**Purpose of this page** This OSF project page describes our procedures as part of the *Perspectives on Psychological Science* Registered Replication Report of the following study: - Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 768-777. Please consult the official [protocol][1] and [RRR project page][2] for details of the experiment's methodology. For the complete set of materials, see the [project page][3] estabished by E.J. Wagenmakers, Laura Dijkhoff, and Titia Beek (the lead lab on this RRR). Their page includes all of the materials for the project as well as detailed instructions. Details of our implementation of this protocol are described in the Implementation component of our project page. **Results** Our contribution to this project is now complete, and our data was submitted for incorportion into an overall manuscript: * Wagenmakers, E.-J., Beek, T., Dijkhoff, L., Gronau, Q. F., Acosta, A., Adams, R. B., … Zwaan, R. A. (2016). Registered Replication Report. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 917–928. [http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616674458][4] At our site, data from 108 participants were collected (54 per condition). Of these, 14 had to be excluded (7 in each condition), leaving 47 participants per group. We found that cartoons were perceived essentially identically across the two groups. Those who held the pen to produce a pout had an average cartoon rating of 5.06 (s = 1.41). Those who held the pen to produce a smile had an average cartoon rating of 5.01 (s = 1.54). This is a very small mean difference: Mdiff = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.55]. In standardized terms this was a very small effect: d_unbiased = -0.04, 95% CI[-0.44, 0.37]. Note that our sample size produces relatively wide CIs, so in standardized terms our data on its own is consistent with up to moderate effect sizes in either direction. Thus, on its own our data is most consistent with no effect, but cannot rule out up to a moderate effect in the predicted direction. This figure compares the ratings for the two groups (all exclusions applied). ![enter image description here][5] Analyzing the data without exclusions led to essentially the same conclusions, though with a very small difference in the predicted direction. In the pout group, the mean for all participants was 4.856 (s = 1.60, n = 54). In the smile condition, the mean for all participants was 4.926 (s = 1.60, n = 54). In standardized terms this is a very small effect in the predicted direction (d = 0.04, 95% CI[-0.34, 0.42) **Guide to Files** * Original data file, as uploaded back to the RRR team: [Chasten_Data.csv][6] * Cleaned and processed data file, all exclusions applied: [Chasten_cleaned_data_exclusions_applied.csv][7] * Cleaned and processed data file, no exclusions applied: [Chasten_cleaned_data_no_exclusions.csv][8] * Script for individual site analysis, provided by the RRR team. * Original script but modified to output the cleaned data files: [analysis.R][9] * Set of helper functions must be in same directory: [Repfunctionspack.R][10] * Instructions for using the analysis script are posted on the [OSF page for this RRR][11]. A pdf is [here][12], and a video is [here][13]. **Code Book** * subjectNO - arbitrary sequentially assigned ID number * participantID - repeats subjectNO * Condition - 0 indicates POUT, 1 indicates SMILE * Task - 0 if not performed correctly, 1 otherwise; one column for each cartoon; total sums the number of correctly-performed tasks * Cartoon 1 * Cartoon 2 * Cartoon 3 * Cartoon 4 * Total * Ratings * Task 1 - Difficulty of first warm-up task, 1 (not at all difficulty) to 9 (very difficulty) * Task 2 - Difficulty of second task, 1 (not at all difficulty) to 9 (very difficulty) * Cartoon Ratings - Funniness for each of the 4 cartoons rated on a scale from 1 to 9 * Cartoon 1 * Cartoon 2 * Cartoon 3 * Catroon 4 * Self-reported task performance, rated on a scale from 0 (not at all successful) to 9 (very successful) * Comprehension of cartoons - 1 = YES, 0 = NO * Was the participant aware of the goal? - 1 = YES, 0 = NO * Transcribe the written answer of each participant's guess of the study's goal. * Age * Gender - 1 = Male 0 = Female * Student - 1 = YES 0 = NO * Occupation / Field of study **Contributors** - Kelsie Chasten, Dominican University - Robert Calin-Jageman, Dominican University - Tracy Caldwell, Dominican Universtiy [1]: https://osf.io/6wvj4/ [2]: https://osf.io/hgi2y/ [3]: https://osf.io/pkd65/ [4]: http://pps.sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1177/1745691616674458 [5]: https://mfr.osf.io/export?url=https://osf.io/z3t47/?action=download&direct&mode=render&initialWidth=684&childId=mfrIframe&format=1200x1200.jpeg [6]: https://osf.io/pcxcw/ [7]: https://osf.io/thf8h/ [8]: https://osf.io/e4qjd/ [9]: https://osf.io/e4qjd/ [10]: https://osf.io/e4qjd/ [11]: https://osf.io/hgi2y/ [12]: https://osf.io/s3baz/ [13]: https://osf.io/bawm3/