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

View only
rebel vs obedient liking effectMonin et al. (2008) Study 4Holubar & Frank (2015)67r.35.2275r.16.22no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #1
10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.76 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
implicit-explicit correspondence effectPayne et al. (2008) Study 4Vianello (2015)70r.35.22180r.15.14signal - inconsistent, smallervery closeRPP #2
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.16 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
young acquiescent variability effectSoto, John et al. (2008) Study 1Soderberg (2015)230047r.020455326r.020signal - consistentvery closeRPP #3
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718 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
anxious attachment mortality effectCox, Arndt et al. (2008) Study 6Wissink, Zeelenberg et al. (2015)100r.23.19200r-.05.14no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #4 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
action priming boosts cognitive performanceAlbarracin et al. (2008) Study 5Kim, Frank et al. (2015)36r.38.3088r-.03.21no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #5
10.1037/a0012833 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
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 language
10.1037/a0012833 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
affective incoherence effectCenterbar, Schnall et al. (2008) Study 5Humphries, Brown et al. (2015)133r.21.16113r.09.18no signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #7
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.560 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
intergroup bias regulation effectAmodio, Devine et al. (2008) Study 2Johnson, Graham et al. (2015)48r.38.2575r.08.23no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #8
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.60 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
action-oriented mindset dissonance effectHarmon-Jones et al. (2008) Study 2Gable & Mechin (2015)57r.23.2671r.07.24no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #9
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.1 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
anger communication bargaining effectvan Dijk, van Kleef et al. (2008) Study 3Voracek & Slowik (2015)103r.38.1783r-.04.22no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #10
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.600 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
walking on eggshells effectLemay & Clark (2008a) Study 5Baranski (2015)186r.17.14280r.04.12no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #11
10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.420 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
head liberates heart effectLemay & Clark (2008b) Study 5Marigold, Forest et al. (2015)153.68216b.72signal - consistentvery closeRPP #12
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.647 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
poignancy effectErsner-Hershfield et al. (2008) Study 2Talhelm, Eggleston, & Lee (2015a)110r.22.18222r.00.14no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #13
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.158 (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
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)
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.48 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
aggression priming perceptual effectForster, Liberman et al. (2008) Study 1Reinhard (2015)82r.43.1871r.11.24no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #15
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.579 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
not so innocent effectExline, Baumeister et al. (2008) Study 7Lin & Frank (2015)45r.43.25135r.01.17no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #16 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
tempting fate effectRisen & Gilovich (2008) Study 6Mathur & Frank (2015)122r.19.17226r.00.13no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #17
10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.293 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
cross-cultural nonverbal pride expression effectTracy & Robins (2008) Study 4Sullivan (2015)211Propor.78333Propor.77signal - consistentvery closeRPP #18
10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.516 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
Wason task performance and cognitive ability correlationStanovich & West (2008) Study 8Baranski (2015)375r.22.10177r.07.15no signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #19
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672 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
closed open mind effectBlankenship & Wegener (2008) Study 5aLemm (2015)261r.21.12251r.04.12no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #20
10.1037/0022-3514. 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
descriptive deviant popularity effectMorrison & Miller (2008) Study 3Motyl (2015)37r.32.30120r.20.18signal - consistentvery closeRPP #21 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
(un)accomplished goal action effectKoo & Fishbach (2008) Study 4Kidwell & Dodson (2015)246η².041768703OR.159no signalvery closeRPP #22
10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.183 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
implemental mind-set attitude strength effectHenderson, de Liver et al. (2008) Study 5Lane & Gazarian (2015)46r.26.2870r.16.24no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #23
10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.396 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
need for acceptance reconcialiation effectShnabel & Nadler (2008) Study 4E. Gilbert (2015)94r.27.19141r-.10.16no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #24
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116 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
face of success effectRule & Ambady (2008) Study 1Talhelm, Eggleston, & Lee (2015b)50r.30.2650r.27.27signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #25
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02054.x 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
selective exposure information quantity effectFischer, Schulz-Hardt et al. (2008) Study 4Ratliff (2015)52r.50.21150r.22.16signal - inconsistent, smallervery closeRPP #26 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
ego depletion confirmatory bias effectFischer, Greitemeyer et al. (2008) Study 2Galliani (2015)85r.21.20140r.12.16no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #27 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
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 #28
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.91 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
generalized earning prospect predicts romantic interest effectEastwick & Finkel (2008) Study 1Selterman, Chagnon et al. (2015)163r.14.16304r.03.11no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #29
10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245 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
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 #30
10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.429 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
math self-handicapping effectMcCrea (2008) Study 5Chartier (2015)28r.34.3561r.29.24signal - consistentvery closeRPP #31
10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.274 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
social identity contingencies effectPurdie-Vaughns et al. (2008) Study 2Schmidt (2015)90r.38.181490r-.04.05no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #32
10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.615 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
fluency priming on psychological distance effectAlter & Oppenheimer (2008) Study 2Foster (2015)236r.13.121146r.02.06no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #33
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02062.x 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
goal priming boosts learning effectEitam, Hassin et al. (2008) Study 2Prenoveau & Kirkhart (2015)86r.22.20158r.10.16no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #34
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02078.x 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
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 #35
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02092.x 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
prescribed optimism effectArmor, Massey et al. (2008) Study 1Lassetter, Brandt et al. (2015)126r.68.10177r.76.06signal - inconsistent, largervery closeRPP #36
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02089.x 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
age-related episodic memory effectAddis, Wong et al. (2008) Study 1Vasquez (2015)32r.57.2632r.65.22signal - consistentvery closeRPP #37
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02043.x 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
ego depletion boosts attraction effectMasicampo & Baumeister (2008) Study 1Osborne, Vuu, & Henninger (2015)115r.21.18166r-.05.16no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #38
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02077.x 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
aversive errors effectHajcak & Foti (2008) Study 1Lewis & Pitts (2015)31r-.38.3243r-.25.29no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #39
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02053.x response magnitude following an error negatively correlated to Error-Related Negativity (ERN) correlationcorrelationr = -.38<.05Errors Are Aversive: Defensive Motivation and the Error-Related Negativityr(N=31) = -.38r(N=43) = -.25unsuccessful1203939yes39
sunny side of fairness effectTabibnia, Satpute et al. (2008) Study 2Beer, Rigney, & Flagan (2015)12r.85.2424r.83.15signal - consistentvery closeRPP #40
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02091.x 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
loving woman who justify inequality effectLau, Kay & Spencer (2008) Study 1Stieger (2015)36r.38.3070r-.03.24no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #41
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02040.x 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
threat of appearing prejudiced attentional bias effectRicheson & Trawalter (2008) Study 1Lai (2015)28r.37.3466r.02.24no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #42
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02052.x 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
offensive behavior looking effectCrosby, Monin et al. (2008) Study 1Skorinko & Jonas (2015)25r.25.4030r.18.36no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #43
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02072.x 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
having what you want happiness effectLarsen & McKibban (2008) Study 2Seibel, Vermue et al. (2015)119r.21.18238r.50.09signal - inconsistent, largervery closeRPP #44
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02095.x 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
implicit attitude generalization occurs immediately effectRanganath & Nosek (2008) Study 1Cohn (2015)684r.00.083597r.11.04signal - inconsistent, largervery closeRPP #45
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02076.x 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
anti-free-will boosts cheating effectVohs & Schooler (2008) Study 1Giner-Sorolla, Embley et al. (2015)30r.50.3058r.10.26no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #46
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02045.x 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
distance priming boosts psychological closeness effectWilliams & Bargh (2008) Study 4Joy-Gaba, Clay, & Cleary (2015)84r.23.20125r.04.18no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #47
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02084.x 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
hedonic anger regulation effectTamir, Mitchell et al. (2008) Study 1Masicampo (2015)82r.59.1488r.61.13signal - consistentvery closeRPP #48
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02088.x 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
social disconnection boosts supernatural agent beliefs effectEpley, Akalis et al. (2008) Study 3Sandstrom & Dunn (2015)57r.17.2678r.06.23no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #49
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x 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
intergroup prisoners dilemma-maximizing difference effectHalevy, Bornstein et al. (2008) Study 1Thomae, Woo, & Immelman (2015)80r.77.0940r.65.20signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #50
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02100.x 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
ovulation boosts attraction to single men effectBressan & Stranieri (2008) Study 2Frazier & Hasselman (2015) Study 1208r.19.14263r-.03.12no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #51
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02060.x 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
ovulation boosts attraction to single men effectBressan & Stranieri (2008) Study 2Frazier & Hasselman (2015) Study 2208r.19.14318r.02.11no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #52
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02060.x 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
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.html
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x 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
conscientiousness validity correlationHeine, Buchtel et al. (2008) Study 1Lazarevic & Knezevic (2015)70r-.43.2016r-.11.53no signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #54
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02085.x 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
social dominance verticality embodiment effectMoeller, Robinson et al. (2008) Study 2Levitan & Fernandez-Castilla (2015)53r-.31.2572r.03.24no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #55
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02093.x 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
conflict-triggered goal shielding effectGoschke & Dreisbach (2008) Study 1Costantini & Perugini (2015)40r.37.2895r.41.17signal - consistentvery closeRPP #56
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02042.x 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
relative frequency value heuristic effectDai, Wertenbroch et al. (2008) Study 1Fuchs, Estel, & Goellner (2015)56r.28.2451r-.18.28no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #57
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02039.x 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
tracing attention effectRoelofs (2008) Study 3van Rijn (2015)24r.59.2929r.15.38no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #58
10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.353 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
repetition blindness for nonwords effectMorris & Still (2008) Study 6Goodbourn (2015)24r.61.2824r.23.40no signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #59 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
working memory task switching costs effectLiefooghe, Barouillet et al. (2008) Study 4Plessow, Moschl, & Pavel (2015)25r.42.3532r-.22.35no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #60
10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.478 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
retrieval-induced forgetting effectStorm, Bjork & Bjork (2008) Study 1Callahan (2015)240r.23.12270r-.01.12no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #61
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.230 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
intermixed-blocked effect revisitedMitchell, Nash & Hall (2008) Study 2Lakens (2015)32r.46.3048r.13.28no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #62
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.237–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 = +.51ηp²(N=48) = .02unsuccessful56262yes62
independent memory sources for priming & recognition effectBerry, Shanks & Henson (2008) Study 1Meixner & Bruning (2015)24r.59.2932r.40.31signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #63
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.97 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 = +.724dz(N=32) = +.424successful66363yes63
enhanced memory for word order effectBeaman, Neath et al. (2008) Study 2Kleinberg & Kunkels (2015)100r.72.1015r.13.55no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #64
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.219 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
retrieval-provoked illusory source recollection effectDodson, Darragh et al. (2008) Study 3Calhoun-Sauls (2015)48r.56.2033r-.11.36no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #65
10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.460 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
comparative distance effect revisitedGanor-Stern & Tzelgov (2008) Study 2Shaki (2015)32r.70.2032r.78.16signal - consistentvery closeRPP #66 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
semantic neighborhood density effectMirman & Magnuson (2008) Study 2Bosco & Field (2015)22r.67.2630r.47.30signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #67
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.65 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
between-sequence phonological similarity effectMarsh, Vachon, & Jones (2008) Study 1Bell (2015)48r.18.29118r.08.18no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #68
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.243 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
bidirectional association in multiplication memoryCampbell & Robert (2008) Study 3Ricker (2015)36r.52.2536r.52.25signal - consistentvery closeRPP #69 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
contingency Stroop effectSchmidt & Besner (2008) Study 2Cloud (2015)95r.20.20242r.25.12signal - consistentvery closeRPP #70
10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.514 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
ultimate sampling dilemma effectFiedler (2008) Study 2Glockner & Jekel (2015)39r.30.3047r.43.24signal - consistentvery closeRPP #71
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.186 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
how to say no effectOberauer (2008) Study 3Bosch, Neijenhuijs et al. (2015)32r.56.2621r.40.40signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #72
10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.439 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
intentional forgetting effect revisitedSahakyan, Delaney et al. (2008) Study 3Fiedler & May (2015)96r.22.19108r.02.19no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #73
10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.408 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
bilingualism executive control effectColzato, Bajo et al. (2008) Study 3Kappes (2015)18r.22.4832r.06.36no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #74
10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.302 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
addition facts priming effectBassok, Pedigo et al. (2008) Study 1Hung, Lin, & Tsang (2015)154r.36.1449r.28.26signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #75 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
Hebb repetition effect revisitedCouture, Lafond, & Tremblay (2008) Study 1Roebke & Penna (2015)24r.35.3863r.27.24signal - consistentvery closeRPP #76 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
reading aloud contextual effectReynolds & Besner (2008) Study 5Lai & Simpson (2015)16r.16.5220r.14.46no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #77
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.50 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
stimulus quality word frequency effectYap, Balota et al. (2008) Study 4Chartier (2015)32r.38.3271r.38.20signal - consistentvery closeRPP #78
10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.495 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
semantic interference in naming task revisitedJanssen, Schirm et al. (2008a) Study 1Galak (2015)32r.34.3291r.10.21no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #79
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.249 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
multidimensional visual statistical learning effectTurk-Brown, Isola et al. (2008) Study 4bOstkamp & Jakel (2015)8r.74.5415r.70.32signal - consistentvery closeRPP #80
10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.399 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
contingency information in causal judgments effectWhite (2008) Study 3Muller & Renkewitz (2015)37r.62.2138r.48.26signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #81
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.204 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
short-term memory temporal gap effectFarrell (2008) Study 2Olsson & Saxe (2015)40r.52.2440r.32.30signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #82
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.128 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
dependency learning effectPacton & Perruchet (2008) Study 4bJahn (2015)24r.71.2224r.68.25signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #83
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.80 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
visual working memory orienting attention effectMakovski, Sussman et al. (2008) Study 3Moore (2015)12r.55.4918r.35.45no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #84
10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.369 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
learning on risky decision making effectPleskac (2008) Study 1Forsell, Dreber et al. (2015)68r.37.21153r.10.16no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #85
10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.167 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
directional language feature binding effectDessalegn & Landau (2008) Study 4Fitneva (2015)36r.38.3047r-.22.28no signal - inconsistentvery closeRPP #86 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
anchor precision anchoring effectJaniszewski & Uy (2008) Study 4Chandler (2015)59r.33.24120r.23.17signal - consistentvery closeRPP #87
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02057.x 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
sample entropy decision making effectMcKinstry, Dale, & Spivey (2008) Study 1Saxe, Velez, & Feather (2015)141r-.70.0951r-.75.13signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #88
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02041.x 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
perspective taking in word learning effectNurmsoo & Bloom (2008) Study 1Brown, Kleinberg et al. (2015)32r.50.288r-.45.72no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #89'%20perspective%20taking%20in%20word%20learning.pdf
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02069.x 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
crowd within effectVul & Pashler (2008) Study 1Steegen, Vanpaemel et al. (2015)173r.29.14140r.32.15signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #90
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02136.x 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
temporal selection in attentional blink effectVul, Nieuwenstein et al. (2008) Study 1Barnett-Cowan (2015)12r.13.6212r.12.62no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #91
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02046.x 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
representation of ensemble visual features effectAlvarez & Oliva (2008) Study 3Schlegelmilch et al. (2015)8r-.72.5517r-.92.09signal - inconsistent, largervery closeRPP #92
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02098.x 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
motion affereffect effectWinawer, Huk, & Boroditsky (2008) Study 3Levitan, Errington & Gampa (2015)32r-.69.2026r-.53.30signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #93
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02080.x 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
survival words memory boost effectNairne, Pandeirada et al. (2008) Study 2Muller & Renkewitz (2015)24r.45.3538r.42.28signal - consistentvery closeRPP #94
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02064.x 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
auditory change detection effectDemany, Trost et al. (2008) Study 5Snyder & Irsik (2015)4r.501.005r.51.94no signal - consistentvery closeRPP #95
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02050.x 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
word-order constraint effectJanssen, Alario et al. (2008b) Study 2Melinger (2015)30r.65.2324r.50.34signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #96
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02070.x 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
object viewpoint sensitivity effectForti & Humphreys (2008) Study 1Dorrough & Fiedler (2015)14r.72.3319r.21.46no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #97 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
extremal edge effectPalmer & Ghose (2008) Study 2Saxe, Velez, & Johnston (2015)8r.86.388r.12.78no signal - consistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #98
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02049.x 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
snake in the grass detection effectLobue & DeLoache (2008) Study 3Cramblet, Alvarez et al. (2015)48r.48.2348r.18.29no signal - inconsistent (imprecise)very closeRPP #99
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02049.x 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
Main menu