Relative power and interpersonal trust.

Because trust is essential in the development and maintenance of well-functioning relationships, scholars across numerous scientific disciplines have sought to determine what causes people to trust others. Power dynamics are known to predict trust, but research on the relationship between power and trust is inconclusive, with mixed results and without systematic consideration of how the relative power distribution within dyadic relationships may influence trust in those relationships. Building on interdependence theory, we propose that both individuals in an unequal-power dyad trust each other less than individuals in an equal-power dyad because unequal-power dyads heighten the perception of a conflict of interest. We demonstrate the effect of relative power on interpersonal trust across eight main studies and 16 supplemental studies (including 12 preregistered studies; total N = 10,531), and we test the mechanism with measurement-of-mediation and moderation-of-process approaches. We confirm that the effect of power on interpersonal trust occurs only with relative power (an interpersonal manifestation of power), not with felt power (an intrapersonal manifestation). Finally, we show that the effect of relative power on interpersonal trust via conflict of interest is attenuated in the presence of intergroup competition, a theoretically motivated moderator with practical implications. Overall, the present research clarifies the relationship between relative power and interpersonal trust, suggests that high- and low-power individuals may share similar psychological experiences within the context of unequal-power relationships, and highlights the importance of considering the context in which power dynamics occur. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Data from a pre-publication independent replication initiative examining ten moral judgement effects.

We present the data from a crowdsourced project seeking to replicate findings in independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. In this Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) initiative, 25 research groups attempted to replicate 10 moral judgment effects from a single laboratory's research pipeline of unpublished findings. The 10 effects were investigated using online/lab surveys containing psychological manipulations (vignettes) followed by questionnaires. Results revealed a mix of reliable, unreliable, and culturally moderated findings. Unlike any previous replication project, this dataset includes the data from not only the replications but also from the original studies, creating a unique corpus that researchers can use to better understand reproducibility and irreproducibility in science.