Neonatal imitation is a cornerstone in many theoretical accounts of human development and social behavior, yet its existence has been debated for the past 40 years. To examine possible explanations for the inconsistent findings in this body of research, we conducted a multilevel meta-analysis synthesizing 336 effect sizes from 33 independent samples of human newborns, reported in 26 articles. The meta-analysis found significant evidence for neonatal imitation (d = 0.68, 95% CI = [0.39, 0.96], p < .001) but substantial heterogeneity between study estimates. This heterogeneity was not explained by any of 13 methodological moderators identified by previous reviews, but it was associated with researcher affiliation, test of moderators (QM) (15) = 57.09, p < .001. There are at least two possible explanations for these results: (a) Neonatal imitation exists and its detection varies as a function of uncaptured methodological factors common to a limited set of studies, and (2) neonatal imitation does not exist and the overall positive result is an artifact of high researcher degrees of freedom.
AbranavelE.SigafoosA. D. (1984). Exploring the presence of imitation during early infancy. Child Development, 55, 381–392.
2.
AitkenK. (2017). “It takes two to know one”—Tongue protrusion-retraction is only one small facet of early intersubjectivity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e382. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001291
AnisfeldM. (1996). Only tongue protrusion modelling is matched by neonates. Developmental Review, 16, 149–161.
5.
*AnisfeldM.TurkewitzG.RoseS. A. (2001). No compelling evidence that newborns imitate oral gestures. Infancy, 2, 111–122.
6.
*BarbosaP. G. (2017). Are you like me? Maybe, but I will not imitate you! A longitudinal study on newborns and infants’ imitation and conspecific identification skills (Doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. doi:10.7939/R3C24R22F
7.
BeisertM.ZmyjN.DaumM. (2017). Turning the tide: A plea for cognitively lean interpretations of infant behaviour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e383. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001849
8.
BoccacciniM. T.MarcusD.MurrieD. C. (2017). Allegiance effects in clinical psychology research and practice. In LilienfeldS. O.WaldmanI. D. (Eds.), Psychological science under scrutiny: Recent challenges and proposed remedies (pp. 323–339). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
9.
BoothD. (2017). Multisensory control of ingestive movements and the myth of food addiction in obesity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e384. doi:10.1017/S0140525X1600128X
10.
BoydR.RichersonP. J. (1996). Why culture is common, but cultural evolution is rare. In RuncimanW. G.SmithJ. M.DunbarR. I. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 88. Evolution of social behaviour patterns in primates and man (pp. 77–93). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11.
BrassM.HeyesC. (2005). Imitation: Is cognitive neuroscience solving the correspondence problem?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 489–495.
12.
BuckR. (2017). Spontaneous communication and infant imitation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e385. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001850
13.
CamposR.NietoC. (2017). When dyadic interaction is the context: Mimicry behaviors on the origin of imitation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e386. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001862
14.
CasartelliL.ParmaV. (2017). The functional and developmental role of imitation in the (a)typical brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e387. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001278
15.
ChartrandT. L.BarghJ. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.
16.
ChengC. M.ChartrandT. L. (2003). Self-monitoring without awareness: Using mimicry as a nonconscious allegiance strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1170–1179.
17.
ChoiD.KandhadaiP.DanielsonD.BrudererA.WerkerJ. (2017). Does early motor development contribute to speech perception?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e388. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001308
18.
ClayZ.TennieC. (2018). Is overimitation a uniquely human phenomenon? Insights from human children as compared to bonobos. Child Development, 89, 1535–1544. doi:10.1111/cdev.12857
19.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
20.
*CoulonM.HemimouC.StreriA. (2013). Effects of seeing and hearing vowels on neonatal facial imitation. Infancy, 18, 782–796.
21.
CoyneJ. C. (2016). Replication initiatives will not salvage the trustworthiness of psychology. BMC Psychology, 4(1), Article 28. doi:10.1186/s40359-016-0134-3
22.
Des JarlaisD. C.LylesC.CrepazN., & TREND Group, (2004). Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 361–366.
23.
DesseillesM. (2017). Beyond sensorimotor imitation in the neonate: Mentalization psychotherapy in adulthood. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e389. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001266
24.
DragiotiE.DimoliatisI.EvangelouE. (2015). Disclosure of researcher allegiance in meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials of psychotherapy: A systematic appraisal. BMJ Open, 5, Article e007206. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007206
25.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315, 629–634.
26.
FergusonC. J.BrannickM. T. (2012). Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17, 120–128.
27.
FerrariP. F.PauknerA.RuggieroA.DarceyL.UnbehagenS.SuomiS. J. (2009). Interindividual differences in neonatal imitation and the development of action chains in rhesus macaques. Child Development, 80, 1057–1068.
28.
FerrariP. F.VisalberghiE.PauknerA.FogassiL.RuggieroA.SuomiS. S. (2006). Neonatal imitation in rhesus macaques. PLOS Biology, 4(9), Article e302. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040302
29.
*FieldT. M.WoodsonR.CohenD.GreenbergR.GarciaR.CollinsK. (1983). Discrimination and imitation of facial expressions by term and preterm neonates. Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 485–489.
30.
*FieldT. M.WoodsonR.GreenbergR.CohenD. (1982). Discrimination and imitation of facial expressions neonates. Science, 218, 179–181.
31.
FitchW. (2017). A major blow to primate neonatal imitation and mirror neuron theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e390. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001874
32.
*FontaineR. (1984). Imitative skills between birth and six months. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 323–333.
33.
FrankM. C.BergelsonE.BergmannC.CristiaA.FlocciaC.GervainJ.. . . Lew-WilliamsC. (2017). A collaborative approach to infant research: Promoting reproducibility, best practices, and theory-building. Infancy, 22, 421–435.
34.
GalleseV. (2001). The ‘shared manifold’ hypothesis: From mirror neurons to empathy. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5–6), 33–50.
35.
GelmanA.LokenE. (2013). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time (Doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York, NY.
36.
GlassG. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3–8.
37.
*HeimannM. (1998). The story of neonatal imitation: New facts and old conclusions. Infant Behavior and Development, 21(Suppl.), 454. doi:10.1016/S0163-6383(98)91667-8
38.
*HeimannM.NelsonK. E.SchallerJ. (1989). Neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion and mouth opening: Methodological aspects and evidence of early individual differences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 30, 90–101.
39.
*HeimannM.SchallerJ. (1985). Imitative reactions among 14-21 day old infants. Infant Mental Health Journal, 6, 31–39.
HenrichJ.McElreathR. (2003). The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 12, 123–135.
42.
HeyesC. (2016a). Homo imitans? Seven reasons why imitation couldn’t possibly be associative. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1686), Article 20150069. doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0069
43.
HeyesC. (2016b). Imitation: Not in our genes. Current Biology, 26, R412–R414.
44.
HickokG. (2014). The myth of mirror neurons: The real neuroscience of communication and cognition. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
45.
HigginsJ. P. T.DeeksJ.AltmanD. G. (Eds.). (2011). Special topics in statistics. In HigginsJ. P. T.GreenS. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.1.0). The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.1/
46.
HigginsJ. P. T.GreenS (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.1.0). The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.1/
47.
HornerV.WhitenA. (2005). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 8, 164–181.
48.
IacobiniM. (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 653–670.
49.
IoannidisJ. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), Article e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
50.
IoannidisJ. P. A. (2008). Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology, 19, 640–648.
51.
JacobsonS. W.KaganJ. (1979). Interpreting “imitative” responses in early infancy. Science, 205, 215–217.
52.
JonesS. S. (1996). Imitation or exploration? Young infants’ matching of adults’ oral gestures. Child Development, 67, 1952–1969.
53.
JonesS. S. (2007). Imitation in infancy: The development of mimicry. Psychological Science, 18, 593–599.
54.
JonesS. S. (2009). The development of imitation in infancy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364, 2325–2335.
55.
JonesS. S. (2017a). Can newborn infants imitate?Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8, Article e1410. doi:10.1002/wcs.1410
56.
JonesS. S. (2017b). The case against newborn imitation grows stronger. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e391. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001886
57.
*Kennedy-CostantiniS. (2017). Very early social learning within the context of the mother-baby relationship (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
58.
Kennedy-CostantiniS.OostenbroekJ.SuddendorfT.NielsenM.RedshawJ.DavisJ.. . . SlaughterV. (2017). There is no compelling evidence that human neonates imitate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e392. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001898
59.
KevenN.AkinsK. (2017). Neonatal imitation in context: Sensory-motor development in the perinatal period. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e381. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16000911
60.
*KoepkeJ. E.HammM.LegersteeM. (1983). Neonatal imitation: Two failures to replicate. Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 97–102.
61.
KuhlP. K.MeltzoffA. N. (1982). The bimodal perception of speech in infancy. Science, 218, 1138–1141.
62.
LakinJ. L.JefferisV. E.ChengC. M.ChartrandT. L. (2003). The chameleon effect as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary significance of nonconscious mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 145–162.
63.
LegareC. H.NielsenM. (2015). Imitation and innovation: The dual engines of cultural learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 688–699.
64.
*LegersteeM. (1991). The role of person and object in eliciting early imitation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51, 423–433.
65.
LeismanG. (2017). Mommy or me? Who is the agent in a sense of agency in infant orofacial stereotypies?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e393. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001904
66.
LepageJ. F.ThéoretH. (2007). The mirror neuron system: Grasping others’ actions from birth?Developmental Science, 10, 513–523.
67.
LeykinY.DeRubeisR. J. (2009). Allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: Separating association from bias. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 16, 54–65.
68.
LibertusK.LibertusM.EinspielerC.MarschikP. (2017). “What” matters more than “Why”–Neonatal behaviors initiate social responses. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e394. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001916
69.
LuborskyL.DiguerL.SeligmanD. A.RosenthalR.KrauseE. D.JohnsonS.. . . SchweizerE. (1999). The researcher’s own therapy allegiances: A “wild card” in comparisons of treatment efficacy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 95–106.
70.
ManeaL.BoehnkeJ. R.GilbodyS.MoriartyA. S.McMillanD. (2017). Are there researcher allegiance effects in diagnostic validation studies of the PHQ-9? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 7(9), Article e015247. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015247
71.
MayerC.Roewer-DespresF.StavnessI.GickB. (2017). Do innate stereotypies serve as a basis for swallowing and learned speech movements?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e395. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001928
72.
*McKenzieB.OverR. (1983). Young infants fail to imitate facial and manual gestures. Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 85–95.
73.
MellersB.HertwigR.KahnemanD. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects?An Exercise in Adversarial Collaboration: Psychological Science, 12, 269–275.
74.
MeltzoffA. N. (2007). ‘Like me’: A foundation for social cognition. Developmental Science, 10, 126–134.
75.
MeltzoffA. N. (2017). Elements of a comprehensive theory of infant imitation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e396. doi:10.1017/S0140525X1600193X
76.
MeltzoffA. N.DecetyJ. (2003). What imitation tells us about social cognition: A rapprochement between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 358, 491–500.
77.
*MeltzoffA. N.MooreM. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75–78.
78.
MeltzoffA. N.MooreM. K. (1983a). Methodological issues in studies of imitation: Comments on McKenzie & Over and Koepke et al. Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 103–108.
*MeltzoffA. N.MooreM. K. (1989). Imitation in newborn infants: Exploring the range of gestures imitated and the underlying mechanisms. Developmental Psychology, 25, 954–962.
81.
*MeltzoffA. N.MooreM. K. (1992). Early imitation within a functional framework: The importance of person identity, movement, and development. Infant Behavior and Development, 15, 479–505.
82.
*MeltzoffA. N.MooreM. K. (1994). Imitation, memory, and the representation of persons. Infant Behavior and Development, 17, 83–99.
83.
MeltzoffA. N.MurrayL.SimpsonE.HeimannM.NagyE.NadelJ.. . . SubiaulF. (2018). Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016): Evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion. Developmental Science, 21, Article e12609. doi:10.1111/desc.12609
84.
MunderT.BrutschO.LeonhartR.GergerH.BarthJ. (2013). Researcher allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: An overview of reviews. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 501–511. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.02.002
85.
MurrayL.SclafaniV.RaysonH.De PascalisL.BozicevicL.FerrariP. (2017). Beyond aerodigestion: Exaptation of feeding-related mouth movements for social communication in human and nonhuman primates. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e397. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001941
NadelJ.ButterworthG. (1999). Imitation in infancy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
88.
*NagyE.KompagneH.OrvosH.PalA. (2007). Gender-related differences in neonatal imitation. Infant and Child Development, 16, 267–276.
89.
NagyE.MolnarP. (2004). Homo imitans or homo provocans? Human imprinting model of neonatal imitation. Infant Behavior and Development, 27, 54–63.
90.
*NagyE.PalA.OrvosH. (2014). Learning to imitate individual finger movements by the human neonate. Developmental Science, 17, 841–857.
91.
NagyE.PillingK.BlakeV.OrvosH. (2019). Positive evidence for neonatal imitation: A general response, adaptive engagement. Developmental Science, 23, Article e12894. doi:10.1111/desc.12894
92.
NakagawaS.CuthillI. C. (2007). Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: A practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews, 82, 591–605.
93.
NielsenM.TomaselliK. (2010). Overimitation in Kalahari Bushman children and the origins of human cultural cognition. Psychological Science, 21, 729–736.
94.
OostenbroekJ.SlaughterV.NielsenM.SuddendorfT. (2013). Why the confusion around neonatal imitation? A review. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 31, 328–341.
95.
*OostenbroekJ.SuddendorfT.NielsenM.RedshawJ.Kennedy-CostantiniS.DavisJ.. . . SlaughterV. (2016). Comprehensive longitudinal study challenges the existence of neonatal imitation in humans. Current Biology, 26, 1334–1338.
96.
O’SullivanE.CaldwellC. (2017). Infant orofacial movements: Inputs, if not outputs, of early imitative ability?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e398. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001953
97.
PempekT. A.KirkorianH. L.RichardsJ. E.AndersonD. R.LundA. F.StevensM. (2010). Video comprehensibility and attention in very young children. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1283–1293. doi:10.1037/a0020614
98.
PiagetJ. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
99.
ProvineR. (2017). Philosopher’s disease and its antidote: Perspectives from prenatal behavior and contagious yawning and laughing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e399. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001254
100.
RayE.HeyesC. (2011). Imitation in infancy: The wealth of the stimulus. Developmental Science, 14, 92–105.
101.
R Core Team. (XXXX). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version XX) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
102.
RedshawJ. (2019). Re-analysis of data reveals no evidence for neonatal imitation in rhesus macaques. Biology Letters, 15(7), Article 20190342. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2019.0342
103.
RedshawJ.NielsenM.SlaughterV.Kennedy-CostantiniS.OostenbroekJ.CrimstonJ.SuddendorfT. (2020). Individual differences in neonatal “imitation” fail to predict early social cognitive behaviour. Developmental Science, 23(2), Article e12891. doi:10.1111/desc.12892.
104.
*ReisslandN. (1988). Neonatal imitation in the first hour of life: Observations in rural Nepal. Developmental Psychology, 24, 464–489.
105.
RosenthalR. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
106.
RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (Eds.). (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
107.
ShinskeyJ. L.JachensL. J. (2014). Picturing objects in infancy. Child Development, 85, 1813–1820.
108.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.
109.
SimonsohnU.NelsonL. D.SimmonsJ. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 534–547.
110.
SimpsonE. A.MaylottS. E.HeimannM.SubiaulF.PauknerA.SuomiS. J.FerrariP. F. (2017). Animal studies help clarify misunderstandings about neonatal imitation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e400. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001965
111.
SimpsonE. A.MurrayL.PauknerA.FerrariP. F. (2014). The mirror neuron system as revealed through neonatal imitation: Presence from birth, predictive power and evidence of plasticity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369, Article 20130289. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0289
112.
SinghJ. P.GrannM.FazelS. (2013). Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 8(9), Article e72484. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072484
113.
*SohS.-E.TintM. T.GluckmanP. D.GodfreyK. M.Rifkin-GraboiA.ChanY. H., . . . The GUSTO Study Group. (2009). [Growing up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes (GUSTO) birth cohort study.] Unpublished raw data.
114.
*SoussignanR.CourtialA.CanetP.Danon-ApterG.NadelJ. (2011). Human newborns match tongue protrusion of disembodied human and robotic mouths. Developmental Science, 14, 385–394.
115.
SuddendorfT.OostenbroekJ.NielsenM.SlaughterV. P. (2013). Is newborn imitation developmentally homologous to later social-cognitive developments?Developmental Psychobiology, 55, 52–58.
116.
SullivanG. M.FeinnR. (2012). Using effect size – Or why the p value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4, 279–282.
117.
SuttonA. J.DuvalS. J.TweedieR. L.AbramsK. R.JonesD. R. (2000). Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ, 320, 1574–1577.
118.
TennieC.CallJ.TomaselloM. (2009). Ratcheting up the ratchet: On the evolution of cumulative culture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364, 2405–2415.
119.
TomaselloM.KrugerA. C.RatnerH. H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 495–552.
120.
TrevarthenC.AitkenK. J. (2001). Infant intersubjectivity: Research, theory, and clinical applications. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 3–48.
121.
*UllstadiusE. (1998). Neonatal imitation in a mother-infant setting. Early Development and Parenting, 7, 1–8.
122.
UzgirisI. C.HuntJ. M. (1975). Assessment in infancy: Ordinal scales of psychological development. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
123.
van BaarenR. B.HollandR. W.KawakamiK.Van KnippenbergA. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15, 71–74.
124.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.
125.
VinciniS.JhangY.BuderE. H.GallagherS. (2017a). Neonatal imitation: Theory, experimental design, and significance for the field of social cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1323. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01323
126.
VinciniS.JhangY.BuderE.GallagherS. (2017b). An unsettled debate: Key empirical and theoretical questions are still open. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e401. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001977
127.
WhitenA.McGuiganN.Marshall-PesciniS.HopperL. M. (2009). Emulation, imitation, over-imitation and the scope of culture for child and chimpanzee. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364, 2417–2428.
128.
ZappettiniS. (2017). Ecological validity, embodiment, and killjoy explanations in developmental psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e402. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001989
129.
ZwaanR. A.EtzA.LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B. (2018). Making replication mainstream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, Article e120. doi:10.1017/S0140525X17001972
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
