Twenty years of bogus pipeline research: A critical review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

The bogus pipeline (BPL), a procedure intended to improve the truthfulness of self-reports, was examined in terms of the validity of its effects, its optimal procedural format, and its appropriate domain of use. Social psychological research that has used the BPL is reviewed and meta-analyzed. Thirty-one studies were coded for effect size and relevant procedural characteristics. A significant mean BPL versus control condition effect was evident across these studies, indicating that the BPL engendered reliable effects consistent with a reduction in socially desirable responding. The BPL produced larger effects when task instructions required Ss to guess the BPLs output. These findings, coupled with previous indirect validation, provide reasonable documentation that the BPL shifts self-reports toward veracity. Past criticisms of the BPL are considered, and recommendations for its future use are made.For words, like Nature, half reveal And half conceal the Soul within.-Alfred, Lord Tennyson, In MemoriamPsychologists have long attempted to measure accurately individuals' attitudes and opinions. Ultimately, a direct pipeline to the soul has been desired, a method that somehow pierces through strategic facades and bypasses the concealing words of which Tennyson wrote. Such a direct pipeline is clearly not possible, but in their pioneering 1971 article, Edward Jones and Harold Sigall described a "bogus" pipeline (BPL) to the soul, a procedure ostensibly providing a far closer approximation of the contents of souls than was previously possible with traditional paper-and-pencil (PP) questionnaires. By convincing subjects that a physiological measurement apparatus was capable of recording their genuine attitudes and opinions, the BPL was thought to invoke a motivation in subjects to offer more veracious self-reports.

On preferences and doing the right thing: Satisfaction with advantageous inequity when cognitive processing is limited

“…Roese and Jamieson (1993) suggest that an obvious way to accomplish this would be to associate reactions in the domain of interest with responses on impression management or social desirability scales. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no equity studies that have incorporated one of these scales.…”

“…In addition, Roese and Jamieson (1993) noted in their thorough review of the bogus pipeline research that when researchers wish to import the bogus pipeline procedure to their research domain in an eVort to reduce impression management and social desirability eVects, they should Wrst demonstrate that some form of impression management bias indeed inXuences reactions in the domain of interest. Roese and Jamieson (1993) suggest that an obvious way to accomplish this would be to associate reactions in the domain of interest with responses on impression management or social desirability scales.…”

Common method variance and other sources of bias in road traffic research

“…The request to access this information was made at this point so as not to influence the self-reported responses as has been suggested could occur in line with the bogus pipeline effect (Roese & Jamieson, 1993). As mentioned earlier, the bogus pipeline is a technique that involves participants being informed prior to completing a survey that their responses will be verified.…”

“…It is argued that an awareness, or at least a perception that this additional process will occur, reduces motivation for providing socially desirable responses. In their review and meta-analysis, Roese and Jamieson (1993) found that employing this technique can improve the veracity of responses provided by study participants. The capacity to independently verify data is not generally available to researchers using self-report data.…”

“…The bogus pipeline refers to a methodology that involves survey participants being informed prior to completing a survey that their responses will be verified against independent data (Roese & Jamieson, 1993).…”