratory	−0.04 [−0.07, 0.15]†
Shu et al. (1) study
Study 1	101	3	Paper matrix; self-reported travel expenses	Students	−1.05 [−1.55, −0.53]†
Study 2	60	2	Paper matrix; self-reported travel expenses	Students	−0.53 [−1.04, −0.01]†
Study 3	13,488	2	Odometer reading reported on audit form	Automobile insurance clients	−0.20 [−0.16, −0.23]

^*For all tasks, effect sizes are reported for the differences in total amounts reported between conditions. Negative effect size indicates reduction in cheating.

^†Effect sizes reported in the last column are based on the paper matrix performance only, not the claimed travel expenses.