In press at the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Total length: 5 pages, double-spaced. IN DEFENSE OF DILIGENCE: A REJOINDER TO PELHAM AND CARVALLO

In Simonsohn (2011) I report the results from 14 studies that suggest all existing evidence of implicit egotism in marriage, job and location decisions is spurious. Lack of diligence by Pelham and colleagues explains in great part why the confounds behind their findings were not addressed in time. They almost never included controls, were dismissive of blatant alternative explanations, and on occasion misreported factual information that made confounds appear less important. Their rebuttal is similarly lacking in diligence. The specific empirical concerns it raises are contradicted by evidence, logic, or both. It reports misleading examples and inaccurate facts (some regarding the authors’ own data). In this rejoinder I address all specific issues they raise about the empirics of my paper. I then provide perhaps the most striking example of lack of diligence in their earlier work. I close on a constructive note, providing two concrete suggestions on how to analyze data in future implicit egotism studies.