We conducted an internal audit of this paper, which can be found here: https://osf.io/cqtgh. The results of the audit are summarized below:

- Francesca Gino contributed Study 6 in the paper and did not collect or analyze data from the other studies. We do not have access to the raw data for Study 6. Our review of the cleaned data (sent by Gino in an email) revealed no obvious issues with the data (see audit for details). We may try to run a direct or conceptual replication of this study in the future. If we do, we will report the results on OSF.

- The raw data for Studies 1a, 1b, 2, and 4 (collected more than six years ago) were not found. Studies 1a, 2, and 4 were pen & paper surveys, and Study 1b was video coding.

- We found a recurring MTurk ID in Study 3, which we believe was a real participant who took the survey 34 times. We believe this happened because we used hyperbatching on MTurk, opening up 9 assignments 34 times (to get to the requested 300 participants). We conducted an analysis removing the 34 suspicious datapoints. Their removal significantly changed the results for one of the primary dependent variables, but not for the other two primary dependent variables. On 9/11/2023, we conducted a preregistered direct replication of the Study 3 survey, which was run online with a total of 901 Prolific participants (about three times the sample size of the original survey). All of the hypothesized results replicated, including the effect of handshaking condition on participants' own reported intent to cooperate (i.e., the result that was not robust in the original survey after the removal of the 34 datapoints). The replication materials, data, and analyses are posted on OSF.

- We also found a recurring MTurk ID in Study 5, which we believe was a real participant who took the survey twice, and someone with an MTurk ID of "27". We conducted an analysis removing those three datapoints; the results do not meaningfully change.

- No other issues were identified in the audit.

We have contacted the JPSP editor to report the issues listed above. The editor asked us to correct Study 3 in the paper, which we have done. 

Given that Study 3 directly replicated and we can find no obvious issues with Study 6, we believe the findings from this paper are robust and can continue to be cited in the literature. 

This statement has been read and approved by the following authors: Juliana Schroeder, Jane Risen, and Michael Norton.

OSF Link to materials and data: https://osf.io/r7p9u/

Update on 12/13/23: The correction for Study 3 has been submitted to the journal and is being processed.

Update on 3/12/24: The correction is now available on the JPSP website here: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-62324-001.