Mind-Body Practices and Self-Enhancement: Direct Replications of Gebauer et al.’s (2018) Experiments 1 and 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mind-body practices such as yoga and meditation are often believed to instill a “quiet ego,” entailing less self-enhancement. In two experiments, however, Gebauer et al. (2018) demonstrated that mind-body practices may actually increase self-enhancement, particularly because such practices become self-central bases for self-esteem. We conducted preregistered replications of both of Gebauer et al.’s experiments. Experiment 1 was a field study of Canadian yoga students ( N = 97), and Experiment 2 was a multiwave meditation intervention among Canadian university students ( N = 300). Our results supported Gebauer et al.’s original conclusions that mind-body practices increase self-enhancement. Although the self-centrality effects were not clearly replicated in either experiment, we found evidence that measurement and sampling differences may explain this discrepancy. Moreover, an integrative data analysis of the original and the replication data strongly supported all of Gebauer et al.’s conclusions. In short, we provide new evidence against the ego-quieting perspective and in support of the self-centrality interpretation of mind-body practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".