Curate Science - Curated Content
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJAKALAMANAOAPAQARASATAUAVAWAX
1
target.effectorig.study.numberrep.study.numberorig.Norig.ES.typeorig.ESorig.ES.CIrep.Nrep.ES.typerep.ESrep.ES.CIrep.outcomeIVsDVsrep.typerep.effort.typerep.method.differencesrep.active.sample.evidenceother.outcomesES.descriptionEC.URLorig.study.article.URL
orig.study.article.DOI
rep.study.article.URLrep.pre.reg.URLrep.open.materials.URLrep.open.data.URLorig.open.data.URLorig.open.materials.URLorig.pre.reg.URLrep.populationdisciplineorig.study.pub.yearreporting.standard.usedeffect.descriptiondesignstatistical.effect.typeorig.test.statisticorig.pvaluerep.outcome.bayesianorig.article.titleRPP.orig.untransformed.ESRPP.rep.untransformed.ESRPP.interpretationRPP.study.numberstudy.order.CSrep.num.in.setsocial.priminginclude.in.HTML.tablerep.num
2
rebel vs obedient liking effectMonin et al. (2008) Study 4Holubar & Frank (2015)67r.35.2275r.16.22no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #1http://www.ask-force.org/web/Discourse/Monin-Rejection-Moral-Rebels-2008.pdf
10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.76
https://osf.io/a4fmg/https://osf.io/pz0my/https://osf.io/pz0my/social2008Decreased liking for rebels compared to obedient confederates (in non-self-affirmed control condition) eliminated in self-affirmed conditionANOVA, omnibusmain effectF(2, 64) = 10.17<.01The rejection of moral rebels: Resenting those who do the right thing.η²(N=67) = .241η²(N=75) = .052unsuccessful4311yes1
3
implicit-explicit correspondence effectPayne et al. (2008) Study 4Vianello (2015)70r.35.22180r.15.14signal - inconsistent, smallervery closeRPP #2https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0b28/0b8e08cd35cce13fc6cca1a25dc2b9a7e696.pdf
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.16
https://osf.io/79y8g/https://osf.io/rc6mv/https://osf.io/rc6mv/social2008Positive relation between indirect ratings (AMP) and direct ratings (of Black vs. White faces) stronger in low (compared to high) pressure to respond in socially desirable manner conditions.hierarchical multiple linear regressioncorrelationt(67) = 3.08<.01Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit.R²(N=70) = .09R²(N=180) = .016successful4422yes2
4
young acquiescent variability effectSoto, John et al. (2008) Study 1Soderberg (2015)230047r.020455326r.020signal - consistentvery closeRPP #3https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0f4f/d4199114ba21c832edc1800d92fd5c5f4034.pdf
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718
https://osf.io/6zdct/https://osf.io/kez47/https://osf.io/kez47/social2008Younger respondents show greater variability (variance) in acquiescent response tendencies than older respondents.Levene's test for equality of variancemain effectF(21, 230025) = 118.15<.001The developmental psychometrics of big five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20.F(21, 230025)(N=230047) = 118.15F(21, 455304)(N=455326) = 261.93successful4633yes3
5
anxious attachment mortality effectCox, Arndt et al. (2008) Study 6Wissink, Zeelenberg et al. (2015)100r.23.19200r-.05.14no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #4https://osf.io/uhnd2/https://osf.io/5tbxf/https://osf.io/5tbxf/social2008Increased relative preference for parent among mortality-salience induced Ps scoring low on avoidance but high on anxiety compared to control conditions (dental pain)independent samples t-testmain effectt(92)= -2.220.03Terror management and adults' attachment to their parents: The safe haven remains.f²(N=100) = .289f²(N=200) = .05unsuccessful4844yes4
6
action priming boosts cognitive performanceAlbarracin et al. (2008) Study 5Kim, Frank et al. (2015)36r.38.3088r-.03.21no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #5https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dac5/23772e965444540d31e0fb743464fbb56b0e.pdf?_ga=2.187221102.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/a0012833
https://osf.io/2pbaf/https://osf.io/vy1bc/https://osf.io/vy1bc/social2008Ps primed with action words correctly solved higher number of SAT-type verbal and math problems than Ps primed with inaction words.ANOVAmain effectF(1, 34) = 5.680.02Increasing and decreasing motor and cognitive output: A model of general action and inaction goals.η²(N=36) = .143η²(N=88) = .001unsuccessful4955yesyes5
7
action priming boosts # of thoughts effectAlbarracin et al. (2008) Study 7Voracek & Sonnleitner (2015)98r.21.19109r.16.19no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #6German instead of English languagehttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dac5/23772e965444540d31e0fb743464fbb56b0e.pdf?_ga=2.187221102.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/a0012833
https://osf.io/xbyqd/https://osf.io/rgm6p/https://osf.io/rgm6p/social2008Action-word primed Ps completing an inactive task generated a greater number of thoughts compared to inaction-primed Ps completing an active task, with no difference in thoughts in control conditions. between ANOVAinteractionF(2, 92) = 4.360.02Increasing and decreasing motor and cognitive output: A model of general action and inaction goals.η²(N=98) = .087η²(N=105) = .049unsuccessful5066yesyes6
8
affective incoherence effectCenterbar, Schnall et al. (2008) Study 5Humphries, Brown et al. (2015)133r.21.16113r.09.18no signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #7https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f67/facff28bac9ae369ec0e635863c25fa147e3.pdf?_ga=2.187221102.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.560
https://osf.io/wcgx5/https://osf.io/l8srm/https://osf.io/l8srm/social2008Affective coherence increased cognitive complexity in participant-generated narratives compared to affective incoherence.RM ANOVAinteractionF(1, 131) = 5.79<.02Affective incoherence: When affective concepts and embodied reactions clash.η²(N=133) = .040η²(N=113) = .014unsuccessful5277yes7
9
intergroup bias regulation effectAmodio, Devine et al. (2008) Study 2Johnson, Graham et al. (2015)48r.38.2575r.08.23no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #8https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f071/dae9159b3f93e540c928692dfbd6097bc1bf.pdf?_ga=2.187221102.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.60
https://osf.io/ysxmf/https://osf.io/wkgpq/https://osf.io/wkgpq/social2008Low-prejudice Ps whose non-prejudiced responses were motivated by internal (but not external) factors exhibited better control on a stereotype-inhibition task than did Ps motivated by a combination of internal and external factors.mixed ANOVAinteractionF(1, 31) = 5.140.03Individual differences in the regulation of intergroup bias: The role of conflict monitoring and neural signals for control.η²(N=48) = .16η²(N=75) = .006unsuccessful5388yes8
10
action-oriented mindset dissonance effectHarmon-Jones et al. (2008) Study 2Gable & Mechin (2015)57r.23.2671r.07.24no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #9https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/df6f/78f60a3aef237604e02636657343f0e4e974.pdf?_ga=2.227535963.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.1
https://osf.io/zpwne/https://osf.io/su6bm/https://osf.io/su6bm/social2008Action-oriented mindset caused attitude changes from pre- to post-decision to both chosen and rejected alternatives, whereas positive-nonaction and neutral mindsets caused attitude changes solely to rejected alternative. RM ANOVAinteractionF(2, 54) = 3.19<.05Left frontal cortical activation and spreading of alternatives: Tests of the action-based model of dissonance.η²(N=57) = .11η²(N=71) = .01unsuccessful5599yes9
11
anger communication bargaining effectvan Dijk, van Kleef et al. (2008) Study 3Voracek & Slowik (2015)103r.38.1783r-.04.22no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #10https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/16af/db45ada4a1951aa464be49ef82ac6eebf0c1.pdf?_ga=2.227535963.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.600
https://osf.io/2idfu/https://osf.io/xtsq6/https://osf.io/xtsq6/social2008Ps made lower bargaining offers to angry (compared to happy) recipients than happy, but only when consequences of rejection were low. ANOVAmain effectF(1, 99) = 16.62<.0001A social functional approach to emotions in bargaining: when communicating anger pays and when it backfires.η²(N=103) = .143d(N=83) = .082unsuccessful561010yes10
12
walking on eggshells effectLemay & Clark (2008a) Study 5Baranski (2015)186r.17.14280r.04.12no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #11https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7d50/911e5a1e8199449e74e82ab7515c33695ff8.pdf?_ga=2.227535963.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.420
https://osf.io/efjn3/https://osf.io/ke43j/https://osf.io/ke43j/social2008Ps believed confederate's expressions were happier than their private feelings, but only in vulnerable conditions. RM ANOVAinteractionF(1, 182) = 5.24<.05Walking on eggshells: How expressing relationship insecurities perpetuates them.η²(N=186) = .028η²(N=280) = .001unsuccessful581111yes11
13
head liberates heart effectLemay & Clark (2008b) Study 5Marigold, Forest et al. (2015)153.68216b.72signal - consistentvery closeRPP #12https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b10/2f1d04ba874821f66569d41683070b783bd5.pdf?_ga=2.227535963.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.647
https://osf.io/mv3i7/https://osf.io/h84qd/https://osf.io/h84qd/social2008Ps own responsiveness was a significant predictor of their perception of their partners' responsiveness.multilevel modelregressionb = .68<.001How the head liberates the heart: Projection of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion.level 1 R²(N=153) = .68b(N=216) = .72successful591212yes12
14
poignancy effectErsner-Hershfield et al. (2008) Study 2Talhelm, Eggleston, & Lee (2015a)110r.22.18222r.00.14no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #13https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/72a0/2b6869a1330a4090a9ddfb21674c6a0e21fe.pdf?_ga=2.139570293.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.158
https://osf.io/fw6hv/https://osf.io/sq8k9/https://osf.io/sq8k9/social2008Ps (college seniors) reminded they were experiencing their last day as students at graduation reported fewer mixed emotions than Ps not reminded.independent-samples t-testmain effectt(108) = -2.34<.05Poignancy: Mixed emotional experience in the face of meaningful endings.d(N=110) = +.45d(N=222) = -.01unsuccessful611313yes13
15
modulation of 1/f noise racial bias emission effectCorrell (2008) Study 2LeBel (2015) Study 171r.27.22148r.07.16no signal - inconsistentavoid/use race information vs. control instructions1/f noise (weapon identification task)very closeRPP #14Canadian rather than US undergraduates; keyboard used instead of response box;Racial bias (in terms of RT) higher in use and avoid race (compared to control) conditions (d = .34 ± .35); 1/f noise observed within each of the 3 conditions (p<.0001)https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/correll(2008).pdf
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.48
https://osf.io/hzka3/https://osf.io/fejxb/https://osf.io/fejxb/social2008Ps in use-race or avoid-race instruction conditions exhibited less 1/f noise (as reflected in PSD slopes) on WIT than Ps in a control condition.between ANOVA using planned orthogonal contrastscontrastF(1, 68) = 5.52<.021/f noise and effort on implicit measures of bias.d(N=71) = +.59 ± .51d(N=148) = +.16 ± .34unsuccessful631414yes14
16
aggression priming perceptual effectForster, Liberman et al. (2008) Study 1Reinhard (2015)82r.43.1871r.11.24no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #15https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4643/46b57725371f6d93e625699667ad784cb3bd.pdf?_ga=2.197004522.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.579
https://osf.io/sxnu6/https://osf.io/mxryb/https://osf.io/mxryb/social2008Aggression priming increased perceptions of aggression (assimilation effect) among Ps whose processing style induced to be global (or control) whereas it decreased perceptions of aggression (contrast effect) among Ps whose processing style induced to be local.ANOVAinteractionF(2, 76) = 21.57<.0001The effect of global versus local processing styles on assimilation versus contrast in social judgment.η²(N=82) = .362η²(N=71) = .026unsuccessful641515yes15
17
not so innocent effectExline, Baumeister et al. (2008) Study 7Lin & Frank (2015)45r.43.25135r.01.17no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #16https://osf.io/es7ub/https://osf.io/imrx2/https://osf.io/imrx2/social2008Subtly asking Ps questions about their empathic understanding and capability of exhibiting similar transgressions reduced male (but not female) Ps' feelings of vengefulness.ANOVAinteractionF(1, 41) = 9.40<.01Not so innocent: Does seeing one's own capacity for wrongdoing predict forgiveness?η²(N=45) = .186η²(N=135) = .001unsuccessful651616yes16
18
tempting fate effectRisen & Gilovich (2008) Study 6Mathur & Frank (2015)122r.19.17226r.00.13no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #17https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d828/30e4f7686ca44031a62d002bb9349ce6d5be.pdf?_ga=2.160491515.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.293
https://osf.io/nwua6/https://osf.io/sg3su/https://osf.io/sg3su/social2008Tempting fate effect (tempting fate increases perceived likelihood of negative outcomes) amplified under cognitive load compared to a control condition.ANOVAinteractionF(1, 116) = 4.15<.05Why people are reluctant to tempt fate.η²(N=122) = .035η²(N=226) = .000unsuccessful681717yes17
19
cross-cultural nonverbal pride expression effectTracy & Robins (2008) Study 4Sullivan (2015)211Propor.78333Propor.77signal - consistentvery closeRPP #18https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2acf/75b16de98f1e49b8d62dcaddc0e8193488f8.pdf?_ga=2.233351384.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.516
https://osf.io/9uqxr/https://osf.io/qthf2/https://osf.io/qthf2/social2008Ps recognized conveyed emotions as pride at an above chance level, no matter what culture target represented. binomial testbinomial testX<.05The nonverbal expression of pride: Evidence for cross-cultural recognition.Av. Proportion(N=211) = .78Av. proportion(N=333) = .77successful691818yes18
20
Wason task performance and cognitive ability correlationStanovich & West (2008) Study 8Baranski (2015)375r.22.10177r.07.15no signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #19https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/372b/31dd367450ee278ebc6bfe2d50287f893c7d.pdf?_ga=2.233351384.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672
https://osf.io/p3gz2/https://osf.io/7ux8p/https://osf.io/7ux8p/social2008Ps correctly answering Wason's four-card selection task exhibited higher cognitive ability (SAT scores) than Ps answering card task incorrectly.independent samples t-testmain effectt(373) = 4.40<.001On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability.d(N=375) = +.493d(N=177) = +.15unsuccessful711919yes19
21
closed open mind effectBlankenship & Wegener (2008) Study 5aLemm (2015)261r.21.12251r.04.12no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #20https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f853/aa287ee48bcfcfcc1f807fa10faeccc04d0f.pdf?_ga=2.233351384.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.94.2.196
https://osf.io/v3e2z/https://osf.io/2gx4k/https://osf.io/2gx4k/social2008Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments among Ps forced to focus on important values in the messages, but no argument strength effect among Ps forced to focus on unimportant values. ANOVAinteractionF(1, 257) = 11.580.002Opening the mind to close it: Considering a message in light of important values increases message processing and later resistance to change.η²(N=261) = .042η²(N=251) = .002unsuccessful722020yes20
22
descriptive deviant popularity effectMorrison & Miller (2008) Study 3Motyl (2015)37r.32.30120r.20.18signal - consistentvery closeRPP #21https://osf.io/2jwi6/https://osf.io/nhwv5/https://osf.io/nhwv5/social2008Bumper stickers of descriptive deviants rated as more popular than bumper stickers of prescriptive deviants.Pearson's Chi-squared testmain effectX^2(1, N=37) = 3.85<.05Distinguishing between silent and vocal minorities: Not all deviants feel marginal.Φ (phi)(N=37) = .32Φ (phi)(N=120) = .20successful732121yes21
23
(un)accomplished goal action effectKoo & Fishbach (2008) Study 4Kidwell & Dodson (2015)246η².041768703OR.159no signalvery closeRPP #22https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/430d/1ea2b5233cb303dfa5eb39d8e67bd5c84e42.pdf?_ga=2.228124123.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.183
https://osf.io/68m2c/https://osf.io/nr7d9/https://osf.io/nr7d9/social2008Increased donations to HIV/AIDS initiative when emphasizing "to-date" information among Ps who hadn't yet donated, but emphasizing "to-go" information among Ps who had. ANOVAinteractionF(1, 242) = 10.47<.01Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un) accomplished goal actions affect motivation.η²(N=246) = .041OR(N=768703) = .159unsuccessful772222yes22
24
implemental mind-set attitude strength effectHenderson, de Liver et al. (2008) Study 5Lane & Gazarian (2015)46r.26.2870r.16.24no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #23https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/aa89/13651dae184a14a3186c74a9570b80a9ce1a.pdf?_ga=2.38709349.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.396
https://osf.io/cjr7d/https://osf.io/79dey/https://osf.io/79dey/social2008Ps in one-sided focus condition exhibited less ambivalence than participants in two-sided focus condition.ANOVAmain effectF(2, 43) = 3.36<.05The effects of an implemental mind-set on attitude strength.η²(N=46) = .135η²(N=70) = .048unsuccessful802323yes23
25
need for acceptance reconcialiation effectShnabel & Nadler (2008) Study 4E. Gilbert (2015)94r.27.19141r-.10.16no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #24https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9e10/97af99a1b9d8e2e178170bf700feed1fd1d8.pdf?_ga=2.38709349.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116
https://osf.io/fuj2c/https://osf.io/xse7q/https://osf.io/xse7q/social2008Ps in perpetrator condition reported higher need for social acceptance and reconciliation after moral acceptance was restored, whereas Ps in victim condition reported higher need for power and reconciliation after sense of power was restored.between ANOVAinteractionF(1, 90) = 6.98<.05A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation.η²(N=94) = .07η²(N=141) = .010unsuccessful812424yes24
26
face of success effectRule & Ambady (2008) Study 1Talhelm, Eggleston, & Lee (2015b)50r.30.2650r.27.27signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #25https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/71d5/3c7980b9561ffd56e6012b2bbb6685209df3.pdf?_ga=2.38709349.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02054.x
https://osf.io/4peq6/https://osf.io/r5gpv/https://osf.io/r5gpv/social2008Composite ratings of perceived power and leadership positively correlated with company profits, even after controlling for CEO age, CEO attractiveness, and affect CEOs displayed in photo. partial correlationcorrelationr(41) = .30<.05The face of success: inferences from chief executive officers' appearance predict company profits.r(N=50) = +.30r(N=50) = +.27unsuccessful822525yes25
27
selective exposure information quantity effectFischer, Schulz-Hardt et al. (2008) Study 4Ratliff (2015)52r.50.21150r.22.16signal - inconsistent, smallervery closeRPP #26https://osf.io/5afur/https://osf.io/v8vft/https://osf.io/v8vft/social2008Decision-makers prefer inconsistent information when choosing between two pieces of information, but prefer consistent information when choosing between more pieces of information. Pearson's Chi-squared testinteractionX^2(1, N=52) = 13.180.001Selective exposure and information quantity: How different information quantities moderate decision makers' preference for consistent and inconsistent information.d(N=52) = +1.17d(N=150) = +.46successful842626yes26
28
ego depletion confirmatory bias effectFischer, Greitemeyer et al. (2008) Study 2Galliani (2015)85r.21.20140r.12.16no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #27https://osf.io/9pnct/https://osf.io/j8bpa/https://osf.io/j8bpa/social2008Ps whose self-regulation resources depleted exhibited increased biases in confirmatory information processing compared to non-depleted and ego-threatened condition Psbetween ANOVAmain effectF(2, 82) = 4.050.02Self-regulation and selective exposure: The impact of depleted self-regulation resources on confirmatory information processing.η²(N=85) = .09η²(N=140) = .03unsuccessful862727yes27
29
stereotype threat interaction distance effectGoff, Steele et al. (2008) Study 4Kelso, Gampa, Wright et al. (2015)55r.40.2351r.01.28no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #28https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e2d7/50c087773d3d19b488007b16e70aef0a1ce4.pdf?_ga=2.159777915.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.91
https://osf.io/7q5us/https://osf.io/abxcj/https://osf.io/abxcj/social2008When learning goals absent, Ps sat closer to each other when they discussed love and relationships compared to when they discussed racial profiling. between ANOVAinteractionF(1, 51) = 9.46<.01The space between us: Stereotype threat and distance in interracial contexts.η²(N=55) = .16η²(N=51) = .002unsuccessful872828yes28
30
generalized earning prospect predicts romantic interest effectEastwick & Finkel (2008) Study 1Selterman, Chagnon et al. (2015)163r.14.16304r.03.11no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #29https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ec64/e26322c7fdbf9e54981a07693974423f3031.pdf?_ga=2.159777915.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245
https://osf.io/5pjsn/https://osf.io/ng6cc/https://osf.io/ng6cc/social2008Perceived earning prospects significantly positively predicted romantic interest in speed-dating situation for both men and women (absence of evidence for interaction effect).Meta-analytic summary of interaction effects in 14 multilevel modelsinteractiont(26) = 0.720.48Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?r(N=163) = +.04r(N=304) = +.01successful892929yes29
31
approach priming partner criticism effectMurray, Derrick et al. (2008) Study 8Sinclair, Goldberg et al. (2015)91r.32.1876r-.14.22no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #30https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jaye_Derrick/publication/5568464_Balancing_Connectedness_and_Self-Protection_Goals_in_Close_Relationships_A_Levels-of-Processing_Perspective_on_Risk_Regulation/links/0912f50eb380ee6584000000.pdf
10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.429
https://osf.io/3hndq/https://osf.io/cxmf6/https://osf.io/cxmf6/social2008When primed with approach goals, low self-esteem Ps in partner criticism condition believed their partner regarded them significantly more negatively than did controls. hierarchical regression analysesinteractiont(83) = 3.05<.01Balancing connectedness and self-protection goals in close relationships: A levels-of-processing perspective on risk regulation.sr²(N=91) = +.07beta(N=76) = -.231unsuccessful933030yesyes30
32
math self-handicapping effectMcCrea (2008) Study 5Chartier (2015)28r.34.3561r.29.24signal - consistentvery closeRPP #31https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1724/262903b5e1164bf55c1bf263d05761516b68.pdf?_ga=2.159777915.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.274
https://osf.io/ytxgr/https://osf.io/mua6d/https://osf.io/mua6d/social2008Self-handicap condition Ps performed worse on mathematical questions task than control condition Ps.independent samples t-testmain effectt(26) = 1.87<.05Self-handicapping, excuse making, and counterfactual thinking: Consequences for self-esteem and future motivation.d(N=28) = +.736d(N=61) = +.197successful943131yes31
33
social identity contingencies effectPurdie-Vaughns et al. (2008) Study 2Schmidt (2015)90r.38.181490r-.04.05no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #32https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/95f9/403e6b658714ddfdca17ac94b5274cf8f81f.pdf?_ga=2.128443466.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.615
https://osf.io/3rxvs/https://osf.io/etg7c/https://osf.io/etg7c/social2008Among Black, but not White professionals, high (compared to low) fairness cue lowered expectations of threatening identity contingencies and increased trust. ANOVAinteractionF(1, 73) = 12.190.001social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions.η²(N=90) = .143η²(N=1490) = .001unsuccessful973232yes32
34
fluency priming on psychological distance effectAlter & Oppenheimer (2008) Study 2Foster (2015)236r.13.121146r.02.06no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #33https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/75b8/524267afcc74aa0d317689c8b6d28bb3d3f0.pdf?_ga=2.128443466.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02062.x
https://osf.io/jym7h/https://osf.io/kegmc/https://osf.io/kegmc/social2008Conceptually-fluent primed Ps reported increased preference for concrete descriptions of the prime later, compared to conceptually-disfluent primed Ps. Pearson's Chi-squared testmain effectX^2(1, N=236) = 3.830.05Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle).Φ (phi)(N=236) = .13Φ (phi)(N=1146) = .02unsuccessful1043333yesyes33
35
goal priming boosts learning effectEitam, Hassin et al. (2008) Study 2Prenoveau & Kirkhart (2015)86r.22.20158r.10.16no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #34http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~mschul/yaacov_schul_files/2008-eitam%26hassin%26schul-psych-science.pdf
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02078.x
https://osf.io/x75fq/https://osf.io/edcr7/https://osf.io/edcr7/social2008Goal primed Ps learned more on an incidental-learning task (serial reaction time task; SRT) than control-group Ps.independent samples t-testmain effectt(84) = 2.09prep = .92Nonconscious goal pursuit in novel environments: The case of implicit learning.d(N=86) = +.45d(N=158) = -.21unsuccessful1073434yesyes34
36
sex difference in perceived sexual interest effectFarris, Treat et al. (2008) Study 1Attwood, Easey, & Munafo (2015)280r.55.08144r.09.16no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #35https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7506/0955a43d0c40d1e10ffee2f66b23c4f912fe.pdf?_ga=2.160367867.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02092.x
https://osf.io/5u4km/https://osf.io/7dyp5/https://osf.io/7dyp5/social2008Male Ps exhibited less sensitivity in distinguishing friendliness versus sexual interest compared to women (supporting a male perceptual insensitivity account).general linear modelinteractionF(1, 278) = 123.38<.001Perceptual mechanisms that characterize gender differences in decoding women's sexual intentη²(N=280) = .326η²(N=144) = .008unsuccessful1103535yes35
37
prescribed optimism effectArmor, Massey et al. (2008) Study 1Lassetter, Brandt et al. (2015)126r.68.10177r.76.06signal - inconsistent, largervery closeRPP #36https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebcb/12ed8b27bfe3588e8f9b994f4acc914f050e.pdf?_ga=2.160367867.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02089.x
https://osf.io/8u5v2/https://osf.io/qlzap/https://osf.io/qlzap/social2008Among accurate, optimistic, or pessimistic predictions, Ps most likely to recommend optimistic predictions. single sample t-testmain effectt(124) =10.36prep > .99Prescribed optimism: Is it right to be wrong about the future?d(N=125) = +.93d(N=177) = +1.18successful1133636yes36
38
age-related episodic memory effectAddis, Wong et al. (2008) Study 1Vasquez (2015)32r.57.2632r.65.22signal - consistentvery closeRPP #37http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/schacterlab/files/addiswongschacter2008.pdf
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02043.x
https://osf.io/9ayxi/https://osf.io/yaeu7/https://osf.io/yaeu7/social2008Older adults produced fewer internal details, but more external details compared to young adults. RM ANOVAmain effectF(1,30) = 14.49prep = .99Age-related changes in the episodic simulation of future eventsη²(N=32)= .326η²(N=32) = .426successful1143737yes37
39
ego depletion boosts attraction effectMasicampo & Baumeister (2008) Study 1Osborne, Vuu, & Henninger (2015)115r.21.18166r-.05.16no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #38https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2820/47d5641dcba11516a64d6f082154c0ab79a9.pdf?_ga=2.228131675.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02077.x
https://osf.io/897ew/https://osf.io/3h29d/https://osf.io/3h29d/social2008Ps in depletion/placebo group exhibited larger attraction effect compared to Ps in other three conditions (depletion with sugar, no depletion with sugar, no depletion with placebo). ANOVAfocused interaction contrastF(1, 111) = 5.311prep = .92Toward a physiology of dual-process reasoning and judgment: lemonade, willpower, and expensive rule-based analysis.η²(N=115) = .045η²(N=166) = .002unsuccessful1183838yes38
40
aversive errors effectHajcak & Foti (2008) Study 1Lewis & Pitts (2015)31r-.38.3243r-.25.29no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #39https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4909/934881166b7b8e4c35c6f059bf2cf3952dcb.pdf
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02053.x
https://osf.io/82bwv/https://osf.io/73pnd/https://osf.io/73pnd/social2008Startle response magnitude following an error negatively correlated to Error-Related Negativity (ERN) amplitude.zero-order correlationcorrelationr = -.38<.05Errors Are Aversive: Defensive Motivation and the Error-Related Negativityr(N=31) = -.38r(N=43) = -.25unsuccessful1203939yes39
41
sunny side of fairness effectTabibnia, Satpute et al. (2008) Study 2Beer, Rigney, & Flagan (2015)12r.85.2424r.83.15signal - consistentvery closeRPP #40https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2275/5d2aeb2f4f1216ffa0f829e4cf31141c79f9.pdf?_ga=2.228131675.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02091.x
https://osf.io/nxp9w/https://osf.io/94j6h/https://osf.io/94j6h/social2008Accepting unfair offers increased activation in right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex compared to baselinedependent samples t-testmain effectt(11) = 5.39prep = .99The sunny side of fairness: Preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry)d(N=12) = +3.25d(N=24) = +2.22successful1214040yes40
42
loving woman who justify inequality effectLau, Kay & Spencer (2008) Study 1Stieger (2015)36r.38.3070r-.03.24no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #41https://u.osu.edu/spencerlab/files/2017/02/j2E1467-92802E20082E020402Ex-ov88xp.pdf
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02040.x
https://osf.io/42hgf/https://osf.io/fxqsk/https://osf.io/fxqsk/social2008Male Ps whose faith in economic system was threatened reported greater romantic interest in women who embody (versus did not embody) benevolent sexist idealsANOVAinteractionF(1, 34) = 5.89prep = .93Loving those who justify inequality: the effects of system threat on attraction to women who embody benevolent sexist ideals.η²(N=36) = .147η²(N=70) = .001unsuccessful1244141yes41
43
threat of appearing prejudiced attentional bias effectRicheson & Trawalter (2008) Study 1Lai (2015)28r.37.3466r.02.24no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #42https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d43/78b38e48bbfaa4ea06765f14709abb5ac39b.pdf?_ga=2.198763753.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02052.x
https://osf.io/phwi4/https://osf.io/c5fza/https://osf.io/c5fza/social2008Ps with high "external motivation" (EM) to be non-prejudiced exhibited attentional biases for neutral, but not happy Black faces. mixed ANOVAinteractionF(1, 26) = 4.17prep = .92The threat of appearing prejudiced and race-based attentional biases.d(N=28) = +.80η²(N=66) = .00unsuccessful1294242yes42
44
offensive behavior looking effectCrosby, Monin et al. (2008) Study 1Skorinko & Jonas (2015)25r.25.4030r.18.36no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #43https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5458/e25a697d427d5647dda42fa4989188894d2f.pdf?_ga=2.198763753.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02072.x
https://osf.io/nkaw4/https://osf.io/b98zw/https://osf.io/b98zw/social2008When White man made potentially offensive comment in presence of Black man, Ps who could hear interaction looked at Black man for a longer compared to when Ps couldnt hear interaction. mixed ANOVAinteractionF(3, 69) = 5.15<.005Where do we look during potentially offensive behavior?η²(N=25) = .18η²(N=30) = .048unsuccessful1324343yes43
45
having what you want happiness effectLarsen & McKibban (2008) Study 2Seibel, Vermue et al. (2015)119r.21.18238r.50.09signal - inconsistent, largervery closeRPP #44http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1027.2039&rep=rep1&type=pdf
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02095.x
https://osf.io/h4cbg/https://osf.io/5dx4v/https://osf.io/5dx4v/social2008People who had what they wanted were happier than others, even after controlling for the degree to which they wanted what they had. Partial correlationcorrelationpr = .21prep = .92Is happiness having what you want, wanting what you have, or both?pr(N=119) = +.21pr(N=238) = +.497successful1344444yes44
46
implicit attitude generalization occurs immediately effectRanganath & Nosek (2008) Study 1Cohn (2015)684r.00.083597r.11.04signal - inconsistent, largervery closeRPP #45https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9259/4542085ad219d5a5c611c16a8cd62c06785d.pdf?_ga=2.167774311.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02076.x
https://osf.io/9xt25/https://osf.io/2gkjt/https://osf.io/2gkjt/social2008Information about original individuals automatically influenced Ps' implicit responses toward new individuals from same social category.t-testmain effectt(562) = -0.11prep = .18Implicit attitude generalization occurs immediately; explicit attitude generalization takes timed(N=564) = -.004d(N=3597) = +.21unsuccessful1354545yes45
47
anti-free-will boosts cheating effectVohs & Schooler (2008) Study 1Giner-Sorolla, Embley et al. (2015)30r.50.3058r.10.26no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #46https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a20c/fba85021eabd83780f3042636e8a3de8e58a.pdf?_ga=2.167774311.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02045.x
https://osf.io/2nf3u/https://osf.io/i29mh/https://osf.io/i29mh/social2008Ps who read anti-free-will essay cheated more often that Ps who read a control essay.independent samples t-testmain effectt(28) = 3.04<.01The value of believing in free will: Encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating.d(N=30) = +.88d(N=58) = +.20unsuccessful1364646yes46
48
distance priming boosts psychological closeness effectWilliams & Bargh (2008) Study 4Joy-Gaba, Clay, & Cleary (2015)84r.23.20125r.04.18no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #47https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e63b/2302efaa97ed0909dd5a42221e6b6524a28d.pdf?_ga=2.167774311.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02084.x
https://osf.io/7uh8g/https://osf.io/vnsqg/https://osf.io/vnsqg/social2008Distance-primed Ps reported higher levels of closeness toward one's family members and hometown compared to control condition Ps.ANOVAmain effectF(2, 81) = 4.97prep = .95Keeping one's distance: The influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation.η²(N=84) = .11η²(N=125) = .03unsuccessful1404747yes47
49
hedonic anger regulation effectTamir, Mitchell et al. (2008) Study 1Masicampo (2015)82r.59.1488r.61.13signal - consistentvery closeRPP #48https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/774a/37707de80f2a062f4833b8f01dc4257bd7ec.pdf?_ga=2.167774311.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02088.x
https://osf.io/7i2tf/https://osf.io/k4y9i/https://osf.io/k4y9i/social2008When Ps anticipated playing confrontational games, Ps preferred anger-inducing activities more so than exciting and neutral activities. RM ANOVAinteractionF(2, 162) = 192.89<.001Hedonic and instrumental motives in anger regulation.F(2,162)(N=82) = 192.9ηp²(N=88) = .74 [F(2,174) = 252.8]successful1424848yes48
50
social disconnection boosts supernatural agent beliefs effectEpley, Akalis et al. (2008) Study 3Sandstrom & Dunn (2015)57r.17.2678r.06.23no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #49https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3be8/050244871a888256d769ab247639de174a72.pdf?_ga=2.239477829.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x
https://osf.io/m5a2c/https://osf.io/yuybh/https://osf.io/yuybh/social2008socially disconnected condition Ps reported stronger beliefs in supernatural agents and events (and attributed more social traits to pets) compared to control condition Ps.mixed ANOVAinteractionF(4, 108) = 3.670.01Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds.η²(N=57) = .12η²(N=78) = .02unsuccessful1434949yes49
51
intergroup prisoners dilemma-maximizing difference effectHalevy, Bornstein et al. (2008) Study 1Thomae, Woo, & Immelman (2015)80r.77.0940r.65.20signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #50https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f74/6a26fc71e57ab3733b079ba005dcca25321a.pdf
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02100.x
https://osf.io/sjwcd/https://osf.io/76qc5/https://osf.io/76qc5/social2008Ps in an intergroup prisoners dilemma-maximizing difference (IPD-MD) game contributed fewer tokens than Ps in an intergroup prisoners dilemma (IPD) game.t-testmain effectF(1, 76) = 109.740ÏIn_Group Love? and ÏOut_Group Hate? as Motives for Individual Participation in Intergroup Conflict: A New Game Paradigmη²(N=240) = .59η²(N=120) = .426successful1455050yes50
52
ovulation boosts attraction to single men effectBressan & Stranieri (2008) Study 2Frazier & Hasselman (2015) Study 1208r.19.14263r-.03.12no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #51https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40064685.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02060.x
https://osf.io/7vriw/https://osf.io/blcj6/https://osf.io/blcj6/social2008Attached women are more attracted to single men when they're ovulating (compared to not ovulating), but are more attracted to attached men when they're not ovulating (compared to ovulating). RM ANOVAinteractionF(1, 194) = 7.160.008The Best Men Are (Not Always) Already Taken: Female Preference for Single Versus Attached Males Depends on Conception Riskf(N=208) = .19η²(N=263) = .001unsuccessful1485151yes51
53
ovulation boosts attraction to single men effectBressan & Stranieri (2008) Study 2Frazier & Hasselman (2015) Study 2208r.19.14318r.02.11no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #52https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40064685.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02060.x
https://osf.io/7vriw/https://osf.io/blcj6/https://osf.io/blcj6/social2008Attached women are more attracted to single men when they're ovulating (compared to not ovulating), but are more attracted to attached men when they're not ovulating (compared to ovulating). RM ANOVAinteractionF(1, 194) = 7.160.008The Best Men Are (Not Always) Already Taken: Female Preference for Single Versus Attached Males Depends on Conception Riskf(N=208) = .19η²(N=318) = 0.000unsuccessful1495252yes52
54
cleanliness primingSchnall, Benton & Harvey (2008) Study 2Cheung et al. (2015) Study 243r-.40.26126r.00.18no signal - inconsistenthand washing vs. control conditionmoral wrongness (6 moral dilemmas)very closeRPP #53US rather than UK undergraduatesα = .62 on private body consciousness (PBC) subscalecollections/cleanliness-priming.htmlhttps://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1335179.pdf
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x
https://osf.io/2dem3/https://osf.io/apidb/https://osf.io/apidb/social2008After experiencing disgust, Ps who washed their hands judged questionable behaviors as less morally wrong than Ps who did not wash their hands. between ANOVAmain effectF(1, 41) = 7.81prep = .97With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments.d(N=43) = -.85 ± .62d(N=126) = +.02 ± .35unsuccessful1515353yesyes53
55
conscientiousness validity correlationHeine, Buchtel et al. (2008) Study 1Lazarevic & Knezevic (2015)70r-.43.2016r-.11.53no signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #54http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~heine/docs/2008Mccrae-rejoinder.pdf
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02085.x
https://osf.io/g4hn3/https://osf.io/siaqe/https://osf.io/siaqe/social2008Perceptions of National Characters (PNC) measure negatively correlated with behavioural and demographic measures of conscientiousness (validity criteria).correlationcorrelationr = -0.43XWhat Do Cross_National Comparisons of Personality Traits Tell Us? The Case of Conscientiousnessr(N=70) = -.43r(N=16) = -.11successful1545454yes54
56
social dominance verticality embodiment effectMoeller, Robinson et al. (2008) Study 2Levitan & Fernandez-Castilla (2015)53r-.31.2572r.03.24no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #55https://sci-hub.tw/http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02093.x
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02093.x
https://osf.io/7dybc/https://osf.io/tg2wd/https://osf.io/tg2wd/social2008Ps scoring high in dominance exhibited faster RTs to vertical compare to horizontal stimuli, unlike Ps scoring low in dominance correlationcorrelationr = -.31<.05Personality dominance and preferential use of the vertical dimension of spacer(N=53) = -.31r(N=72) = +.034unsuccessful1555555yesyes55
57
conflict-triggered goal shielding effectGoschke & Dreisbach (2008) Study 1Costantini & Perugini (2015)40r.37.2895r.41.17signal - consistentvery closeRPP #56http://www.uni-regensburg.de/psychologie-paedagogik-sport/psychologie-dreisbach/medien/goschkedreisbachpssc08.pdf
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02042.x
https://osf.io/pnius/https://osf.io/bk53t/https://osf.io/bk53t/social2008Interaction between Perspective Memory (PM) cue dimension and compatibility on mean proportion of errors (missed PM cues).ANOVAinteractionF(1, 38) = 6.21prep = .927Conflict-triggered goal shielding: Response conflicts attenuate background monitoring for prospective memory cues.η²(N=40) = .14η²(N=95) = .17successful1585656yes56
58
relative frequency value heuristic effectDai, Wertenbroch et al. (2008) Study 1Fuchs, Estel, & Goellner (2015)56r.28.2451r-.18.28no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #57https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b84f/8d58d35b9df66ef16e5c65405ecac636a32c.pdf?_ga=2.197521257.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02039.x
https://osf.io/js7gd/https://osf.io/q7f6w/https://osf.io/q7f6w/social2008Ps underestimated number of pictures belonging to category for which they expected to be paid compared to control pictures in non-endowed category.Pearson's Chi-squared testmain effectX^2(1, N=56) = 4.510.037The value heuristic in judgments of relative frequency.w(N=56) = .339w(N=51) = .19unsuccessful1655757yes57
59
tracing attention effectRoelofs (2008) Study 3van Rijn (2015)24r.59.2929r.15.38no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #58https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d87e/e3b2481809ec84244a42e53cea179e443b83.pdf?_ga=2.197521257.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.353
https://osf.io/janu3/https://osf.io/qwkum/https://osf.io/qwkum/cognitive2008Effect of relation between target and distractor was present for picture naming, but absent for word reading.RM ANOVAinteractionF(1, 13) = 7.110.02Tracing attention and the activation flow in spoken word planning using eye movements.η²(N=24) = 0.354η²(N=29) = .02unsuccessful15858yes58
60
repetition blindness for nonwords effectMorris & Still (2008) Study 6Goodbourn (2015)24r.61.2824r.23.40no signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #59https://osf.io/5f42t/https://osf.io/rmvk5/https://osf.io/rmvk5/cognitive2008Repetition blindness (RB) effect observed for nonwords.RM ANOVAmain effectF(1, 23) = 13.71<0.005Now you see it, now you don't: repetition blindness for nonwordsη²(N=24) = .374η²(N=24) = .051unsuccessful25959yes59
61
working memory task switching costs effectLiefooghe, Barouillet et al. (2008) Study 4Plessow, Moschl, & Pavel (2015)25r.42.3532r-.22.35no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #60https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e6af/57197bd1fdb085be8e0301cb60a399c9e87c.pdf?_ga=2.233351384.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.478
https://osf.io/2h4vx/https://osf.io/4dvzb/https://osf.io/4dvzb/cognitive2008Lower recall for low-switch lists with degraded stimuli compared to low-switch lists with normal (non-degraded) stimuli.MANOVAmain effectF(1, 24) = 5.29<0.05Working memory costs of task switching.η²(N=25) = .181η²(N=32) = .046unsuccessful36060yes60
62
retrieval-induced forgetting effectStorm, Bjork & Bjork (2008) Study 1Callahan (2015)240r.23.12270r-.01.12no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #61https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae64/a52dac69038be1691e31913e7fe7d4f19986.pdf?_ga=2.233351384.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.230
https://osf.io/4m3py/https://osf.io/8j9cg/https://osf.io/8j9cg/cognitive2008Larger relearning effect for non-practiced items from practiced categories than non-practiced items from non-practiced categories.mixed ANOVAinteractionF(1, 190) = 10.49<0.001Accelerated relearning after retrieval-induced forgetting: The benefit of being forgotten.η²(N=240) = .052η²(N=270) = .00003unsuccessful46161yes61
63
intermixed-blocked effect revisitedMitchell, Nash & Hall (2008) Study 2Lakens (2015)32r.46.3048r.13.28no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #62https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b618/a19f7652f6177b15c1f497c5efc24e821798.pdf?_ga=2.233351384.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.237
https://osf.io/beckg/https://osf.io/4xdkk/https://osf.io/4xdkk/cognitive2008Intermixed–blocked effect: Intermixed pre-exposure to stimuli lead to better performance (perceptual learning) compared to non-intermixed pre-exposure.RM ANOVAmain effectF(1,31) = 8.38XThe intermixed-blocked effect in human perceptual learning is not the consequence of trial spacing.dz(N=32) = +.51ηp²(N=48) = .02unsuccessful56262yes62
64
independent memory sources for priming & recognition effectBerry, Shanks & Henson (2008) Study 1Meixner & Bruning (2015)24r.59.2932r.40.31signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #63https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4cb1/b8dbbf9f8192c06acf571382c3540d252054.pdf?_ga=2.37610470.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.97
https://osf.io/87gna/https://osf.io/atgp5/https://osf.io/atgp5/cognitive2008Faster RTs to misses compared to correct rejections (suggesting memory sources for priming and recognition are independent).dependent samples t-testmain effectt(23) = 3.550.002A single-system account of the relationship between priming, recognition, and fluency.dz(N=24) = +.724dz(N=32) = +.424successful66363yes63
65
enhanced memory for word order effectBeaman, Neath et al. (2008) Study 2Kleinberg & Kunkels (2015)100r.72.1015r.13.55no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #64https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1804/b24bd7241a64200b824b088d7fd6980da00f.pdf?_ga=2.37610470.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.219
https://osf.io/a6mje/https://osf.io/6n3bm/https://osf.io/6n3bm/cognitive2008Enhanced memory for order of words when word lists contained only short words compared to when word lists only contained long words.dependent samples t-testmain effectt(99) = 10.18<0.05Modeling distributions of immediate memory effects: No strategies needed?d(N=100) = +1.02d(N=15) = +.13unsuccessful76464yes64
66
retrieval-provoked illusory source recollection effectDodson, Darragh et al. (2008) Study 3Calhoun-Sauls (2015)48r.56.2033r-.11.36no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #65https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chad_Dodson/publication/5407191_Stereotypes_and_Retrieval-Provoked_Illusory_Source_Recollections/links/5416ea210cf2788c4b35f3d4/Stereotypes-and-Retrieval-Provoked-Illusory-Source-Recollections.pdf
10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.460
https://osf.io/b9dpu/https://osf.io/c5pbg/https://osf.io/c5pbg/cognitive2008Higher number of incorrect judgments observed for schema-consistent attributions in neutral proportion condition and schema-inconsistent attributions in conflicting proportion condition.ANOVAinteractionF(1, 37) = 17.03<.001Stereotypes and retrieval-provoked illusory source recollections.η²(N=39) = .32η²(N=33) = .012unsuccessful86565yes65
67
comparative distance effect revisitedGanor-Stern & Tzelgov (2008) Study 2Shaki (2015)32r.70.2032r.78.16signal - consistentvery closeRPP #66https://osf.io/7mgwh/https://osf.io/vmipw/https://osf.io/vmipw/cognitive2008Comparative distance effect observed when task required numerical matching.mixed ANOVAmain effectF(1, 28) = 26.69<.001Across-notation automatic numerical processing.ηp²(N=32) = .488ηp²(N=32) = .55successful106666yes66
68
semantic neighborhood density effectMirman & Magnuson (2008) Study 2Bosco & Field (2015)22r.67.2630r.47.30signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #67https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ef29/60a55152ec7e7ea07792496896f777110169.pdf?_ga=2.207086421.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.65
https://osf.io/r57hu/https://osf.io/rvkc5/https://osf.io/rvkc5/cognitive2008Words with many near neighbors (e.g., chicken) associated with increased level of processing (i.e., categorized more slowly) compared to words with few near neighbors (e.g., hyena)RM ANOVAmain effectF(1, 21) = 17.3<.001Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors.η²(N=22) = .452η²(N=30) = .218successful116767yes67
69
between-sequence phonological similarity effectMarsh, Vachon, & Jones (2008) Study 1Bell (2015)48r.18.29118r.08.18no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #68https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2504/8cee5e5e2526ab16d707eec83f7b6daa3e9c.pdf?_ga=2.207086421.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.243
https://osf.io/sqcwk/https://osf.io/7rtcz/https://osf.io/7rtcz/cognitive2008Pronounced disruptive effect of between-sequence phonological similarity on free recall of lists of end rhyming words.mixed ANOVAinteractionF(2, 92) = 3.13<.05When does between-sequence phonological similarity promote irrelevant sound disruption?d(N=48) = +.52η²(N=118) = .014unsuccessful126868yes68
70
bidirectional association in multiplication memoryCampbell & Robert (2008) Study 3Ricker (2015)36r.52.2536r.52.25signal - consistentvery closeRPP #69https://osf.io/bux7k/https://osf.io/gxvd3/https://osf.io/gxvd3/cognitive2008RTs faster when participants were given the same mathematical operation to practice and to test, relative to operational change or a new problem.mixed ANOVAinteractionF(2, 68) = 41.59<.001Bidirectional associations in multiplication memory: Conditions of negative and positive transfer.η²(N=36) = .550η²(N=36) = .55successful136969yes69
71
contingency Stroop effectSchmidt & Besner (2008) Study 2Cloud (2015)95r.20.20242r.25.12signal - consistentvery closeRPP #70https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d41/5a1655f7b5831d3bacded6ee54184b33bd8c.pdf?_ga=2.207086421.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.514
https://osf.io/bskwq/https://osf.io/bscfe/https://osf.io/bscfe/cognitive2008Higher number of errors on low contingency trials compared to medium contingency trials.dependent samples t-testmain effectt(94) = 1.9290.028The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency.d(N=95) = +.198d(N=242) = +.255successful157070yes70
72
ultimate sampling dilemma effectFiedler (2008) Study 2Glockner & Jekel (2015)39r.30.3047r.43.24signal - consistentvery closeRPP #71http://paulallen.ca/documents/2016/01/fiedler-k-the-ultimate-sampling-dilemma-in-experience-based-decision-making-2008.pdf
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.186
https://osf.io/vtz2i/https://osf.io/hp27x/https://osf.io/hp27x/cognitive2008Tendency to underestimate (overestimate) frequency of positive (negative) observations increased from provider with smallest to provider with highest overall frequency.RM ANOVAinteractionF(2, 76) = 8.67<.001The ultimate sampling dilemma in experience-based decision making.η²(N=39) = .186η²(N=47) = .28successful177171yes71
73
how to say no effectOberauer (2008) Study 3Bosch, Neijenhuijs et al. (2015)32r.56.2621r.40.40signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #72https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Klaus_Oberauer/publication/5407190_How_to_Say_No_Single-_and_Dual-Process_Theories_of_Short-Term_Recognition_Tested_on_Negative_Probes/links/55f2bef508ae0960a389770b/How-to-Say-No-Single-and-Dual-Process-Theories-of-Short-Term-Recognition-Tested-on-Negative-Probes.pdf
10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.439
https://osf.io/n32zj/https://osf.io/gcj7x/https://osf.io/gcj7x/cognitive2008Higher new probe accuracy for short compared to long lists.RM ANOVAmain effectF(1, 31) = 14.2<.001How to say no: Single-and dual-process theories of short-term recognition tested on negative probes.η²(N=32) = .31η²(N=21) = .162unsuccessful197272yes72
74
intentional forgetting effect revisitedSahakyan, Delaney et al. (2008) Study 3Fiedler & May (2015)96r.22.19108r.02.19no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #73http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.690.2906&rep=rep1&type=pdf
10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.408
https://osf.io/kcwfa/https://osf.io/bzdr2/https://osf.io/bzdr2/cognitive2008Directed forgetting effect observed for spaced but not grouped (massed) items.mixed ANOVAinteractionF(1,94) = 4.97<.05Intentional forgetting is easier after two "shots" than one.η²(N=96) = .05η²(N=108) = .0004unsuccessful207373yes73
75
bilingualism executive control effectColzato, Bajo et al. (2008) Study 3Kappes (2015)18r.22.4832r.06.36no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #74https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/58cf/daeeb1b63540aee243ae494dcdc17f9f0440.pdf?_ga=2.167758968.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.302
https://osf.io/a5ukz/https://osf.io/p9thw/https://osf.io/p9thw/cognitive2008Bilingual Ps less successful than monolinguals at reporting T2 target when it lagged a successfully identified T1 target by 2 items (i.e., at lag 3).RM ANOVAinteractionF(3, 93) = 5.230.002How does bilingualism improve executive control? A comparison of active and reactive inhibition mechanisms.MSE(N=18) = .009η²(N=32) = .01unsuccessful227474yes74
76
addition facts priming effectBassok, Pedigo et al. (2008) Study 1Hung, Lin, & Tsang (2015)154r.36.1449r.28.26signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #75https://osf.io/irgbs/https://osf.io/sqim7/https://osf.io/sqim7/cognitive2008RT difference between sum and neutral targets larger when cue digits primed with categorical (compared to unrelated or functionally related) primes.RM ANOVAinteractionF(1, 152) = 23.176<.001Priming addition facts with semantic relations.F(1,152)(N=154) = 23.2F(1,48)(N=49) = 4.2 [MSE=9999]successful247575yes75
77
Hebb repetition effect revisitedCouture, Lafond, & Tremblay (2008) Study 1Roebke & Penna (2015)24r.35.3863r.27.24signal - consistentvery closeRPP #76https://osf.io/qm5n6/https://osf.io/k9gp6/https://osf.io/k9gp6/cognitive2008Likelihood of producing a given response increased as a function of the number of times same response had previously been recalled, even for errors.mixed ANOVAmain effectF(3, 48) = 9.14<.001Learning correct responses and errors in the Hebb repetition effect: two faces of the same coin.d(N=24) = +1.51η²(N=63) = .224successful257676yes76
78
reading aloud contextual effectReynolds & Besner (2008) Study 5Lai & Simpson (2015)16r.16.5220r.14.46no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #77https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Derek_Besner/publication/5657620_Contextual_Effects_on_Reading_Aloud_Evidence_for_Pathway_Control/links/0c9605281090c9dd59000000/Contextual-Effects-on-Reading-Aloud-Evidence-for-Pathway-Control.pdf
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.50
https://osf.io/fkcn5/https://osf.io/hasfu/https://osf.io/hasfu/cognitive2008No delay in response when switching between pronouncing regular words and nonwords.mixed ANOVAinteractionF(1, 94) = 2.5>0.1Contextual effects on reading aloud: Evidence for pathway control.η²(N=16) = .026η²(N=20) = .021successful267777yes77
79
stimulus quality word frequency effectYap, Balota et al. (2008) Study 4Chartier (2015)32r.38.3271r.38.20signal - consistentvery closeRPP #78https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e4d0/b0275069be7bcf79e517fc26502ac51d3372.pdf?_ga=2.201189864.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.495
https://osf.io/dh4jx/https://osf.io/ahpik/https://osf.io/ahpik/cognitive2008Larger frequency effect for degraded compared to non-degraded words (interaction between stimulus quality and word frequency).RM ANOVAinteractionF(1, 31) = 5.170.03On the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency in lexical decision: Evidence for opposing interactive influences revealed by RT distributional analyses.η²(N=32) = .143η²(N=71) = .144successful277878yes78
80
semantic interference in naming task revisitedJanssen, Schirm et al. (2008a) Study 1Galak (2015)32r.34.3291r.10.21no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #79https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3954/63e228d592bb930be8169e25b69fd36cef98.pdf?_ga=2.201189864.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.249
https://osf.io/5p7i6/https://osf.io/uhpyr/https://osf.io/uhpyr/cognitive2008RTs slower for semantically-related compared to semantically unrelated word-picture pairs in a delayed picture naming task.RM ANOVAmain effectF(1,31) = 4.1<.06Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis.d(N=32) = +.74η²(N=91) = .011unsuccessful287979yes79
81
multidimensional visual statistical learning effectTurk-Brown, Isola et al. (2008) Study 4bOstkamp & Jakel (2015)8r.74.5415r.70.32signal - consistentvery closeRPP #80https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a572/71eaf9e300f638c69611ec69c81c2d95971b.pdf?_ga=2.201189864.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.399
https://osf.io/ktnmc/https://osf.io/ujhlw/https://osf.io/ujhlw/cognitive2008Above-chance recall rate on real-triplet test trials compared to familiarization phase (can visual statistical learning be feature-based over colors of objects?).dependent samples t-testmain effectt(7) = 2.8920.023Multidimensional visual statistical learning.d(N=8) = +1.02d(N=15) = +.957successful298080yes80
82
contingency information in causal judgments effectWhite (2008) Study 3Muller & Renkewitz (2015)37r.62.2138r.48.26signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #81http://psych.cf.ac.uk/home2/white/white%20jeplmc%202008.pdf
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.204
https://osf.io/x7c9i/https://osf.io/rhbqj/https://osf.io/rhbqj/cognitive2008A+ instances raised judgment of A and lowered judgment of B as causes for outcome.RM ANOVAmain effectF(1, 36) = 22.88<.001Accounting for occurrences: A new view of the use of contingency information in causal judgment.η²(N=37) = .427η²(N=38) = .15successful328181yes81
83
short-term memory temporal gap effectFarrell (2008) Study 2Olsson & Saxe (2015)40r.52.2440r.32.30signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #82https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Farrell/publication/5657625_Multiple_Roles_for_Time_in_Short-Term_Memory_Evidence_From_Serial_Recall_of_Order_and_Timing/links/53fc51590cf2364ccc04870d.pdf
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.128
https://osf.io/tqf2u/https://osf.io/swrhy/https://osf.io/swrhy/cognitive2008Ps instructed to group items induced temporal gap between groups, both when trying to recall order of items and when trying to recall timing of items.paired sample t-testmain effectt(39) = 3.770.001Multiple roles for time in short-term memory: Evidence from serial recall of order and timing.d(N=40) = +.60d(N=40) = +.37successful338282yes82
84
dependency learning effectPacton & Perruchet (2008) Study 4bJahn (2015)24r.71.2224r.68.25signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #83https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3eb6/a98229c292e16a04a9eef6afa29a22e6c235.pdf
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.80
https://osf.io/asn7w/https://osf.io/vmz2e/https://osf.io/vmz2e/cognitive2008Number of correct responses differed only as a function of the type of dependency.mixed ANOVAmain effectF(1, 20) = 20.79<.01An attention-based associative account of adjacent and nonadjacent dependency learning.η²(N=24) = .51η²(N=24) = .46successful368383yes83
85
visual working memory orienting attention effectMakovski, Sussman et al. (2008) Study 3Moore (2015)12r.55.4918r.35.45no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #84https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cb5a/78af4f032bdaa0eb1a5547c8b7a244be5233.pdf?_ga=2.169274343.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.369
https://osf.io/xtcuv/https://osf.io/0pxro/https://osf.io/0pxro/cognitive2008For both shape and color conditions, better recall for retro(active) compared to simultaneous cue at all set sizes (except set size = 1).RM ANOVAinteractionF(1,11) = 4.8<.05Orienting attention in visual working memory reduces interference from memory probes.η²(N=12) = .304η²(N=18) = .122successful378484yes84
86
learning on risky decision making effectPleskac (2008) Study 1Forsell, Dreber et al. (2015)68r.37.21153r.10.16no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #85https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ab7/5e6684f2d9006b5ccde6c17a79a1f678b49e.pdf?_ga=2.131006537.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.167
https://osf.io/gyn9e/https://osf.io/38ges/https://osf.io/38ges/cognitive2008Comparison of correlations between ART and drug use in sunny versus cloudy conditions.Test of contrast of 4 correlated correlations.main effectz = 3.10<.05Decision making and learning while taking sequential risks.z(N=68) = 3.10z(N=153) = 1.25unsuccessful398585yes85
87
directional language feature binding effectDessalegn & Landau (2008) Study 4Fitneva (2015)36r.38.3047r-.22.28no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #86https://osf.io/83n4z/https://osf.io/iajp5/https://osf.io/iajp5/cognitive2008Directional language (e.g., "to the left") helps children bind color and shape information to a greater extent than relational language alone (e.g., "next to").ANOVAmain effectF(1, 34) = 5.8<.05More than meets the eye: the role of language in binding and maintaining feature conjunctions.d(N=36) = +.82d(N=47) = +.48unsuccessful1068686yes86
88
anchor precision anchoring effectJaniszewski & Uy (2008) Study 4Chandler (2015)59r.33.24120r.23.17signal - consistentvery closeRPP #87https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d5eb/5e12b79ac605770778af40195ff105458691.pdf?_ga=2.131006537.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02057.x
https://osf.io/ehjdm/https://osf.io/aaudl/https://osf.io/aaudl/cognitive2008More precise (e.g., $9.99) compared to less price (e.g., $10) anchors decreased (anchoring effect) adjustment.ANOVAmain effectF(1, 55) = 6.88prep = .947Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment.ηp²(N=59) = .02ηp²(N=120) = .05successful1118787yes87
89
sample entropy decision making effectMcKinstry, Dale, & Spivey (2008) Study 1Saxe, Velez, & Feather (2015)141r-.70.0951r-.75.13signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #88https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e293/11600a720040ea3b39821f17e23c50da30fe.pdf?_ga=2.131006537.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02041.x
https://osf.io/pu9nb/https://osf.io/d0n81/https://osf.io/d0n81/cognitive2008Sample entropy was higher for middle-truth-value questions than for low- and high-truth-value questions.ANOVAmain effectF(1, 9) = 8.7<.05Action dynamics reveal parallel competition in decision makingr(N=141) = -.70r(N=51) = -.75successful1128888yes88
90
perspective taking in word learning effectNurmsoo & Bloom (2008) Study 1Brown, Kleinberg et al. (2015)32r.50.288r-.45.72no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #89https://minddevlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Preschoolers'%20perspective%20taking%20in%20word%20learning.pdf
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02069.x
https://osf.io/ictp5/https://osf.io/aczvt/https://osf.io/aczvt/cognitive2008Older children selected correct object more frequently than would be expected by chance on "where" trials.dependent samples t-testmain effectt(31) = 3.23prep = .97Preschoolers' perspective taking in word learning: do they blindly follow eye gaze?d(N=32) = +.571d(N=8) = +.286unsuccessful1158989yes89
91
crowd within effectVul & Pashler (2008) Study 1Steegen, Vanpaemel et al. (2015)173r.29.14140r.32.15signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #90https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ada7/7b14a18daaef0e4c5a30d77f9ed0b64a9777.pdf?_ga=2.193375083.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02136.x
https://osf.io/7kimb/https://osf.io/ivfu6/https://osf.io/ivfu6/cognitive2008Averaging two guesses within one person provides a more accurate answer than either guess alone.dependent samples t-testmain effectt(172) = 3.94<.01Measuring the crowd within: Probabilistic representations within individuals.d(N=173) = +.47d(N=140) = +.34successful1169090yes90
92
temporal selection in attentional blink effectVul, Nieuwenstein et al. (2008) Study 1Barnett-Cowan (2015)12r.13.6212r.12.62no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #91https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f6c4/cf2339c229a2462de88634b14748a1bd286d.pdf?_ga=2.193375083.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02046.x
https://osf.io/jupew/https://osf.io/rzjvn/https://osf.io/rzjvn/cognitive2008Selection is (a) suppressed (efficacy), (b) delayed (latency), and (c) diffused (precision) in time during the attentional blink.ANOVAinteractionF(18, 660) = 16.31<.00001Temporal selection is suppressed, delayed, and diffused during the attentional blink.η²(N=12) = .308η²(N=12) = .261successful1179191yes91
93
representation of ensemble visual features effectAlvarez & Oliva (2008) Study 3Schlegelmilch et al. (2015)8r-.72.5517r-.92.09signal - inconsistent, largervery closeRPP #92https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d507/c3ff9dc42d1755b8dbce306b7088af959ab2.pdf?_ga=2.193375083.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02098.x
https://osf.io/dm2kj/https://osf.io/dnaxe/https://osf.io/dnaxe/cognitive2008Fewer localization errors for targets compared to distractors in the centroid condition.dependent samples t-testmain effectt(7) = 2.760.028The representation of simple ensemble visual features outside the focus of attentiondz(N=8) = -.976dz(N=17) = -2.33successful1229292yes92
94
motion affereffect effectWinawer, Huk, & Boroditsky (2008) Study 3Levitan, Errington & Gampa (2015)32r-.69.2026r-.53.30signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #93https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91ff/99e3c012ac0f4f301bf083673bc0815973fb.pdf?_ga=2.193375083.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02080.x
https://osf.io/ertbg/https://osf.io/mjasz/https://osf.io/mjasz/cognitive2008Motion aftereffects were present following the presentation of a still photograph depicting motionpaired sample t-testmain effectt(28) = -4.9780.00003A motion aftereffect from still photographs depicting motiond(N=29) = -.94d(N=26) = -.62successful1279393yes93
95
survival words memory boost effectNairne, Pandeirada et al. (2008) Study 2Muller & Renkewitz (2015)24r.45.3538r.42.28signal - consistentvery closeRPP #94http://www.psych.purdue.edu/~nairne/pdfs/46.pdf
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02064.x
https://osf.io/v4d2b/https://osf.io/jhkpe/https://osf.io/jhkpe/cognitive2008Higher recall for words rated for survival relevance compared to control words.RM ANOVAmain effectF(1, 23) = 5.7"significant"Adaptive memory: The comparative value of survival processing.η²(N=24) = .20η²(N=38) = .18successful1339494yes94
96
auditory change detection effectDemany, Trost et al. (2008) Study 5Snyder & Irsik (2015)4r.501.005r.51.94no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #95https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0ba5/24a25a76a642543d8a972882fe6fd1f57a98.pdf?_ga=2.38129637.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02050.x
https://osf.io/wx74s/https://osf.io/ta3j8/https://osf.io/ta3j8/cognitive2008Auditory memory makes change detection easier in audition than in vision.ANOVAmain effectF(3, 9) = 8.50.005Auditory change detection: simple sounds are not memorized better than complex soundsη²(N=4) = .74η²(N=5) = .76successful1399595yes95
97
word-order constraint effectJanssen, Alario et al. (2008b) Study 2Melinger (2015)30r.65.2324r.50.34signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #96https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8c7c/6aa1f0c83cc434dfab69c1fe70d21cc61eec.pdf?_ga=2.38129637.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02070.x
https://osf.io/e3ry5/https://osf.io/dncxa/https://osf.io/dncxa/cognitive2008Color and object naming times in congruent condition faster than in incongruent condition in color and object naming tasks, respectively.t-testmain effectt(14) = 3.2<.007A word-order constraint on phonological activationdz(N=15) = +1.71dz(N=12) = +.548unsuccessful1469696yes96
98
object viewpoint sensitivity effectForti & Humphreys (2008) Study 1Dorrough & Fiedler (2015)14r.72.3319r.21.46no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #97https://osf.io/nhqgs/https://osf.io/tf8ky/https://osf.io/tf8ky/cognitive2008Significant interaction between viewpoint (prototypical or non-prototypical) and visual field (upper visual field or lower visual field) on the probability of the first fixation being on the target.RM ANOVAinteractionF(1, 13) = 14.2prep = .99Sensitivity to object viewpoint and action instructions during search for targets in the lower visual fieldη²(N=14) = .522η²(N=19) = .0065unsuccessful1509797yes97
99
extremal edge effectPalmer & Ghose (2008) Study 2Saxe, Velez, & Johnston (2015)8r.86.388r.12.78no signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #98https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/17f9/dcd45045b540ee254936d7ba258a67a282a3.pdf?_ga=2.234735064.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02049.x
https://osf.io/27cmh/https://osf.io/0aifq/https://osf.io/0aifq/cognitive2008Surfaces with a single EE (EE1) along the shared contour were perceived as closer than surfaces with two EE's orthogonal to the shared contour (Convex2)single sample t-testtrendt(7) = 4.45<.001Extremal edge: a powerful cue to depth perception and figure-ground organizationd(N=8) = +1.573d(N=8) = +.11unsuccessful1539898yes98
100
snake in the grass detection effectLobue & DeLoache (2008) Study 3Cramblet, Alvarez et al. (2015)48r.48.2348r.18.29no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #99https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ffad/209c5b2ecbf260e242fa7af1c848cd96350b.pdf?_ga=2.234735064.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02049.x
https://osf.io/5ygej/https://osf.io/sd7kg/https://osf.io/sd7kg/cognitive2008Faster identification RTs for fear-relevant compared to fear-irrelevant stimuli, in both children and adults.between ANOVAmain effectF(1, 44) = 13.42<.01Detecting the snake in the grass: attention to fear-relevant stimuli by adults and young children.η²(N=48) = . 23η²(N=48) = .032unsuccessful1619999yes99
Loading...
 
 
 
studies
articles
collections
in-progress
staging[to-review]
temp_backup
summary-stats
RRs-in-progress-or-to-be-curated
 
 
Main menu