From 2a2035d5ef5145a7538bd9e976d4973ce02657dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lukas Wallrich Date: Fri, 1 May 2026 17:28:41 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Replace publisher URLs with doi.org equivalents (207 links) Many references in content/ pointed directly at publisher pages (SAGE, ScienceDirect, Wiley, Springer, Royal Society, etc.) instead of using the doi.org form. Publishers bot-block automated link checks, which produced unhelpful "broken" reports for valid links. This pass converts 207 of those URLs to https://doi.org/{DOI}, after verifying every replacement DOI resolves via the DOI Handle API: 161 sciencedirect PII (PII -> DOI via Crossref alternative-id) 33 psycnet doiLanding?doi=... (DOI is in the URL query string) 6 royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/... 3 link.springer.com/article|chapter|... 2 journals.sagepub.com/doi/... 1 onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/... 1 tandfonline.com/doi/... Files changed: content/OS-developing-world, content/adopting, content/educators-corner/004-Teaching-why-how-replication, content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/masterstools, content/reversals. Not changed in this pass (~178 URLs remain): 45 ScienceDirect PIIs that Crossref didn't have indexed (likely conference papers / supplements), 87 psycnet /record/, /buy/, /fulltext/ URLs, 17 JSTOR /stable/ URLs (only 5 map cleanly to 10.2307/), 15 academic.oup.com /article-abstract/, 7 journals.lww.com, plus a handful of other patterns. Each needs a per-URL lookup rather than a regex extraction. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) --- .../OS-developing-world.md | 2 +- content/adopting/adopting.md | 2 +- .../004-Teaching-why-how-replication/index.md | 2 +- .../masterstools/index.md | 2 +- content/reversals/reversals.md | 310 +++++++++--------- 5 files changed, 159 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/OS-developing-world/OS-developing-world.md b/content/OS-developing-world/OS-developing-world.md index 24b532675be..4a7f07bdae8 100644 --- a/content/OS-developing-world/OS-developing-world.md +++ b/content/OS-developing-world/OS-developing-world.md @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ The paper also directly informs FORRT’s ongoing work on: ## Peer-reviewed Publication -The open access **publication** can be found [here](https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459251357565), and the **postprint** can [be found here (osf.io/7ubk2)](http://osf.io/7ubk2). Download the supplementary material [here](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/25152459251357565/suppl_file/sj-docx-1-amp-10.1177_25152459251357565.docx?_gl=1*qdrt5e*_up*MQ..*_ga*MzI4ODQ0MDI1LjE3NjY0ODg2NjU.*_ga_60R758KFDG*czE3NjY0ODg2NjUkbzEkZzAkdDE3NjY0ODg2NjUkajYwJGwwJGgxOTI0NTEyNTAw). +The open access **publication** can be found [here](https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459251357565), and the **postprint** can [be found here (osf.io/7ubk2)](http://osf.io/7ubk2). Download the supplementary material [here](https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459251357565). > Hu, C.-P., Xu, Z., Lazić, A., Bhattacharya, P., Seda, L., Hossain, S., Jeftić, A., Özdoğru, A. A., Amaral, O. B., Miljković, N., Ilchovska, Z. G., Lazarevic, L. B., Wu, H., Bao, S., Ghodke, N., Moreau, D., Elsherif, M., C., C., Ghai, S., ... Azevedo, F. (2025). **Open Science in the Developing World: A Collection of Practical Guides for Researchers in Developing Countries.** *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science*, *8*(3), 25152459251357565. [https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459251357565](https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459251357565) diff --git a/content/adopting/adopting.md b/content/adopting/adopting.md index 5c87b5bac04..335f8b71fb5 100644 --- a/content/adopting/adopting.md +++ b/content/adopting/adopting.md @@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ Common structural barriers and how to address them: * Use one of [FORRT’s lesson plans](https://forrt.org/neurodiversity-lessonbank/) that aim to promote Neurodiversity and Open Scholarship in Academia. * Use resources such as the [BIPOC-authored Psychology Papers spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i7Eacoyv9VVg2lBbCV-KJZg4nSGvR_VZFOysOyOGG8g/edit?fbclid=IwAR1zlaZHcY1HMYYnaa5M96aC577qDagmphf_R7EH2YXBl_P1ihJcPu9zUPM&gid=666010790#gid=666010790%20), intended for use by instructors of undergraduate/ graduate-level psychology courses to help diversify their syllabi, or [the Diversity Reading list](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://diversityreadinglist.org/about/&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1749130331285358&usg=AOvVaw1xfd6fPDUWRJ2pzNFMxdf7) offering quality texts in philosophy by authors from underrepresented groups, or [FORRT’S annotated reading list](https://forrt.org/curated_resources/point-of-view-an-annotated-introductory/) supporting readers in understanding some of the key ideas and topics within neurodiversity. * Use inclusive citation practices. - * Consider adding a [Citation Diversity Statement](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661320301649) in your course materials or assignments, to acknowledge and intentionally include scholarship from diverse voices and underrepresented groups. + * Consider adding a [Citation Diversity Statement](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.06.009) in your course materials or assignments, to acknowledge and intentionally include scholarship from diverse voices and underrepresented groups. * Use [McGill’s Citation Justice Guide](https://libraryguides.mcgill.ca/citation_justice/how_to) to help students audit their citation practices and intentionally seek out diverse voices in their research. The guide offers practical tools for analyzing whose work is being cited, identifying gaps, and finding resources to include scholars from marginalized communities. * Read [FORRTs Manuscript](https://forrt.org/citation-politics/) on The Citational Justice Toolkit which offers practical guidance and tools to help researchers make more equitable and conscientious citation choices throughout the research process. * Engage with *Towards Social Justice In Academia Initiatives:* diff --git a/content/educators-corner/004-Teaching-why-how-replication/index.md b/content/educators-corner/004-Teaching-why-how-replication/index.md index b1bc3e172f9..4b266b79e7d 100644 --- a/content/educators-corner/004-Teaching-why-how-replication/index.md +++ b/content/educators-corner/004-Teaching-why-how-replication/index.md @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ As another example, when I illustrate the smallest-effect-size-of-interest workf ![Notes](fig9.webp "Notes") -One last issue that comes out of the simulations is the number of assumptions that one must make in the process of doing a simulation study. This includes both statistical assumptions, such as the size of the standard deviation of the outcome measure, and non-statistical assumptions, such as the length of time it takes for a typical participate in the study (a fact that is necessary to accurately estimate the number of participants who can participate in a lab-based study, for example). I argue that pilot studies are useful for developing good values for these assumptions. Pilot studies are _not_ useful for directly estimating the value of the target effect size itself ([Albers & Lakens, 2018](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210311630230X)); in any case it is better to power to a smallest effect size of interest than the expected effect size. +One last issue that comes out of the simulations is the number of assumptions that one must make in the process of doing a simulation study. This includes both statistical assumptions, such as the size of the standard deviation of the outcome measure, and non-statistical assumptions, such as the length of time it takes for a typical participate in the study (a fact that is necessary to accurately estimate the number of participants who can participate in a lab-based study, for example). I argue that pilot studies are useful for developing good values for these assumptions. Pilot studies are _not_ useful for directly estimating the value of the target effect size itself ([Albers & Lakens, 2018](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.004)); in any case it is better to power to a smallest effect size of interest than the expected effect size. ![Workflow 2](fig10.webp "Workflow 2") diff --git a/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/masterstools/index.md b/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/masterstools/index.md index 11b06f85600..4ac03a3ca04 100644 --- a/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/masterstools/index.md +++ b/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/masterstools/index.md @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Read and discuss the following citations: *1. Psychology of oppression reveals that oppression is not always perceptible and repellant. It can be disguised and beguiling. People do not always know they are oppressed. Sometimes they have to be educated about their oppression. The reason is that oppression stunts people's critical, rational, analytical, and probing capabilities. Normative oppression also becomes taken for granted and mundane and therefore imperceptible* (Ratner, 2014). -*2. People cannot reject the system of domination without rejecting [part of] themselves, their own repressive instinctual needs and values* (Marcuse, [1969](https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_571#ref-CR161164), p. 17). +*2. People cannot reject the system of domination without rejecting [part of] themselves, their own repressive instinctual needs and values* (Marcuse, [1969](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_571), p. 17). 3. *Advocating the mere tolerance of difference between women is the grossest reformism. It is a total denial of the creative function of difference in our lives. Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic. Only then does the necessity for interdependency Lorde 2 become unthreatening. Only within that interdependency of difference strengths, acknowledged and equal, can the power to seek new ways of being in the world generate, as well as the courage and sustenance to act where there are no charters* (Lorde, 1984). diff --git a/content/reversals/reversals.md b/content/reversals/reversals.md index d665f219cd7..ae3759ff7de 100644 --- a/content/reversals/reversals.md +++ b/content/reversals/reversals.md @@ -267,8 +267,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Mortality Salience** (Death Priming/Terror Management Theory). Reminders of death lead to subconscious changes in attitudes and behaviour, for example in the form of increased in-group bias and behaviour that serves to defend an individual’s cultural worldview. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: [‘Role of Consciousness and Accessibility of Death-Related Thoughts in Mortality Salience Effects’](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tom-Pyszczynski/publication/15232849_Role_of_Consciousness_and_Accessibility_of_Death-Related_Thoughts_in_Mortality_Salience_Effects/links/5ad51396aca272fdaf7c08d0/Role-of-Consciousness-and-Accessibility-of-Death-Related-Thoughts-in-Mortality-Salience-Effects.pdf), Greenberg et al. 1994; Experiment 1, n=58. [citations=1294 (GS, June 2022)]. A second original paper was ‘[I am not an animal: Mortality salience, disgust, and the denial of human creatureliness](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0096-3445.130.3.427)’, Goldberg et al. 2001; two experiments n1=77, n2 = 44. [citations=501 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: Meta-analysis [Burke et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352321) [_k_=277, citations = 1,497 (GS, March 2023)]. [Klein et al. 2018](https://psyarxiv.com/vef2c) [performed a replication of Greenberg et al. (1994) Experiment 1 with and without original author involvement ](https://psyarxiv.com/vef2c)[n = 2281 for Experiment 1, citations = 99 (GS, June 2022)]. [Sætrevik & Sjåstad 2019](https://psyarxiv.com/dkg53/) [n = 101 for Experiment 1, n = 784 for Experiment 2, citations = 7(GS, March 2023)]. A replication of [Goldberg et al. (2001)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.427) by [Rodríguez-Ferreiro et al. 2019 ](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.191114)[n = 128, citations = 16 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Original paper: [‘Role of Consciousness and Accessibility of Death-Related Thoughts in Mortality Salience Effects’](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tom-Pyszczynski/publication/15232849_Role_of_Consciousness_and_Accessibility_of_Death-Related_Thoughts_in_Mortality_Salience_Effects/links/5ad51396aca272fdaf7c08d0/Role-of-Consciousness-and-Accessibility-of-Death-Related-Thoughts-in-Mortality-Salience-Effects.pdf), Greenberg et al. 1994; Experiment 1, n=58. [citations=1294 (GS, June 2022)]. A second original paper was ‘[I am not an animal: Mortality salience, disgust, and the denial of human creatureliness](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.427)’, Goldberg et al. 2001; two experiments n1=77, n2 = 44. [citations=501 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: Meta-analysis [Burke et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352321) [_k_=277, citations = 1,497 (GS, March 2023)]. [Klein et al. 2018](https://psyarxiv.com/vef2c) [performed a replication of Greenberg et al. (1994) Experiment 1 with and without original author involvement ](https://psyarxiv.com/vef2c)[n = 2281 for Experiment 1, citations = 99 (GS, June 2022)]. [Sætrevik & Sjåstad 2019](https://psyarxiv.com/dkg53/) [n = 101 for Experiment 1, n = 784 for Experiment 2, citations = 7(GS, March 2023)]. A replication of [Goldberg et al. (2001)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.427) by [Rodríguez-Ferreiro et al. 2019 ](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191114)[n = 128, citations = 16 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: Meta-analytic effect of _d_ = .82 for mortality salience (reported in Burke et al. 2010). * Replication effect size: Klein et al.: Regardless of which exclusion criteria were used, the predicted effect was not observed, and the confidence interval was quite narrow: Exclusion Set 1: _Hedges’ g_ = 0.03 [-0.06, 0.12]; Exclusion Set 2: _Hedges’ g_ = 0.06 [-0.06, 0.17]; Exclusion Set 3: _Hedges’ g_ = 0.04 [-0.07, 0.16]; for this reason, they were unable to further assess if original author involvement influenced the replication results. Sætrevik & Sjåstad: _d _= -0.08 – 0.35 for outcome effects related to theoretical predictions. Rodríguez-Ferreiro et al.: _d_ = 0.09 [−0.26, 0.44], which was significantly different from the effect size of the original study, _d_ = 1.13 [0.17, 2.07], _z_ = 2.03, _p_ = 0.043. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Heat priming**. Exposure to words related to hot temperatures increases aggressive thoughts and hostile perceptions. This effect suggests that people mentally associate heat-related constructs with aggression-related constructs. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Hot under the collar in a lukewarm environment: Words associated with hot temperature increase aggressive thoughts and hostile perceptions](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103109001152?via%3Dihub)’, DeWall & Bushman 2009; 2 experiments in which participants were first exposed to words related to either heat, cold, or neutral concepts and then completed a word stem completion task (Study 1; n=127) or had to rate person’s hostility basing on ambiguous description of this person (Study 2; n=72). [citation=76 (GS, June 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Hot under the collar in a lukewarm environment: Words associated with hot temperature increase aggressive thoughts and hostile perceptions](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.05.003)’, DeWall & Bushman 2009; 2 experiments in which participants were first exposed to words related to either heat, cold, or neutral concepts and then completed a word stem completion task (Study 1; n=127) or had to rate person’s hostility basing on ambiguous description of this person (Study 2; n=72). [citation=76 (GS, June 2022)]​. * Critiques: [McCarthy 2014](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103114000663?via%3Dihub) [n=182, citations=14 (GS, June 2022)]; including meta-analyses [n=499]​. * Original effect size: Study 1: _d_ = 0.47 (hot vs. cold words), _d_ = 0.46 (hot vs. neutral words); Study 2: _d_ = 0.67 (hot vs. cold words), _d_ = 0.63 (hot vs. neutral words). * Replication effect size: McCarthy: Study 2A: _d_ = -0.12 (hot vs. cold words), _d_ = -0.02 (hot vs. neutral words); Study 2B: _d_ = -0.06 (hot vs. cold words), _d_ = 0.00 (hot vs. neutral words) (both experiments replicate procedure from Study 2); Meta-analysis: _d_ = 0.18. @@ -403,7 +403,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original papers: ‘[Volunteering in public health: An analysis of volunteers' characteristics and activities](https://www.ijova.org/docs/IJOVA_VOL24_NO2_Ramirez-Valles_VolunteeringinPublicHealth.pdf)’, Ramirez-Valles, 2006; random-digit dialling in Illinois, US, n = 609. [citations = 9 (GS, June 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Gittell & Tebaldi 2006 ](https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006289768)[n=NA, citations = 161 (GS, June 2022)]. [James III & Sharpe 2007](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Deanna-Sharpe/publication/249677223_The_Nature_and_Causes_of_the_U-Shaped_Charitable_Giving_Profile/links/55e8472608ae3e1218422b3c/The-Nature-and-Causes-of-the-U-Shaped-Charitable-Giving-Profile.pdf) [n = 16,442 households, citations=171 (GS, June 2022)]. [Piff et al. 2010](https://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/pdf/Sniderman/Piff%20et%20al.2010.JPSP.Having%20Less,%20Giving%20More_The%20Influence%20of%20Social%20Class%20on%20Prosocial%20Behavior.pdf) [4 experiments with Experimeent 1: n = 115; Experiment 2 : n = 81; Experiment 3 : n = 155; Experiment4 : n = 91, citations=1572 (GS, June 2022)]. [Guinote et al. 2015 ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311842/); [Experiment 1 : n = 44; Study 4 : n = 48 children, citations=185 (GS, June 2022)]. [Chen et al. 2013 ](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080419)[n = 469 kindergarten children, citations=110 (GS, June 2022)]. [Korndörfer et al. 2015](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133193) [8 studies, n1 = 9260 German households, n2 = 32,090 US households, n3 = 3975 (objective) & 3,857 (subjective) US persons, n4 = 33,072 German persons, n5 = 3,983 (objective) & n = 3,964 (subjective) US persons, n6 = 32,257 persons in 28 countries, n7 = 3,902 (objective) & n = 3,886 (subjective) US persons, n8 = 1,421 German persons, citations=238 (GS, March 2023)]. [Stamos et al., 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656619301230) [Experiment 1: n = 300, Experiment2: n = 200, citations=31 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Gittell & Tebaldi 2006 ](https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006289768)[n=NA, citations = 161 (GS, June 2022)]. [James III & Sharpe 2007](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Deanna-Sharpe/publication/249677223_The_Nature_and_Causes_of_the_U-Shaped_Charitable_Giving_Profile/links/55e8472608ae3e1218422b3c/The-Nature-and-Causes-of-the-U-Shaped-Charitable-Giving-Profile.pdf) [n = 16,442 households, citations=171 (GS, June 2022)]. [Piff et al. 2010](https://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/pdf/Sniderman/Piff%20et%20al.2010.JPSP.Having%20Less,%20Giving%20More_The%20Influence%20of%20Social%20Class%20on%20Prosocial%20Behavior.pdf) [4 experiments with Experimeent 1: n = 115; Experiment 2 : n = 81; Experiment 3 : n = 155; Experiment4 : n = 91, citations=1572 (GS, June 2022)]. [Guinote et al. 2015 ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311842/); [Experiment 1 : n = 44; Study 4 : n = 48 children, citations=185 (GS, June 2022)]. [Chen et al. 2013 ](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080419)[n = 469 kindergarten children, citations=110 (GS, June 2022)]. [Korndörfer et al. 2015](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133193) [8 studies, n1 = 9260 German households, n2 = 32,090 US households, n3 = 3975 (objective) & 3,857 (subjective) US persons, n4 = 33,072 German persons, n5 = 3,983 (objective) & n = 3,964 (subjective) US persons, n6 = 32,257 persons in 28 countries, n7 = 3,902 (objective) & n = 3,886 (subjective) US persons, n8 = 1,421 German persons, citations=238 (GS, March 2023)]. [Stamos et al., 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103902) [Experiment 1: n = 300, Experiment2: n = 200, citations=31 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: Ramirez-Valles: household income on past-12-month volunteering in public health OR = 1.22; education NS OR = 1.02. * Replication effect size: Gittell and Tebaldi: correlation between income and volunteer rate (-.13), regression coefficients for personal income (769.1) and education (29.35) on average charitable contribution per tax filer. Piff et al.: Experiment 1 - subjective SES on dictator game resource allocation: _β_ = -.23; Experiment 2 - self-reported family income: _β_ = -.27 and manipulated social class: _β_ = -.23 on attitudes toward charitable giving; Experiment 3 - combined education and income on trust game with arbitrary points: _r_ = -.18; Experiment 4 - combined past and current income on ambiguous task helping: _β_ = -.43. Guinote et al.: Experiment 1 - manipulated department rank on picking up pens for experimenter: _d_ = 1.16; Experiment 4 - random winner on sticker donation T1: _calculated d_= 0.657, losing status: _ηp2_ = 0.34, gaining status: _ηp2_ = 0.38, NS differences at T2. Chen et al.: family income on sticker allocation in dictator game: Spearman's _ρ_ = -.10; parents education/migrant status: NS. Korndörfer et al.: Experiment 1 – household objective social class for each household on self-reported donation behavior for the previous year: OR = 2.07, NS quadratic term, on relative amount of donation, both standardized score: _b_= .158 and its quadratic term, _b_= .073; Experiment2 – household objective social class on self-reported donation behavior for the previous year: OR = 1.99, NS quadratic term, on relative amount of donation, standardized score: _b_= .078, NS quadratic term; Experiment 3 - Model 1, objective social class for each person on self-reported donation behavior for the previous year: OR = 2.54, NS quadratic term and frequency: _b_= .392, quadratic term: _b_= -.064; Model 2, four-category subjective social class for each person on self-reported donation behavior for the previous year: OR = 1.61, quadratic term: OR = 0.90 and frequency: _b_= .230, quadratic term: _b_= -.039; Experiment 4 - objective social class for each person on self-reported volunteering: OR = 2.03, quadratic term: OR = 0.91 and frequency: _b_= .336, quadratic term: _b_= -0.48; Experiment 5 - same models as Experiment3 but with a volunteering outcome: Model 1: OR = 1.64, NS quadratic term and frequency: _b_= .248, NS quadratic term: Model 2, OR = 1.29, NS quadratic term: and frequency: _b_= .135, NS quadratic term; Experiment 6 - Model 1, objective social class for each person on past 12 month volunteering: OR = 1.18, quadratic term: OR = 0.97 and frequency: _b_= 0.94, quadratic term: _b_= -.012; Model 2, six-category subjective social class on volunteering: OR = 1.15, NS quadratic term and frequency: _b_= 0.76, NS quadratic term; Experiment7 - same models as Experiments 3 and 5 but with a single everyday helping outcome: Model 1, _b_= .397, NS quadratic term; Model 2: NS and NS quadratic term; Experiment8 - objective social class for each person on behavior in a trust game, player 1: _b_= .468, player 2: _b_= .421. Stamos et al.: _d_ = .36 (manipulated subjective SES), opposite direction: _r_ = -.02 (family income). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: NA * Original paper: '[Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison](http://pdf.prisonexp.org/ijcp1973.pdf)', Haney, Banks, Zimbardo 1973; experimental and observational study, n=24. [, citations = 2115 (including highly referenced publications), (GS, January, 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Le Texier 2019](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31380664) [commentary, n=NA, citations= 38 (GS, January, 2022)]. [Banuazizi & Mahavedi 1975](https://content.apa.org/record/1975-27442-001) [methodological analysis, n=NA, citations= 118 (GS, January 2022)]. [Festinger 1980](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-00168-000) [book, n=NA, citations= 132 (GS, January 2022)]. [Haslam, Reicher, & Van Bavel 2019](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Famp0000443) [methodological analysis, n=NA, citations = 37 (GS, January 2022)]. [Griggs & Whitehead 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314549703) [textbook analysis, n=NA, citations = 37 (GS, January 2022)]. [Griggs 2014 ](https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314537968)[textbook analysis, n=NA, citations = 48 (GS, January 2022)]. [Blum 2018 ](https://gen.medium.com/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62)[media coverage, n=NA, citations = 31 (GS, January 2022)]. [LeTexier 2020 ](https://psyarxiv.com/9a2er/)[preprint, citations= 0 (GS, January 2022)]. [Izydorczak & Wicher 2020 ](https://psyarxiv.com/bj6p5/)[preprint, citations= 0 (GS, January, 2022)]. [Reicher & Haslam 2011](https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X48998) [experimental case study but not exact replication of SFE; n = 15, citations ~435 (GS, January 2022)]. [Lovibond, Adams, & Adams 1979 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/00050067908254355)[original research but not exact replication of SFE; n = 60, citations= 55 (GS, January, 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Le Texier 2019](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31380664) [commentary, n=NA, citations= 38 (GS, January, 2022)]. [Banuazizi & Mahavedi 1975](https://content.apa.org/record/1975-27442-001) [methodological analysis, n=NA, citations= 118 (GS, January 2022)]. [Festinger 1980](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-00168-000) [book, n=NA, citations= 132 (GS, January 2022)]. [Haslam, Reicher, & Van Bavel 2019](https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000443) [methodological analysis, n=NA, citations = 37 (GS, January 2022)]. [Griggs & Whitehead 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314549703) [textbook analysis, n=NA, citations = 37 (GS, January 2022)]. [Griggs 2014 ](https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314537968)[textbook analysis, n=NA, citations = 48 (GS, January 2022)]. [Blum 2018 ](https://gen.medium.com/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62)[media coverage, n=NA, citations = 31 (GS, January 2022)]. [LeTexier 2020 ](https://psyarxiv.com/9a2er/)[preprint, citations= 0 (GS, January 2022)]. [Izydorczak & Wicher 2020 ](https://psyarxiv.com/bj6p5/)[preprint, citations= 0 (GS, January, 2022)]. [Reicher & Haslam 2011](https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X48998) [experimental case study but not exact replication of SFE; n = 15, citations ~435 (GS, January 2022)]. [Lovibond, Adams, & Adams 1979 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/00050067908254355)[original research but not exact replication of SFE; n = 60, citations= 55 (GS, January, 2022)]. * Original effect size: Key claims were insinuation plus a battery of difference in means tests at up to 20% significance(!). _n_ = 24, data analysis on 21. * Replication effect size: N/A. First, the study has been criticised for the lack of adherence to the experimental methodology. Although the study has been widely described as an ‘experiment’ it lacks many defining features: 1) it does not define the precise set of manipulated variables, 2) it manipulates multiple variables at time without the proper control over the effects of each one, 3) it does not define the dependent variable and how it will be measured, 4) it does not state any clear hypotheses. It is noteworthy that in the original paper, authors present their work as a “demonstration” not an experiment. Second group of serious issues is the degree of researchers’ ad-hoc interventions that were influencing the behaviour of the participants. One of the leading researchers, Philip F. Zimbardo took part in the experimental procedure as the prisons’ “Superintendent”. Another close collaborator of the research team David Jaffe, who initially conceived the idea of the mock-prison study, was playing the role of the “Warden”. Considering that these people knew the goal of the study and were, as later admitted, interested in the particular outcome (a call for reform of the prison system), the ad-hoc intervention, such as encouraging some of the guards to be more strict and ‘tough’, cast a reasonable doubt on the role of experimentator' expectations on the final results of the study. The third group of issues is sampling. Namely, the study has been conducted on a small (n=24, n per condition = 12) and largely unrepresentative sample (all males, all college students of similar age, all residents of the United States). Also, despite the screening procedures of the voluntarily applying candidates, it is still possible that a strong ‘demand characteristic’ and ‘self-selection bias’ may have affected the composition of the sample. All the participants have responded to the newspaper ad about wanting help in “psychological study of prison life”. The last issue with the Stanford Prison Experiment is the interpretation of the results. Even if the discovered effect is trustworthy (and above mentioned issues put this into questions), there is no clear theoretical interpretation of what this finding actually proves. Some critics argue that violent behaviour of the guards may be rooted in their following of a strong leadership, rather than from their immersion into attributed social role. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Behavioral Study of obedience](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1964-03472-001)’, Milgram 1963; experimental study, n=40 (The full range of conditions was [n=740](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3976349/).). [citations =8502(GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: Sources: [Burger 2011](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610397632) [n=62 transcripts from the earlier experiment, citations= 108 (GS, March 2023)]. [Perry 2012](https://thenewpress.com/books/behind-shock-machine) [book, n=NA, citations= 261 (GS, March 2023)]. [Brannigan 2013](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-013-9724-3) [n=NA, citations= 14(GS, January 2022)]. [Griggs 2016 ](https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677644)[n=NA, citations= 28(GS, March 2023)]. [Caspar 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920307370) [n=NA, citations= 25(GS, March 2023)]. [Doliński et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693060) [n=80, citations= 122(GS, March 2023)]. [Blass 1999 ](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.694.7724&rep=rep1&type=pdf)[n=NA, citations= 595(GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: Sources: [Burger 2011](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610397632) [n=62 transcripts from the earlier experiment, citations= 108 (GS, March 2023)]. [Perry 2012](https://thenewpress.com/books/behind-shock-machine) [book, n=NA, citations= 261 (GS, March 2023)]. [Brannigan 2013](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-013-9724-3) [n=NA, citations= 14(GS, January 2022)]. [Griggs 2016 ](https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677644)[n=NA, citations= 28(GS, March 2023)]. [Caspar 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117251) [n=NA, citations= 25(GS, March 2023)]. [Doliński et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693060) [n=80, citations= 122(GS, March 2023)]. [Blass 1999 ](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.694.7724&rep=rep1&type=pdf)[n=NA, citations= 595(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: 65% of subjects said to administer maximum, dangerous voltage. * Replication effect size: Various sources (Burger, Perry, Branningan, Griggs, Caspar): Experiment included many** **researcher degrees of freedom, going off-script, implausible agreement between very different treatments, and “only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real and of those, 66% disobeyed the experimenter.”. Doliński et al.: comparable effects to Milgram. Burger: similar levels of compliance to Milgram, but the level didn't scale with the strength of the experimenter prods. Blass: average compliance of 63%, but suffer from the usual publication bias and tiny samples. (Selection was by a student of Milgram.) The most you can say is that there's weak evidence for compliance, rather than obedience. ("Milgram's interpretation of his findings has been largely rejected."). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[Pygmalion in the classroom](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02322211)’, Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968; between-subjects experiment, N_ _= 320. [citations = 13625 (GS, January 2023)]. '[Teachers' expectancies: Determinants of pupils' IQ gains](https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.115)', Rosenthal and Jacobson 1966, n around 320. [citations=881, but the [popularisation](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02322211) has 13,792 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Raudenbush 1984](https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=15780634-fea0-4165-bcfd-38a4665782e5%40redis) [n=findings from 18 experiments, citations= 598(GS, March 2023)]. [Thorndike 1986](https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312005004708) [review, n=NA, citations= 496(GS, March 2023)]. [Spitz 1999](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289699000264) [review, n=NA, citations= 147(GS, March 2023)]. [Jussim and Harber 2005](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3) [review, n=NA, citations= 1,760(GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Raudenbush 1984](https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=15780634-fea0-4165-bcfd-38a4665782e5%40redis) [n=findings from 18 experiments, citations= 598(GS, March 2023)]. [Thorndike 1986](https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312005004708) [review, n=NA, citations= 496(GS, March 2023)]. [Spitz 1999](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-2896(99)00026-4) [review, n=NA, citations= 147(GS, March 2023)]. [Jussim and Harber 2005](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3) [review, n=NA, citations= 1,760(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: Average +3.8 IQ, _d_=0.25. * Replication effect size: Raudenbush: _d_=0.11 for students new to the teacher, tailing to _d_=0 otherwise. Snow: median effect _d_=0.035. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -492,8 +492,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Stereotype threat on girls’ mathematical performance**. A situational phenomenon whereby priming a negative gender stereotype (e.g., “women are bad at math”) has a detrimental impact on mathematical performance. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: '[Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103198913737)', Spencer et al. 1999; Experiment 2, n=30 women. [citations=5076 (GS, June 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Stoet & Geary 2012](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026617) [meta-analysis, _k_ = 23,.citations= 286(GS, March 2023)]. [Flore & Wicherts 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440514000831) [meta-analysis, n=47 measurements, citations= 357(GS, March 2023)]. [Flore et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2018.1559647) [Registered Report n=2064 Dutch high school students, citations= 89(GS, March 2023)].; [Agnoli et al. 2021](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2021-77666-009.pdf?auth_token=28dfebe2d9950aa2d8ab814684048733c6b3f847) [conceptual replication with n_ _= 164 ninth grade and n = 164 eleventh grade Italian high school students, citations= 6(GS, March 2023)]. Other reported null results in the literature but not explicit replications, e.g. [Ganley 2013](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-02693-001) [n=931 across three studies, citations= 195(GS, March 2023)]. +* Original paper: '[Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance](https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373)', Spencer et al. 1999; Experiment 2, n=30 women. [citations=5076 (GS, June 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Stoet & Geary 2012](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026617) [meta-analysis, _k_ = 23,.citations= 286(GS, March 2023)]. [Flore & Wicherts 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002) [meta-analysis, n=47 measurements, citations= 357(GS, March 2023)]. [Flore et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2018.1559647) [Registered Report n=2064 Dutch high school students, citations= 89(GS, March 2023)].; [Agnoli et al. 2021](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2021-77666-009.pdf?auth_token=28dfebe2d9950aa2d8ab814684048733c6b3f847) [conceptual replication with n_ _= 164 ninth grade and n = 164 eleventh grade Italian high school students, citations= 6(GS, March 2023)]. Other reported null results in the literature but not explicit replications, e.g. [Ganley 2013](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-02693-001) [n=931 across three studies, citations= 195(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: not reported; Experiment 2: Fig. 2 does not report specific values but appears to be control-group-women (M = 17, SD = 20) compared to experiment-group-women (M = 5, SD = 15), which translates to approximately _d_= −0.7 (calculated). * Replication effect size: Stoet and Geary: _d_= −0.61 for adjusted and 0.17 [−0.27, −0.07] for unadjusted scores. Together, only the group of studies with adjusted scores confirmed a statistically significant effect of stereotype threat. Flore and Wicherts: _g_= −0.22 [−0.21, 0.06) and significantly different from zero, but _g_ = −0.07 [−0.21, 0.06] and not statistically significant after accounting for publication bias. Flore et al.: _d_= −0.05 [−0.18, 0.07]. Agnoli et al.: Both estimated stereotype threat effects were nonsignificant (see also Table S22; https://osf.io/3u2jd), _Z_ = 1.53, _p_ = .25 for ninth grade female participants and _Z_ =.70, _p_ = .97 for eleventh grade female participants. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: '[The Evidence for Generation Me and Against Generation We](https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812466548)', Twenge 2013; review of various studies, including national surveys [citations=251(GS, March 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Donnellan](https://www.gleech.org/psych) [and Trzesniewski](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691609356789) [_k_ = 5, n=477,380, citations = 432(GS, March 2022)]. [Arnett 2013](https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812466842) [unsystematic review, citations=171(GS, March 2022)]. [Roberts 2017](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691609357019) [reanalysis of original data and analysis of new sample n = 476, citations=195(GS, March 2022)]. [Wetzel 2017](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5zq0d131) [1990s: n = 1,166; 2000s: n = 33,647; 2010s: n = 25,412, citations=101(GS, March 2022)].(~660 total citations). Meta-analysis: [Hamamura et al. 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886919306476) [total n =24990, citations = 5(GS, March 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Donnellan](https://www.gleech.org/psych) [and Trzesniewski](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691609356789) [_k_ = 5, n=477,380, citations = 432(GS, March 2022)]. [Arnett 2013](https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812466842) [unsystematic review, citations=171(GS, March 2022)]. [Roberts 2017](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691609357019) [reanalysis of original data and analysis of new sample n = 476, citations=195(GS, March 2022)]. [Wetzel 2017](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5zq0d131) [1990s: n = 1,166; 2000s: n = 33,647; 2010s: n = 25,412, citations=101(GS, March 2022)].(~660 total citations). Meta-analysis: [Hamamura et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109707) [total n =24990, citations = 5(GS, March 2022)]. * Original effect size: _[d=0.37](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609355719)_ increase in NPI scores (1980-2010), n=49,000. * Replication effect size: Roberts doesn't give a _d_ but it's near 0. something like _d_=0.03 ((15.65 - 15.44) / 6.59). Wetzel: _d_ = -0.27 (1990 - 2010). Hamamura: _d_(leadership) = -0.26, _d_(vanity)=-0.39, _d_(entitlement) = -0.23. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -511,7 +511,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper:[ ‘Arousal of ingroup-outgroup bias by a chance win or loss’](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-02282-001), [Rabbie and Horwitz 1969](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-02282-001); experimental study, n=112. [citations= 679 (GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Balliet et al. 2014 ](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0037737)[meta-analysis, _k_=212, citations= 930(GS, March 2023)]. [Billig and Tajfel 1973](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420030103); experimental design, n=75. [citations=2232 (GS, January 2023)]. [Falk et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492892) [Japanese: n1 = 324 Japanese and Americans: n2 = 594, Americans, citations= 58(GS, March 2023)]. [Fischer and Derham 2016](https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-015-1663-6) [meta-analysis, n = 21,266, citations=70 (GS, March 2023)]. [Lazić et al. 2021 ](https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12791)[meta-analysis, _k_ = 69, _N_ = 5268, citations=5 (GS, March 2023)]. [Kerr et al., 2018](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103117306352?via%3Dihub) [n_=_412, citations=21 (GS, January 2023)]. [Mullen et al. (1992](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220202)) [meta-analysis, _k_ = 137, citations= 1,867(GS, March 2023)]. [Tajfel 1970 [](http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Intergroup_Conflict/Tajfel_Experiments_in_Intergroup_Discrimination.PDF)n=64, citations= 4094 (GS, January 2023)]. [Tajfel et al. 1971](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202) [n1=64, n2=48, citations=8126 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Balliet et al. 2014 ](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037737)[meta-analysis, _k_=212, citations= 930(GS, March 2023)]. [Billig and Tajfel 1973](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420030103); experimental design, n=75. [citations=2232 (GS, January 2023)]. [Falk et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492892) [Japanese: n1 = 324 Japanese and Americans: n2 = 594, Americans, citations= 58(GS, March 2023)]. [Fischer and Derham 2016](https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-015-1663-6) [meta-analysis, n = 21,266, citations=70 (GS, March 2023)]. [Lazić et al. 2021 ](https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12791)[meta-analysis, _k_ = 69, _N_ = 5268, citations=5 (GS, March 2023)]. [Kerr et al., 2018](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.05.001) [n_=_412, citations=21 (GS, January 2023)]. [Mullen et al. (1992](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220202)) [meta-analysis, _k_ = 137, citations= 1,867(GS, March 2023)]. [Tajfel 1970 [](http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Intergroup_Conflict/Tajfel_Experiments_in_Intergroup_Discrimination.PDF)n=64, citations= 4094 (GS, January 2023)]. [Tajfel et al. 1971](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202) [n1=64, n2=48, citations=8126 (GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: N/A * Replication effect size: Balliet et al.: _d_= 0.19 (for situations with no mutual interdependence between group members) and _d_= 0.42 (for situations with strong mutual interdependence between group members). Fischer and Derham: _d_= 0.369 [0.33, 0.41]. Mullen et al.: _r_ = 0.264. The ingroup bias effect was obtained from a meta-analysis on 74 hypothesis tests derived from artificial groups. Lazić, Purić & Krstić: _d_ = 0.22 [0.07, 0.38]. Kerr et al.: comparing US vs Australian sample, highlights the importance of context-dependent factors (like differences in methodological approach) and cultural variation of MGE; significant main effects of categorization (Group vs. No-group) on allocation measures, _ηp2_ = 0.031 to 0.081; the ingroup favouritism effect was present in both Context conditions, but was stronger in the public (_ηp2_= 0.072) than in the private context (_ηp2_= 0.020). Falk et al. : culture was a significant predictor of resource allocation such that Americans chose more in-group favouring strategies than did Japanese, _b_ = 1.43, _z_ = 9.52, _p_ < .00; American participants were also more likely to show an in-group bias in group identification (in-group vs. out-group comparison, _d _= .94), perceived group intelligence (_d_ = .44), and perceived group personality traits (_b_ = .15, _z_ = 17.51) then Japanese participants (_d_= .50, _d_ = -.003, _b_ = .04, _z_ = 2.75, respectively). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Imagined Contact - _Intentions_**. The claim that imagining social contact (instead of having actual contact) with someone from an outgroup (based on e.g., ethnicity, sexuality, religion, age) can increase contact intentions. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ['Elaboration enhances the imagined contact effect'](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103110001307#:~:text=In%20three%20experiments%20imagined%20contact,vividness%20of%20the%20imagined%20scenario.), Husnu and Crisp 2010; two experiments, Study 1:n = 33, Study 2: n = 60. [citations = 278 (GS, October 2022)]. +* Original paper: ['Elaboration enhances the imagined contact effect'](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014), Husnu and Crisp 2010; two experiments, Study 1:n = 33, Study 2: n = 60. [citations = 278 (GS, October 2022)]. * Critiques: [Klein et al. 2014](https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178) Many Labs study [n = 6344, citations = 1082 (GS, June 2022)]; [Crisp et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-38072-002) [citations = 16 (GS, October 2022] reply to Klein et al. stating that the effect size was significant and comparable to that obtained in the [Miles and Crisp 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213510573) [citations = 450 (GS, October 2022)] meta-analysis for the relevant outgroup, suggesting that the Many Labs project may provide stronger evidence than originally thought. * Original effect size: Study 1: _d_= 0.86, Study 2: _d_= 1.13. * Replication effect size: Klein et al.: _d_= 0.13 [0.00, 0.19] (NB: original study focused on ‘British Muslims’ - this on Muslims across cultures). Miles and Crisp: _d_= 0.35 and estimate for religious groups, _d_= 0.22. Crisp et al.: the observed effect size of 0.13 in the Many Labs study is substantially different from the original Husnu and Crisp study, and from our overall estimate of 0.35, but not from the most appropriate comparison: The meta-analytic estimate for religious outgroups (0.22). @@ -628,7 +628,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: [‘Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-00654-010)’, Gailliot et al. 2007; 9 experiments with: Study 1 (self-control decreases blood glucose): n= 103; Study 2 (self-control decreases blood glucose): n= 37; Study 3 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): n= 15; Study 4 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): n= 10; Study 5 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): n= 19; Study 6 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): n= 15; Study 7 (glucose consumption): n= 61; Study 8 (glucose consumption): n= 72; Study 9 (glucose consumption): n= 17. [citations=1956(GS, June, 2022)]. -* Critiques: Meta-analysis: [Hagger et al. 2010](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0019486) [citations= 2638 (GS, June, 2022)]. [Lange and Egger 2014](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666313005072) [n= 70, citations= 114 (GS, June 2022)]. Lange and Egger also points at statistical mistakes in the meta-analysis of Hagger et al. +* Critiques: Meta-analysis: [Hagger et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019486) [citations= 2638 (GS, June, 2022)]. [Lange and Egger 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.12.020) [n= 70, citations= 114 (GS, June 2022)]. Lange and Egger also points at statistical mistakes in the meta-analysis of Hagger et al. * Original effect size: Study 1 (self-control decreases blood glucose): _ηp2 _= 0.057 [calculated from the reported _F_(1, 100) = 6.08 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Study 2- discussing a sensitive topic with a member of a different race used up a significant amount of glucose among people with low Internal Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice scale (IMS), _b _=-3.28; Study 3 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): _r_= -0.62, Study 4 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): _r_= 0.56, Study 5 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): _r_= 0.45, Study 6 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): _r_= 0.43. Study 7 (glucose consumption): _ηp2_ = 0.081 [calculated], Study 8 (glucose consumption): _ηp2_ = 0.073 [calculated], , Study 9 (glucose consumption): _d_= 1.518 [calculated]. * Replication effect size: Hagger et al.: for glucose consumption: _d_ = 0.75 (includes the original study); for decrease of blood glucose levels: _d_= -0.87 (includes the original study). Lange & Egger: for glucose consumption: _ηp2_ = 0.02. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -646,7 +646,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[Power and Perspectives Not Taken](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x)’, Galinsky et al. 2006; 3 between-subjects experiments, each with two conditions, Experiment 1: n = 57, Experiment 2a: n = 42, Experiment 2b: n = 51, Experiment 3: n = 70. [citations = 1550 (GS, June 2022)]. -* Critiques: Experiment 2a: [Ebersole et al. 2016 ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115300123)[n = 2,969, citations = 438 (GS, June 2022)]. +* Critiques: Experiment 2a: [Ebersole et al. 2016 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012)[n = 2,969, citations = 438 (GS, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = .77 [0.12,1.41] obtained from Ebersole et al. (2016). * Replication effect size: Ebersole et al.: _d_ = .03 [− 0.04, 0.10]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -655,9 +655,9 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.127)’, Jost et al. 2003; five cross-sectional / correlational studies, Study 1: n = 1345, Study 2: = 2485, Study 3: = 1396, Study 4: n = 2223, Study 5: n = 788. [citations =927(GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques:[ ](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0012-x)​[Brandt 2013](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0031751) [n=151,794, citations=271(GS, October 2022)].[ Caricati 2017](https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1242472) [n=38,967, citations=50(GS, October 2022)]. [Henry and Saul 2006](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0012-x) [n=356, citations=156(GS, October 2022)]. +* Critiques:[ ](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0012-x)​[Brandt 2013](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031751) [n=151,794, citations=271(GS, October 2022)].[ Caricati 2017](https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1242472) [n=38,967, citations=50(GS, October 2022)]. [Henry and Saul 2006](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0012-x) [n=356, citations=156(GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: Study 1 – effect of income, _b_ = -0.22, race (European Americans vs. African Americans), _b_ = -0.73, and education, _b_ = -0.30, on willingness to limit the press; effect of income, _b_ = -0.31, race (European Americans vs. African Americans),_b_ = -1.01, and education,_b_ = -0.38, on the attitudes of the rights of citizens, Study 2 – effect of income, _b_ = 0.06, and education,_ b_ = -0.08, on trust in government officials among Latinos; Study 3 – effect of income on belief that large income differences are necessary to get people to work hard, _b_ = 0.04, and as an incentive for individual effort, _b_ = 0.02, Study 4 – main effects of region (North vs. South), _ηp2_ = 0.128 / _d_ = 0.38, and income, _ηp2_ = 0.09 / _d_ = 0.31, on meritocratic beliefs among African Americans [_ηp2_ calculated from the reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Study 5 – effect of socio-economic status, _b_ = -0.34, and race (White versus Black), _b_ = -0.25, on legitimation of income inequality. -* Replication effect size: Henry and Saul: group status effects on the support for of the dissent, _ηp2_ = 0.019 / _d_ = 0.14, government approval, _ηp2_ = 0.024 / _d_ = 0.16, and alienation from government, _ηp2_ = 0.024 / _d_ = 0.16 [_ηp2 _ calculated from the reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated).​ Caricati: effects of the top-bottom self-placement, _b_ = 0.117, social class, _b_ = 0.075, and personal income, _b_ = 0.022, on perceived fairness of income distribution [all significant, reversed]. [Brandt](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0031751): effects of income on trust in government and confidence in societal institutions in various multilevel regression models _b_= -0.014 to _b_= 0.005 [all non-significant, not replicated]; effects of education on trust in government and confidence in societal institutions in various multilevel regression models _b_= -0.044 [significant, replicated] to _b_= 0.021 [significant, reversed]; effects of social class on trust in government and confidence in societal institutions in various multilevel regression models _b_= 0.055 [significant, reversed] to _b_= 0.110 [significant, reversed]; effects of race on trust in government and confidence in societal institutions in various multilevel regression models _b_= -0.019 [non-significant, not replicated] to _b_= 0.017 [significant, reversed]; Overall, only one effect out of the 14 was supportive, six effects were significant and positive (reversed) and the remaining seven effects were not significantly different from zero. +* Replication effect size: Henry and Saul: group status effects on the support for of the dissent, _ηp2_ = 0.019 / _d_ = 0.14, government approval, _ηp2_ = 0.024 / _d_ = 0.16, and alienation from government, _ηp2_ = 0.024 / _d_ = 0.16 [_ηp2 _ calculated from the reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated).​ Caricati: effects of the top-bottom self-placement, _b_ = 0.117, social class, _b_ = 0.075, and personal income, _b_ = 0.022, on perceived fairness of income distribution [all significant, reversed]. [Brandt](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031751): effects of income on trust in government and confidence in societal institutions in various multilevel regression models _b_= -0.014 to _b_= 0.005 [all non-significant, not replicated]; effects of education on trust in government and confidence in societal institutions in various multilevel regression models _b_= -0.044 [significant, replicated] to _b_= 0.021 [significant, reversed]; effects of social class on trust in government and confidence in societal institutions in various multilevel regression models _b_= 0.055 [significant, reversed] to _b_= 0.110 [significant, reversed]; effects of race on trust in government and confidence in societal institutions in various multilevel regression models _b_= -0.019 [non-significant, not replicated] to _b_= 0.017 [significant, reversed]; Overall, only one effect out of the 14 was supportive, six effects were significant and positive (reversed) and the remaining seven effects were not significantly different from zero. {{< /spoiler >}} * **Red impairs cognitive performance**. The colour red impairs performance on achievement tasks, as red is associated with the danger of failure and evokes avoidance motivation. @@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020092)’, Piff et al. 2010; correlational and experimental design: self-report and behavioural measure of altruism, total N = 394. [citations=1633(GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Andreoni et al. 2021](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24519-5) field experiment [n=360, citations=27(GS, October 2022)]. [Stamos et al. 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656619301230), preregistered replications [Study 1 n=300, Study 2 n=200, citations=25(GS, October 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Andreoni et al. 2021](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24519-5) field experiment [n=360, citations=27(GS, October 2022)]. [Stamos et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103902), preregistered replications [Study 1 n=300, Study 2 n=200, citations=25(GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: mean _r_= −0.215. * Replication effect size: Andreoni et al.: mean _r_=.37 (reversed).​ Stamos et al.: _r_ =0.01 (non-significant). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -682,7 +682,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper:[ ‘Sinning Saints and Saintly Sinners’](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x), Sachdeva et al. 2009; three experiments using a priming-task where participants write a story about themselves using neutral/negative/positive traits, US student sample, Study 1 & 3: n = 46. [citations=919 (GS, June 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Blanken et al. 2014 ](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-20922-014.html) (direct replication of 2 of the original studies, 3 replication studies with 2 different populations) [Study 1: n = 105, Study 2: n = 150, Study 3: n = 940, citations = 81(GS, June 2022)]. [Blanken et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215572134) [meta-analysis, total n = 7,397, citations = 470(GS, June 2022)]. [Simbrunner and Schlegelmilch 2015](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-017-0128-0) [meta-analysis, _k_ = 106 (n data points not reported), citations = 37(GS, June 2022)]. [Kuper and Bott 2019](https://open.lnu.se/index.php/metapsychology/article/view/878) [re-analysis of the meta-analyses above, adjustment for publication bias, _k_=76 citations = 27(GS, June 2022)]. [Urban et al. 2019](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494418304225?via%3Dihub) [failed conceptual replication of [Mazar and Zhong 2010](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610363538), moral licensing in the domain of environmental behaviour, 3 studies, total n  =  1274, citations = 62(GS, March 2023)]. [Rotella and Barclay 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920301562?via%3Dihub) [failed pre-registered conceptual replication of the effect, n = 562, citations = 21(GS, March 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Blanken et al. 2014 ](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-20922-014.html) (direct replication of 2 of the original studies, 3 replication studies with 2 different populations) [Study 1: n = 105, Study 2: n = 150, Study 3: n = 940, citations = 81(GS, June 2022)]. [Blanken et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215572134) [meta-analysis, total n = 7,397, citations = 470(GS, June 2022)]. [Simbrunner and Schlegelmilch 2015](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-017-0128-0) [meta-analysis, _k_ = 106 (n data points not reported), citations = 37(GS, June 2022)]. [Kuper and Bott 2019](https://open.lnu.se/index.php/metapsychology/article/view/878) [re-analysis of the meta-analyses above, adjustment for publication bias, _k_=76 citations = 27(GS, June 2022)]. [Urban et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.011) [failed conceptual replication of [Mazar and Zhong 2010](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610363538), moral licensing in the domain of environmental behaviour, 3 studies, total n  =  1274, citations = 62(GS, March 2023)]. [Rotella and Barclay 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109967) [failed pre-registered conceptual replication of the effect, n = 562, citations = 21(GS, March 2022)]. * Original effect size: Study 1: _d_ = 0.62 [-0.11, 1.35]; Study 3: _d_ = 0.59 [-0.12, 1.30] (effect sizes taken from replication paper by Blanken et al.). * Replication effect size: Blanken et al: replication Study 1 (Dutch student sample): _d_ = -0.03 [-0.51, 0.45]; replication Study 2 (Dutch student sample): _d_ = -0.31 [-0.70, 0.08]; replication Study 1 & 3 ­­(US MTurk sample)­­: _d_ = 0.05 [-0.15, 0.25]. Blanken et al.: meta-analysis, mean effect of _d_ = 0.31 [0.23, 0.38]. Kuper and Bott: adjusted effect sizes: _d_= -0.05 (PET-PEESE) and _d_= 0.18 (3-PSM). Simbrunner and Schlegelmilch: mean effect of _d_ = 0.319 [0.229, 0.408]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -709,7 +709,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[It feels like yesterday: Self-esteem, valence of personal past experiences, and judgments of subjective distance](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792)’, Ross and Wilson 2002; Three studies: Study 1: N = 557 was a correlational study; Study 2: N = 357 was an experiment with two main predictors: recalled grade condition (best vs. worst; between-subjects) and self-esteem (measured); Study 3: N = 107 was an experiment with three main predictors: agent (self vs. acquaintance; between-subjects), valence of recalled experience (positive vs. negative; between-subjects), and self-esteem (measured). [citations = 462 (GS, June 2022)]. Study 2 was the one Many Labs 3 replicated. -* Critiques: [Ebersole et al. 2016](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115300123) [n = 3433, citations = 438 (GS, June 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Ebersole et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012) [n = 3433, citations = 438 (GS, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: _ηp2_ = .0185 (based on transforming from beta of -.136). * Replication effect size: Ebersole et al.: _ηp2_ = .0001. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[The substitutability of physical and social warmth in daily life’](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/#:~:text=The%20results%20of%20Study%201,compared%20to%20less%20lonely%20individuals.), Bargh and Shalev 2012; 4 experiments, n=403 across 4 experiments. [citations=414(GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Donnellan et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036079) replicated Study 1 [n=3073 across 9 studies, citations=104 (GS, October 2022)]. See also reply to Donnellan et al. 2014 by [Shalev and Bargh 2015](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Femo0000014) [n=555 across three samples, citations=6 (GS, October 2022). [Wortman et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-34343-001.html) replicated study 2 [n=260, citations=19(GS, October 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Donnellan et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036079) replicated Study 1 [n=3073 across 9 studies, citations=104 (GS, October 2022)]. See also reply to Donnellan et al. 2014 by [Shalev and Bargh 2015](https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000014) [n=555 across three samples, citations=6 (GS, October 2022). [Wortman et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-34343-001.html) replicated study 2 [n=260, citations=19(GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: _r_ = .57 (Study 1a; n=51) and _r_ = .37 (Study 1b; n =41) * Replication effect size: Donnellan et al.: _r_ = -.01 to .10 (but statistically indistinguishable from zero). Shalev and Bargh: loneliness-warmth index correlation for showering _r_ = .143 and for baths _r_ = .093 (replicated). Wortman et al.: warm vs. cold condition _d_ = 0.02 [reported, non-significant]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -782,7 +782,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * Status: mixed. * Original paper: ‘[The Physical Burdens of Secrecy](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-05413-001)’, Slepian et al. 2012; studies 1, 2 and 4 experimental mixed model design, study 3 correlational, study 1 n = 40, study 2 n = 36, study 3 n = 40, study 4 n = 30. [citations=113 (GS, November 2022)]​. * Critiques: [LeBel and Wilbur 2014](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0549-2), direct Slepian et al. 2012 Study 1 replication [Study 1 n=240, Study 2 n = 90, citations=24(GS, November 2022)]. [Pecher et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613498516), direct Slepian et al.2012 Study 1 and Study 2 replication [Study 1 n=100, Study 2 n = 100, Study 3 n = 118, citations=11(GS, November 2022)]. [Slepian et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613498516) [Study 1 n=83, Study 2 n = 174, citations=51(GS, November 2022)]. ​[Slepian et al. 2015](https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2015-05380-001), [Study 1 n = 100, Study 2 n = 100, Study 3 n = 100, Study 4 n = 352, citations=42(GS, November 2022)]. -* Original effect size: Study 1 – Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = 0.78 (calculated from M and SD data in the paper, also reported in[ LeBel and Wilbur 2014](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0549-2)); Study 2 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial distant perception comparisons _d_ = 0.67 (calculated from M and SD data in the paper, also reported in[ Pecher et al. 2015](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0000090)); Study 3 – effects of the frequencies of thought of infidelity on estimated effort required by physical task _R2 _= .21 / _d_ = 1.03 [converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)]; Study 4 – more burdensome vs. less burdensome secret concealment effects on willingness to help others with physical task _r_ = .44 / _d_= 0.98 [converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)]. +* Original effect size: Study 1 – Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = 0.78 (calculated from M and SD data in the paper, also reported in[ LeBel and Wilbur 2014](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0549-2)); Study 2 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial distant perception comparisons _d_ = 0.67 (calculated from M and SD data in the paper, also reported in[ Pecher et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000090)); Study 3 – effects of the frequencies of thought of infidelity on estimated effort required by physical task _R2 _= .21 / _d_ = 1.03 [converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)]; Study 4 – more burdensome vs. less burdensome secret concealment effects on willingness to help others with physical task _r_ = .44 / _d_= 0.98 [converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)]. * Replication effect size: LeBel and Wilbur: Study 1 - ​ Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = 0.176 [-.08, .43] [reported] (not replicated); Study 2 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = -0.319 [-.73, .10] [reported] (not replicated). Pecher et al.: Study 1 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = 0.08 [-0.31, 0.47] [reported] (not replicated); Study 2 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = 0.21 [-0.18, 0.60] [reported] (not replicated); Study 3 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret perceived distance comparisons _d_ = 0.21 [-0.15, 0.57] [reported] (not replicated). Slepian et al. 2014: Study 1 - ​ Big/meaningful secret recollection condition effects on hill slant estimation in comparison to reveаling a secret, _r_ = .29 [reported] / _d_= 0.61, and control condition _r_ = .34 [reported] / _d_= 0.72 [_d_'s converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)] (replicated); Study 2 - Big/meaningful secret recollection condition effects on distance estimation in comparison to revealing a secret, _r_ = .24 [reported] / _d_= 0.49, and control condition _r_ = .30 [reported] / _d_= 0.62 [_d_s converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)] (replicated). Slepian et al. 2015: Study 1 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = 0.31 (calculated from M and SD data in the paper, non-significant) (not replicated); Study 2 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _r_ = .28 [reported] / _d_= 0.58 [converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)] (replicated); Study 3 – Recalling preoccupying vs. non-preoccupying secret effects on hill slant judgements _r_ = .23 [reported] / _d_= 0.47 [converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)] (replicated); Study 4 - Recalling preoccupying vs. non-preoccupying secret effects on hill slant judgements _r_ = .11 [reported] /_d_= 0.22 [converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)] (replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -790,7 +790,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[Warmer hearts, warmer rooms: How positive communal traits increase estimates of ambient temperature](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-08589-013)’, Szymkow et al. 2013; Experiment 1: N = 80, two between-subjects conditions; Experiment 2: N = 80, two between-subjects conditions; Experiment 3: N = 160, four between-subjects conditions. [citations = 66 (GS, June 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Ebersole et al. 2016](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115300123) [n = 3,119, citations = 438 (GS, June 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Ebersole et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012) [n = 3,119, citations = 438 (GS, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = .86 [.40, 1.33] obtained from Ebersole et al. 2016. * Replication effect size: Ebersole et al.: _d_ = .06 [−.06, .08]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -897,7 +897,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Content effect for cheater detection**. There is a performance improvement on the Wason selection task if it involves cheater detection. College students were better able to complete the selection task for unfamiliar scenarios if it involved detecting a cheater instead of a descriptive scenario. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010027789900231)’, Cosmides 1989; experiment, n=24. [citations=3720 (GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1)’, Cosmides 1989; experiment, n=24. [citations=3720 (GS, November 2022)]. * Critiques: [Van Lier et al.2013](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3547066/) [n=117, citations=46 (GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: OR = 7.29 [calculated]. * Replication effect size: Van Lier, Revlin and De Neys: _d_=0.77. @@ -915,7 +915,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Sex differences in implicit maths attitudes**. College students, especially women, demonstrated negativity toward maths and science relative to arts and language on implicit measures.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: [Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.83.1.44), Nosek et al.2002; study design = experiment, n = 170. [citations=1428 (GS, November 2022)]​. +* Original paper: [Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44), Nosek et al.2002; study design = experiment, n = 170. [citations=1428 (GS, November 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Klein et al. 2014](https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178) [n=5842, citations=1129 (GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_=1.01[.54, 1.48] (reported in Klein et al. 2014). * Replication effect size: Klein et al.: _d_=0.56[0.45, 0.68] @@ -970,7 +970,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Body Politics: Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communication](https://archive.org/details/bodypoliticspowe00henl)’, Henley 1977; book/theoretical and anecdotal evidence, n=NA. [citations=2284(GS, May 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Hall et al. 2005](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.131.6.898) [meta-analysis, _k_=211, citations=1103(GS, May 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Hall et al. 2005](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898) [meta-analysis, _k_=211, citations=1103(GS, May 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Hall et al.: beliefs (perceptions) about the relation of verticality to nonverbal behavior (average _r_, weighted by sample size) – smiling _r_=-.25 [-.29, -.21], gazing _r_=.10 [.06, .14], raised brows _r_=-.36 [-.41, -.31], nodding _r_=.12 [.00, .18], self touch _r_=-.09 [-.24, -.06], other touch _r_=.21 [.17, .29], hand/arm gestures _r_=.37 [.25, .49], postural relaxation _r_=-.09 [-.04, .24], body/leg shifting _r_=.10 [-.29, -.21], interpersonal distance _r_=-.34 [-.43, -.25], facing orentation _r_=.10 [-.01, .21], vocal variability _r_=.24 [.16, .32], loudness _r_=.47 [.39, .55], interruptions _r_=.61 [.52, .70], pausing/latency to speak _r_=-.78 [-.94, -.62], rate of speech _r_=.09 [.03, .15], pitch _r_=-.10 [-.19, -.01], vocal relaxation _r_=.33 [.18, .48]; actual relations between verticality and nonverbal behavior (average _r_, weighted by sample size) – smiling _r_=-.03 [-.09, .03], gazing _r_=-.01 [-.09, .07], raised brows _r_=-.06 [-.25, .18], nodding _r_=.03 [-.05, .17], self touch _r_=-.04 [-.10, .10], other touch _r_=-.02 [-.10, .16], hand/arm gestures _r_=.05 [-.06, .10], openness _r_=.13 [.03, .23], postural relaxation _r_=.02 [-.08, .12], interpersonal distance _r_=-.17 [-.24, -.20], loudness _r_=.24 [.16, .32], interruptions _r_=.04 [-.02, .10], overlaps _r_=.06 [-.06, .81], pausing/latency to speak _r_=-.06 [-.24, .12], back-channel responses _r_=.03 [-.07, .13], speech errors _r_=.02 [-.10, .14], rate of speech _r_=-.06 [-.15, .03]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1022,7 +1022,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Imposter phenomenon**. People who perform outstandingly both academically and professionally believe that in fact, they are not really bright and that they have fooled anyone who thinks otherwise. This phenomenon might be especially persistent in women. Key conclusion: Therapeutic interventions might help to overcome imposter syndrome. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fh0086006)’, Clance and Imes 1978; Therapeutic interventions (but not described in detail), n=178. [Citations = 2709 (GS, January 2023)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006)’, Clance and Imes 1978; Therapeutic interventions (but not described in detail), n=178. [Citations = 2709 (GS, January 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Bravata et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05364-1): [n= 62 studies - systematic review, citations= 272 (GS, January 23)]. * Original effect size: NA; No effect sizes mentioned in original study since no statistical analyses were performed. * Replication effect size: Bravata et al.: NA, but imposter phenomenon both present in men and women, particularly high among ethnic minority groups (original study mentioned white middle class women). @@ -1094,8 +1094,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Humour style clusters**. A number of works have attempted to determine whether individuals can be categorised into different types of humour user. The first was by Galloway (2010) and suggested four types of humour user through use of cluster analysis: (1) above average on all of the styles, or (2) below average on all of the styles, or (3) above average on the positive styles (Affiliative and Self-enhancing), and below average on the negative styles (Aggressive and Self-defeating), or (4) above average on the negative styles and below average on the positive styles. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Individual differences in personal humor styles: Identification of prominent patterns and their associates](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886909005133)’, Galloway, 2010; cross-sectional study, n=318. [Citations = 149 (GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Chang et al., 2015](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0039527)[n=1252, citations = 47 (GS, March 2023)]. [Evans & Steptoe-Warren 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415612478)[n=202, citations = 49 (GS, March 2023)]. [Evans et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2020.1756239)[n=863, citations = 3 (GS, March 2023)]. [Fox et al. 2016](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915006200?via%3Dihub)[n=1108, citations = 37 (GS, March 2023)]. [Leist and Muller 2013](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9342-6)[n=305, citations = 119(GS, March 2023)]. [Sirigatti et al. 2016](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915300325)[n=244, citations = 35 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Individual differences in personal humor styles: Identification of prominent patterns and their associates](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.12.007)’, Galloway, 2010; cross-sectional study, n=318. [Citations = 149 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Chang et al., 2015](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039527)[n=1252, citations = 47 (GS, March 2023)]. [Evans & Steptoe-Warren 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415612478)[n=202, citations = 49 (GS, March 2023)]. [Evans et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2020.1756239)[n=863, citations = 3 (GS, March 2023)]. [Fox et al. 2016](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915006200?via%3Dihub)[n=1108, citations = 37 (GS, March 2023)]. [Leist and Muller 2013](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9342-6)[n=305, citations = 119(GS, March 2023)]. [Sirigatti et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.011)[n=244, citations = 35 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Chang et al.: NA, but the four-cluster solution described was replicated. Evans and Steptoe-Warren: three managerial humour clusters. Evans et al.: inconsistencies in the humour style profiles across countries tested and the extant literature, possibly indicative of cultural differences in the behavioural expression of trait humour. Fox et al.: NA, the presence of distinctive humour types in childhood. Leist and Muller: evidence for three humour types (endorsers, humour deniers, and self-enhancers). Sirigatti et al.: three humour styles identified. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1139,7 +1139,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Public exposure influences shame and guilt differently**. Public exposure (implicit and explicit) of transgression increases experienced shame more than guilt. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The role of public exposure in moral and nonmoral shame and guilt](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.83.1.138)’, Smith et al. 2002; 4 studies, between-subject design (Study 1 and 4), within-subject design (Study 2), content analysis (Study 3), Study 1: n=168, Study 2: n=56, Study 3: n=510 passages, Study 4: n=60. [citations=690(GS, June 2023)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[The role of public exposure in moral and nonmoral shame and guilt](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.138)’, Smith et al. 2002; 4 studies, between-subject design (Study 1 and 4), within-subject design (Study 2), content analysis (Study 3), Study 1: n=168, Study 2: n=56, Study 3: n=510 passages, Study 4: n=60. [citations=690(GS, June 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Zhang et al. 2022](https://osf.io/jpx87) [n=1727, citations=0(GS, June 2023)]. * Original effect size: Study 1: shame _f_ =.39 and guilt _f_ =.0.27. * Replication effect size: Zhang: Study 1 - shame _ηp2_=.14 [.11, .17] and guilt _ηp2_=.13 [.10, .16]. @@ -1180,7 +1180,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[An Outpatient Program in Behavioral Medicine for Chronic Pain Patients Based on the Practice of Mindfulness Meditation](https://v-assets.cdnsw.com/fs/Articles_scientifiques_Mindfulness/6lwfg-Mindfulness_chronic_pains_kabatzinn_mbsr_1982.pdf)’, Kabat-Zinn, 1982; longitudinal study, n=51. [citations = 5726 (PubMed, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: Hoffmann & Witt 2010 [meta-analysis, k=39 studies, n=1,140, citations= 5337 (GS, May 2023)]. Khoury et al. 2013 [meta-analysis, k= 209 studies, n=12,145, citations= 2484 (GS, May 2023)]. Strauss et al., 2014 [meta-analysis, k= 19 studies, n=578, citations= 659 (GS, May 2023)]. [Fumero et al. 2020](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8314302/) [_n_= 91, citations= 30 (PubMed, March 2023)]. Tao et al. 2022 [meta-analysis, k=7 trials, n=502, citations= 2 (GS, May 2023)]. Chayadi et al., 2022 [meta-analysis, k=36, n=1677, citations= 8 (GS, May 2023)]. [Coronado-Montoya 2016](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153220) [n=357, citations= 21 (GS, March 2023)]. [Britton 2019](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X18301453) [_n_= NA, citations= 169 (GS, March 2023)]. [Hsiao et al. 2020](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6435335/) [_n_ = NA, citations= 17(GS, May 2023)]. [Kuyken et al. 2022](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35820992/) [n=8376, citations= 21 (PubMed, March, 2023)]. [Sephton et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-009-9153-z) [_n_= 91, citations= 495 (PubMed, March, 2023)]. +* Critiques: Hoffmann & Witt 2010 [meta-analysis, k=39 studies, n=1,140, citations= 5337 (GS, May 2023)]. Khoury et al. 2013 [meta-analysis, k= 209 studies, n=12,145, citations= 2484 (GS, May 2023)]. Strauss et al., 2014 [meta-analysis, k= 19 studies, n=578, citations= 659 (GS, May 2023)]. [Fumero et al. 2020](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8314302/) [_n_= 91, citations= 30 (PubMed, March 2023)]. Tao et al. 2022 [meta-analysis, k=7 trials, n=502, citations= 2 (GS, May 2023)]. Chayadi et al., 2022 [meta-analysis, k=36, n=1677, citations= 8 (GS, May 2023)]. [Coronado-Montoya 2016](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153220) [n=357, citations= 21 (GS, March 2023)]. [Britton 2019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.011) [_n_= NA, citations= 169 (GS, March 2023)]. [Hsiao et al. 2020](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6435335/) [_n_ = NA, citations= 17(GS, May 2023)]. [Kuyken et al. 2022](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35820992/) [n=8376, citations= 21 (PubMed, March, 2023)]. [Sephton et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-009-9153-z) [_n_= 91, citations= 495 (PubMed, March, 2023)]. * Original effect size: prima facie, [d = 0.3](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/1809754) for anxiety or depression. * Replication effect size: [Fumero et al:](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8314302/) 75% (9/12) of reviews revealed a positive effect of MBIs, comparing pre-post intervention anxiety scores and compared with a control group (SMD) = 0.57 [0.22, 0.89]; for those with negative results, SMD = -0.27 [-0.52, 0.02]. The range of effect size for studies that yielded positive results for mindfulness in comparison to control or other intervention groups was diverse. 20% of studies exhibited a large range of effect size, 50% displayed a moderate range, and 30% demonstrated a small range. Khoury et al.:meta-analysis on pre-post-comparisons revealed a mean effect size on anxiety for ten pre-post studies, Hedge's g = .89 [.71, 1.08], p <.001. [Hoffmann & Witt](http://europepmc.org/article/MED/20350028): average pre-post effect size estimate (Hedges’ g) based on 10 studies was 0.67 [0.47, 0.87], p < .01. Tao et al.: the effects of MBIs (MBSR: Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction, MBCT: Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy) on depressive poststroke patients has revealed a positive effect on depression in poststroke depression patients compared with the control group (MBSR: n= 196, Hedges' g = 0.49 [0.42, 0.56], p < 0.01; MBCT: n= 301, Hedges' g = 0.85 [0.71, 1.00], p < 0.01.). [Chayadi et al.:](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0269519) the medium effect sizes of MBIs on reducing anxiety (Hedges’ g = 0.56, S.E = 0.107 [0.35, 0.77], p < 0.01) and depression (Hedges’ g = 0.43, S.E = 0.059 [0.32, 0.55], p < 0.01) among cancer patients with fatigue. [Strauss et al.:](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096110)the medium effect sizes of MBIs for depressive symptom severity (Hedges g = −0.73  [−0.09, −1.36]) but not for anxiety symptom severity (Hedges g = −0.55 n[0.09 to −1.18]) among cancer patients. Coronado-Montoya: indications of possible reporting bias; 108 (87%) of 124 published trials reported ≥1 positive outcome in the abstract, and 109 (88%) concluded that mindfulness-based therapy was effective, 1.6 times greater than the expected number of positive trials based on effect size d = 0.55 (expected number positive trials = 65.7); of 21 trial registrations, 13 (62%) remained unpublished 30 months post-trial completion. Britton: ES=NA; a number of mindfulness-related processes—including, mindful attention (observing awareness, interoception), mindfulness qualities, mindful emotion regulation (prefrontal control, decentering, exposure, acceptance), and meditation practice—show signs of non-monotonicity, boundary conditions, or negative effects under certain conditions. Hsiao et al.: the effects of Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention for Substance Use Disorders were small-to-medium in Study 1 (d = .08 to .48) and were much smaller in Study 2 (d =.03 to .21). Kuyken et al.: no evidence of school-based mindfulness training being superior to teaching-as-usual at 1 year; standardised mean differences (intervention minus control) were: 0.005 [-0.05 to 0.06] for risk for depression; 0.02 [-0.02 to 0.07] for social-emotional-behavioural functioning; and 0.02 [-0.03 to 0.07] for well-being. Sephton et al.: The MBSR treatment significantly reduced basal electrodermal (skin conductance level; SCL) activity (t = 3.298, p = .005) and SCL activity during meditation (t = 4.389, p = .001), consistent with reduced basal sympathetic (SNS) activation among women with fibromyalgia. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1192,7 +1192,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Verbal overshadowing effect**. In a series of six experiments, verbalising the appearance of previously seen visual stimuli impaired subsequent recognition performance. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ['Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid'](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001002859090003M), [Schooler](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3UEI9NIAAAAJ&hl=ru&oi=sra) and Engstler-Schooler 1990; experiment, n = 117 (study 4), n = 88 (study 1), n = 104 (study 2).[citations=1218 (GS, November 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ['Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid'](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-m), [Schooler](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3UEI9NIAAAAJ&hl=ru&oi=sra) and Engstler-Schooler 1990; experiment, n = 117 (study 4), n = 88 (study 1), n = 104 (study 2).[citations=1218 (GS, November 2022)]​. * Critiques: Experiment 1 and 4: [Alogna 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614545653) [n=1105 (experiment 1), n = 663(experiment 2), citations=192 (GS, November 2022)]. Мeta-analysis. * Original effect size: Experiment 1: -22%, Experiment 2: -25%. * Replication effect size: Alogna: Experiment 1: 4.01% [−7.15%, −0.87%]. Experiment 2: −16.31% [−20.47%, −12.14%]. @@ -1229,7 +1229,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: [‘Word age-of-acquisition and visual recognition threshold](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198377)’, Gilhooly and Logie 1981a; experiments, Experiment 1: n = 36, Experiment 2: n = 18. [citations=32(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Gilhooly and Logie 1981b](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03186735) [n = 16, citations = 101(GS, December 2022)]​. [Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001691803001070) [n = 21, citations = 192(GS, December 2022)]. [Chen et al. 2009](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000169180800156X#section.0015) [n = 30, citations = 28(GS, December 2022)]​. [Ploetz and Yates 2016 ](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12040)[n = 64, citations = 1(GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Gilhooly and Logie 1981b](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03186735) [n = 16, citations = 101(GS, December 2022)]​. [Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.002) [n = 21, citations = 192(GS, December 2022)]. [Chen et al. 2009](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.12.004) [n = 30, citations = 28(GS, December 2022)]​. [Ploetz and Yates 2016 ](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12040)[n = 64, citations = 1(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: Experiment 1: Beta = 0.05; Experiment 2: Beta = 0.03. * Replication effect size: author: Gilhooly and Logie: Beta = 0.09; Ghyselinck et al.: ηp² = 0.58 [ηp2 calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Chen et al.: ηp² = 0.27 [ηp2 calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Ploetz and Yates: ηp² = .124. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1255,8 +1255,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on the pre-conceptual stages of lexical retrieval (visual duration threshold)**. Early-acquired items are identified more accurately than late-acquired items, using visual duration threshold task. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: [‘Age of acquisition affects object recognition: Evidence from visual duration thresholds’](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691806001144#section.0025), Dent et al. 2008; experiments, experiment 1=16, experiment 2 = 16; experiment 3 = 16. [citations= 26(GS, December 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Chen et al. 2009](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000169180800156X#section.0015) [n = 31, citations = 28(GS, December 2022)].​ +* Original paper: [‘Age of acquisition affects object recognition: Evidence from visual duration thresholds’](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.08.004), Dent et al. 2008; experiments, experiment 1=16, experiment 2 = 16; experiment 3 = 16. [citations= 26(GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Chen et al. 2009](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.12.004) [n = 31, citations = 28(GS, December 2022)].​ * Original effect size: Experiment 1: ηp² = 0.628; Experiment 2: ηp² = 0.563; Experiment 3: ηp² = 0.560. * Replication effect size: Chen et al.: ηp² = 0.46 [ηp2 calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1310,8 +1310,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on semantic decision**. Early-acquired semantic concepts are categorised more quickly and accurately than later acquired concepts. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: [‘Age-of-acquisition effects in semantic processing tasks’](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001691800000214), Brysbaert et al. 2000; experimental design, Experiment 2: n = 36. [citations = 307(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques:[ Bai et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.719528) [Experiment 3: n = 32, citations = 6(GS, December 2022)].[ Chen et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X165484) [Experiment 2: n = 28, citations = 43(GS, December 2022)].[De Deyne and Storms 2007](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691806000497)young adult: n = 21, older adult: n = 21, citations = 35 (GS, December 2022)].[ Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691803001070) [n = 20, citations = 192 (GS, December 2022)].[ Izura and Hernandez-Munoz 2017](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opli-2017-0025/html) [first categorisation task n = 30, second categorisation task: n = 26, citations = 1 (GS, December 2022)]. +* Original paper: [‘Age-of-acquisition effects in semantic processing tasks’](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(00)00021-4), Brysbaert et al. 2000; experimental design, Experiment 2: n = 36. [citations = 307(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Critiques:[ Bai et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.719528) [Experiment 3: n = 32, citations = 6(GS, December 2022)].[ Chen et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X165484) [Experiment 2: n = 28, citations = 43(GS, December 2022)].[De Deyne and Storms 2007](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691806000497)young adult: n = 21, older adult: n = 21, citations = 35 (GS, December 2022)].[ Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.002) [n = 20, citations = 192 (GS, December 2022)].[ Izura and Hernandez-Munoz 2017](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opli-2017-0025/html) [first categorisation task n = 30, second categorisation task: n = 26, citations = 1 (GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: Experiment 2: _ηp2_ = 0.75 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Bai et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.10 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Chen et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.57 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. De Deyne and Storms: young adult: beta = 11.68, older adult: beta = 4.09. Ghyselinck et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.47[_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Izura and Hernandez-Munoz: first categorisation task: Beta = .256, second categorisation task: Beta = -0.017. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1319,8 +1319,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on the conceptual stages of lexical retrieval in opaque languages** (spoken picture naming in opaque language). Early-acquired objects are named more quickly and accurately than late-acquired objects in opaque languages or deep orthography (i.e. spelling-sound correspondence is not direct where one is able to pronounce the word correctly based on the spelling; e.g. English, French). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Age-of-acquisition norms for 220 picturable nouns](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022537173800362)’, Carroll and White 1973; experiment, n = 62. [citations=339(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques:[ Alario et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195559) [n = 46, citations = 372 (GS, January 2023)]. [Bonin et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.1080/713755968) [n = 30, citations=166(GS, December 2022)]​. [Bonin et al. 2003](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195507) [n = 30, citations = 381(GS, January 2023)].[ Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691820302158) [Experiment 1b: n = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Catling and Johnston 2009](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701814352) [Experiment 4: n = 24, citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)].[ Johnston et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.461) [n = 25, citations = 35(GS, January 2023)]. [Karimi and Diaz 2020 [](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01042-4)n = 212, citations = 9(GS, January 2023)].[ Perret et al. 2014](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093934X14000662) [n = 21, citations = 42(GS, December 2022)].[ Schwitter et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195603) [n = 31, citations = 52(GS, January 2023)].[ Snodgrass and Yuditsky 1996](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200540) [ n = 84, citations = 403(GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Age-of-acquisition norms for 220 picturable nouns](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(73)80036-2)’, Carroll and White 1973; experiment, n = 62. [citations=339(GS, January 2023)]​. +* Critiques:[ Alario et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195559) [n = 46, citations = 372 (GS, January 2023)]. [Bonin et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.1080/713755968) [n = 30, citations=166(GS, December 2022)]​. [Bonin et al. 2003](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195507) [n = 30, citations = 381(GS, January 2023)].[ Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691820302158) [Experiment 1b: n = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Catling and Johnston 2009](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701814352) [Experiment 4: n = 24, citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)].[ Johnston et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.461) [n = 25, citations = 35(GS, January 2023)]. [Karimi and Diaz 2020 [](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01042-4)n = 212, citations = 9(GS, January 2023)].[ Perret et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.04.006) [n = 21, citations = 42(GS, December 2022)].[ Schwitter et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195603) [n = 31, citations = 52(GS, January 2023)].[ Snodgrass and Yuditsky 1996](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200540) [ n = 84, citations = 403(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: ratings: _r_ = -771, objective: _r_ = .773. * Replication effect size: Alario et al.: beta = 69.4. Bonin et al.: beta = .194. Bonin et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.81[_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Catling and Elsherif: Experiment 2b: _d_ = 1.15 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Catling and Johnston: Experiment 4: _d_ =0.45. Johnston et al.: beta = .341. Karimi and Diaz: beta = .072. Perret et al. : _d_ = 0.82 [_d _calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Schwitter et al.: beta = .222. Snodgrass and Yuditsky: beta = .30. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1338,7 +1338,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper:[ ‘Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures in Spanish](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200741)’, Cuetos et al. 1999; experiment, n = 64. [citations=301(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Cuetos and Alija 2003](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195508) [n = 54, citations = 86(GS, January 2023)].[ Severens et al. 2005](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691805000120) [n = 40, citations = 192(GS, January 2023)]. [Shao et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0358-6) [n = 117, citations = 44(GS, January 2023)].[ Wolna et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01923-3) [n = 98, citations = 0 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Cuetos and Alija 2003](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195508) [n = 54, citations = 86(GS, January 2023)].[ Severens et al. 2005](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.01.002) [n = 40, citations = 192(GS, January 2023)]. [Shao et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0358-6) [n = 117, citations = 44(GS, January 2023)].[ Wolna et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01923-3) [n = 98, citations = 0 (GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: beta = 39.16. * Replication effect size: Cuetos and Alija: beta = 0.542. Severens et al.: beta = 0.24. Shao et al.: beta = 0.25. Wolna et al.: pictures of objects: _d_ = – 0.49, pictures of actions: _d_ = -0.29. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1347,7 +1347,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Age of Acquisition and Word Frequency in Written Picture Naming](https://doi.org/10.1080/713755968)’, Bonin et al. 2001; experiment, n = 30. [citations=166(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Bonin et al. 2002](https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1348/000712602162463) [n = 72, citations = 257(GS, December 2022)]. [Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691820302158) [Experiment 2b: _n_ = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Perret et al. 2014](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093934X14000662) [n = 20, citations = 42(GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Bonin et al. 2002](https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1348/000712602162463) [n = 72, citations = 257(GS, December 2022)]. [Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691820302158) [Experiment 2b: _n_ = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Perret et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.04.006) [n = 20, citations = 42(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _ηp2_ = 0.68 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Bonin et al.: Beta = 0.341. Catling and Elsherif: Experiment 2b: _d_ = 0.80 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Perret et al.: _d_ = 0.79 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1365,7 +1365,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Real Age-of-Acquisition Effects in Lexical Retrieval](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew-Ellis-11/publication/51323282_Real_age-of-acquisition_effects_in_lexical_retrieval/links/5e60138a4585152ce808fead/Real-age-of-acquisition-effects-in-lexical-retrieval.pdf)’, Ellis and Morrison 1998; experiment, n=40. [citations = 468(GS, December 2022)]. -* Critiques:[ Barry et al. 2001](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X00927438) [n = 24, citations = 258 (GS, December 2022)].[ Catling and Johnston 2009](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701814352) [Experiment 5: n = 24, citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)].[ Holmes and Ellis 2006](https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000093) [Experiment 6: n = 25, citations = 87 (GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques:[ Barry et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2743) [n = 24, citations = 258 (GS, December 2022)].[ Catling and Johnston 2009](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701814352) [Experiment 5: n = 24, citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)].[ Holmes and Ellis 2006](https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000093) [Experiment 6: n = 25, citations = 87 (GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _F_ < 1. * Replication effect size: Barry et al.: _F_ < 1. Catling and Johnston: _F_ < 1. Holmes and Ellis: _ηp2_ = 0.13 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1374,7 +1374,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Roles of Word Frequency and Age of Acquisition in Word Naming and Lexical Decision](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-20072-001)’, Morrison and Ellis 1995; experiment, n = 16. [citations = 599(GS, December 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Brysbaert et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1080/095414400382208) [n = 20, citations = 227 (GS, December 2022)].[ Gerhand and Barry 1998 ](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-00017-001)[n = 32, citations = 258(GS, December 2022)].[ Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691803001070) [n = 17, citations = 192 (GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Brysbaert et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1080/095414400382208) [n = 20, citations = 227 (GS, December 2022)].[ Gerhand and Barry 1998 ](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-00017-001)[n = 32, citations = 258(GS, December 2022)].[ Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.002) [n = 17, citations = 192 (GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _F_ < 1. * Replication effect size: Brysbaert et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.06 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Gerhand and Barry : _F_ < 1.5. Ghyselinck et al.: not reported. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1401,7 +1401,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Word Frequency Affects Naming Latency in Dutch when Age of Acquisition is Controlled](https://doi.org/10.1080/095414496383149)’, Brysbaert 1996; experiment, n = 22. [citations=73(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Brysbaert et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1080/095414400382208) [n = 20, citations = 227 (GS, January 2023)].[ Cuetos and Barbon 2006](https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500165896) [n = 53, citations = 96(GS, January 2023)].[ De Luca et al. 2008](https://journals.lww.com/cogbehavneurol/fulltext/2008/12000/the_effect_of_word_length_and_other_sublexical,.6.aspx) [n = 51, citations = 55(GS, January 2023)].[ Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691803001070) [n = 21, citations = 192(GS, January 2023)].[ Raman 2006](https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280500153200) [n = 28, citations = 69(GS, January 2023)].[ Wilson et al. 2012](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001691811002447) [Experiment 1: n = 40, Experiment 2: n = 32, citations = 25(GS, January 2023)].[ Wilson et al. 2013](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46016706/Revisiting_Age-of-Acquisition_Effects_in20160528-14011-1dann21-libre.pdf?1464437817=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DRevisiting_age_of_acquisition_effects_in.pdf&Expires=1673060714&Signature=Z2gFOXDcnKtUoB00Ib0OG5ky4lUmJLkjLLjJxh3PD7GP1aazhCC2KR0dVag46hw2fzlxqtCfpAA4qwyEb0VFEm9O3QXW5lz7n-ZcSS771SH4cf91QNICMaQVOLN2JubfONi-~MKjIqTwPKKZhLT7RPTGNzaEuEFFwxdyHtH~K-wblU5OYSgpzEe1Y1aqaQ7Fd8PgYnqx8RREP1qrbaJzZNRyQRyx70EXXWKvFTMNm4GyDIUto0U~B6ch6paZVvCyQUlBjKGX8iibzUojM9lXtzZZrXhYIaj0Eu-W7Ww8D7ELWD37pMUX5DHsMLQsZW8oA-c3xLSyoCRRv3IHRw32gg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA) [Experiment 1: n = 27, Experiment 4: n = 33, citations = 37(GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Brysbaert et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1080/095414400382208) [n = 20, citations = 227 (GS, January 2023)].[ Cuetos and Barbon 2006](https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500165896) [n = 53, citations = 96(GS, January 2023)].[ De Luca et al. 2008](https://journals.lww.com/cogbehavneurol/fulltext/2008/12000/the_effect_of_word_length_and_other_sublexical,.6.aspx) [n = 51, citations = 55(GS, January 2023)].[ Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.002) [n = 21, citations = 192(GS, January 2023)].[ Raman 2006](https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280500153200) [n = 28, citations = 69(GS, January 2023)].[ Wilson et al. 2012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.012) [Experiment 1: n = 40, Experiment 2: n = 32, citations = 25(GS, January 2023)].[ Wilson et al. 2013](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46016706/Revisiting_Age-of-Acquisition_Effects_in20160528-14011-1dann21-libre.pdf?1464437817=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DRevisiting_age_of_acquisition_effects_in.pdf&Expires=1673060714&Signature=Z2gFOXDcnKtUoB00Ib0OG5ky4lUmJLkjLLjJxh3PD7GP1aazhCC2KR0dVag46hw2fzlxqtCfpAA4qwyEb0VFEm9O3QXW5lz7n-ZcSS771SH4cf91QNICMaQVOLN2JubfONi-~MKjIqTwPKKZhLT7RPTGNzaEuEFFwxdyHtH~K-wblU5OYSgpzEe1Y1aqaQ7Fd8PgYnqx8RREP1qrbaJzZNRyQRyx70EXXWKvFTMNm4GyDIUto0U~B6ch6paZVvCyQUlBjKGX8iibzUojM9lXtzZZrXhYIaj0Eu-W7Ww8D7ELWD37pMUX5DHsMLQsZW8oA-c3xLSyoCRRv3IHRw32gg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA) [Experiment 1: n = 27, Experiment 4: n = 33, citations = 37(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: beta = -0.58. * Replication effect size: Brysbaert et al.: _ηp2_= 0.30 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Cuetos and Barbon: objective AoA _r_ = .316, subjective AoA: _r_ = .384. De Luca et al.: not reported. Ghyselinck et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.24 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Raman: _d_ = 0.48 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Wilson et al.: Experiment 1: _ηp2_ = 0.07 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Experiment 2: _ηp2_ = 0.33 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Wilson et al.: Experiment 1: _ηp2_ = 0.21 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Experiment 4: _ηp2_ = 0.48 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1419,8 +1419,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on speeded phonological retrieval** (transparent language). Early-acquired words are responded to more quickly and accurately than late-acquired words, using a speeded naming paradigm, where participants must name the items as quickly as possible within a short timeframe (e.g. 400 milliseconds). This effect is argued to reduce the influence of semantics on phonological activation, which is argued to accumulate over the word naming process. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Age-of-acquisition and frequency effects in speeded word naming](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027799000529)’, Gerhand and Barry 1999; experiment, n = 30. [citations=118(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691803001070) [n = 23, citations = 192 (GS, December 2022)].[ Wilson et al. 2013](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-19668-001) [Experiment 2: n = 35, citations = 37(GS, December 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Age-of-acquisition and frequency effects in speeded word naming](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00052-9)’, Gerhand and Barry 1999; experiment, n = 30. [citations=118(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.002) [n = 23, citations = 192 (GS, December 2022)].[ Wilson et al. 2013](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-19668-001) [Experiment 2: n = 35, citations = 37(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _ηp2_ = 0.61[_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Ghyselinck et al.: _ηp2_= 0.25 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Wilson et al.: _ηp2_= 0.09 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1437,8 +1437,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on lexical retrieval** (visual lexical decision in opaque languages). Early-acquired words are seen and responded more quickly and accurately than late-acquired words in opaque languages or deep orthography (i.e. spelling-sound correspondence is not direct where one is able to pronounce the word correctly based on the spelling; e.g. English, French), using visual lexical decision task. Participants have to decide whether they saw a word or not. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper:[ ‘Word-nonword classification time'](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002253717890110X?via%3Dihub), Whaley 1978; experiment, n = 32. [citations= 579(GS, December 2022)]. -* Critiques:[ Boulenger et al. 2007](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027706000618) [n = 20, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)]​.[ Cortese et al. 2018](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Cortese/publication/322193550_Examining_word_processing_via_a_megastudy_of_conditional_reading_aloud/links/5ab2a703a6fdcc1bc0c1e68d/Examining-word-processing-via-a-megastudy-of-conditional-reading-aloud.pdf) [n = 25, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)].[ Gerhand and Barry 1999](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211553) [Experiment 1: n = 30, Experiment 2: n = 30, Experiment 3: n = 30, Experiment 4: n = 30, Experiment 5: n = 30, citations = 185(GS, December 2022)]. [Morrison and Ellis 1995](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-20072-001) [n = 16, citations = 599(GS, December 2022)].[ Morrison and Ellis 2000](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161763) [n = 24, citations = 293(GS, December 2022)].[ Schwanenflugel et al. 1989](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0749596X88900228) [experiment 2: n = 44, citations = 536(GS, December 2022)].[ Sereno and O’Donnell 2009](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9649-x) [n = 97, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Turner et al. 1998](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201200)[n = 25, citations = 161(GS, December 2022)]. +* Original paper:[ ‘Word-nonword classification time'](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(78)90110-x), Whaley 1978; experiment, n = 32. [citations= 579(GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques:[ Boulenger et al. 2007](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027706000618) [n = 20, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)]​.[ Cortese et al. 2018](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Cortese/publication/322193550_Examining_word_processing_via_a_megastudy_of_conditional_reading_aloud/links/5ab2a703a6fdcc1bc0c1e68d/Examining-word-processing-via-a-megastudy-of-conditional-reading-aloud.pdf) [n = 25, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)].[ Gerhand and Barry 1999](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211553) [Experiment 1: n = 30, Experiment 2: n = 30, Experiment 3: n = 30, Experiment 4: n = 30, Experiment 5: n = 30, citations = 185(GS, December 2022)]. [Morrison and Ellis 1995](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-20072-001) [n = 16, citations = 599(GS, December 2022)].[ Morrison and Ellis 2000](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161763) [n = 24, citations = 293(GS, December 2022)].[ Schwanenflugel et al. 1989](https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(88)90022-8) [experiment 2: n = 44, citations = 536(GS, December 2022)].[ Sereno and O’Donnell 2009](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9649-x) [n = 97, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Turner et al. 1998](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201200)[n = 25, citations = 161(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _r_ = 0.63. * Replication effect size: Boulenger et al.: slope for nouns = 24.17, slope for verbs = 15.39. Cortese et al.: beta = .340. Gerhand and Barry: Experiment 1: _ηp2_ = 0.40 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Experiment 2-5 (collapsed together): _ηp2_ = 0.33 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Morrison and Ellis : _d_ = 3.00 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Morrison and Ellis: beta = 0.67. Schwanenflugel et al.: _r_ = .15. Sereno and O’Donnell: _ηp2_ = 0.53 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Turner et al.: _d_ = 0.58 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion]](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1447,7 +1447,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[The effects of age-of-acquisition and frequency-of-occurrence in visual word recognition: Further evidence from the Dutch language](https://doi.org/10.1080/095414400382208)’, Brysbaert et al. 2000; experiment, n = 20. [citations = 227 (GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Colombo and Burani 2002](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093934X01925337) [Experiment 1: n = 20, citations = 82(GS, January 2023)].[ de Deyne and Storms 2007](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691806000497) [Young adult: n = 22, Older adults: n = 20, citations = 35(GS, January 2023)].[ Fiebach et al. 2003](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811903002271) [n = 12, citations = 117(GS, January 2023)].[ Gonzalez-Nosti et al. 2014](https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Effects+of+the+psycholinguistic+variables+on+the+lexical+decision+task+in+Spanish%3A+A+study+with+2%2C765+words&btnG=) [n = 58, citations = 58(GS, January 2023)]. [Izura and Hernandez-Munoz 2017](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opli-2017-0025/html) [n = 80, citations = 1(GS, January 2023)]. [Menenti and Burani 2007](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601100126) [Italian speakers n = 54, Dutch speakers: n = 50, citations = 51(GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Colombo and Burani 2002](https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2533) [Experiment 1: n = 20, citations = 82(GS, January 2023)].[ de Deyne and Storms 2007](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691806000497) [Young adult: n = 22, Older adults: n = 20, citations = 35(GS, January 2023)].[ Fiebach et al. 2003](https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00227-1) [n = 12, citations = 117(GS, January 2023)].[ Gonzalez-Nosti et al. 2014](https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Effects+of+the+psycholinguistic+variables+on+the+lexical+decision+task+in+Spanish%3A+A+study+with+2%2C765+words&btnG=) [n = 58, citations = 58(GS, January 2023)]. [Izura and Hernandez-Munoz 2017](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opli-2017-0025/html) [n = 80, citations = 1(GS, January 2023)]. [Menenti and Burani 2007](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601100126) [Italian speakers n = 54, Dutch speakers: n = 50, citations = 51(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: _ηp2_ = 0.61 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Colombo and Burani Experiment 1: _r_ = .502. de Deynes and Storms: young adults: _r_ = .62, older adults: _r_ = .74. Fiebach et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.80 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Gonzalez-Nosti et al.: _r_ = .602. Izura and Hernandez-Munoz: beta = .486. Meneti and Burani: Dutch: beta = .10, Italian: beta = .07. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1455,8 +1455,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on lexical retrieval** (Visual lexical decision in logographic languages). Early-acquired logograms are responded more quickly and accurately than late-acquired logograms in logographic languages such as Chinese and Japanese, using a visual lexical decision task. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Age of acquisition and typicality effects in three object processing tasks](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393208000572) Weekes et al. 2008; experiment, n = 12. [citations=22(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Chang and Lee 2020](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01787-8) [n = 180, citations = 11(GS, December 2022)].[ Chen et al. 2009](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000169180800156X#section.0015) [n = 32, citations = 28(GS, December 2022)]​.[ Xu et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01455-8) [n = 1765, citations = 121(GS, December 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Age of acquisition and typicality effects in three object processing tasks](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.01.020) Weekes et al. 2008; experiment, n = 12. [citations=22(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Chang and Lee 2020](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01787-8) [n = 180, citations = 11(GS, December 2022)].[ Chen et al. 2009](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.12.004) [n = 32, citations = 28(GS, December 2022)]​.[ Xu et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01455-8) [n = 1765, citations = 121(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: ηp² = 0.66 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Chang and Lee: _d_ = 0.43 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Chen et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.15 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Xu et al.: RT: _r_ = .409, accuracy: _r_ = .285. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1464,7 +1464,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on silent reading** (eye-tracking). Early-acquired words show shorter fixations, gaze and total reading times than late-acquired words in sentences and paragraphs, using eye-tracking. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper:[ ‘Investigating the effects of a set of intercorrelated variables on eye fixation durations in reading’](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0278-7393.29.6.1312), Juhasz and Rayner 2003; experiment, n = 40. [citations=311(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Original paper:[ ‘Investigating the effects of a set of intercorrelated variables on eye fixation durations in reading’](https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1312), Juhasz and Rayner 2003; experiment, n = 40. [citations=311(GS, December 2022)]​. * Critiques:[ Dirix and Duyck 2017](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1233-8) [n = 14, citations = 17(GS, December 2022)].[ Juhasz 2018](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1253756) [n = 45, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)]​.[ Juhasz and Rayner 2006](https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000075) [Experiment 1: n = 32, Experiment 2: n = 40, citations = 185 (GS, December 2022)].[ Juhasz and Sheridan 2020 [](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00963-z)n = 47, citations = 2(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: First fixation: beta = 4.01, Single fixation: beta = 6.55, Gaze duration: beta = 6.62, Total duration: beta = 7.00. * Replication effect size: Dirix and Duyck: Single fixation: _d_ = 0.95 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Gaze duration: _d_ = 0.81 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], total reading time: _d_ = 0.71 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Juhasz: First fixation: _d_ = 0.27 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], single fixation: _d_ = 0.29 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], gaze duration: _d_ = 0.34 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], total fixation: _d_ = 0.37 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Juhasz and Rayner: Experiment 1: First fixation: _ηp2_ = 0.29 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Single fixation: _ηp2_ = 0.23 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Gaze duration: _ηp2_ = 0.43 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Total duration: _ηp2_= 0.34 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Experiment 2: First fixation: d = 0.39 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Single fixation: _d_ = 0.42 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Gaze duration: _d_ = 0.35 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Total duration: _d_ = 0.31 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Juhasz and Sheridan: First fixation: _d_ = 0.22, single fixation: _d_ = 0.20, gaze duration: _d_ = 0.20, total fixation: _d_ = 0.27; skipping percentage: _d_ = .17. @@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper:[ 'Characteristics of words determining how easily they will be translated into a second language'](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics/article/abs/characteristics-of-words-determining-how-easily-they-will-be-translated-into-a-second-language/EF06A22DA83321363039FC0956307868), Murray 1986; experiment, n = 16 [citations= 12(GS, December 2022)]. -* Critiques:[ Izura and Ellis 2004](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X03001165) [Experiment 1: n = 20, Experiment 3: n = 20, citations = 102(GS, December 2022)]​.[ Bowers and Kennison 2011](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9169-z) [n = 36, citations = 19(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Critiques:[ Izura and Ellis 2004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.09.004) [Experiment 1: n = 20, Experiment 3: n = 20, citations = 102(GS, December 2022)]​.[ Bowers and Kennison 2011](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9169-z) [n = 36, citations = 19(GS, December 2022)]​. * Original effect size: L1 AoA and translate to L1: _r_ = .27, L1 AoA and translate to L2: _r_ = .19. * Replication effect size: Izura and Ellis: Experiment 1: ηp² = 0.03 for L1 AoA [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], ηp² = 0.73 for L2 AoA [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Experiment 3: ηp² = 0.33 for L1 AoA [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], ηp² = 0.47 for L2 AoA [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Bowers and Kennison: ηp² = 0.90. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1501,7 +1501,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on lexical change**. In contrast to the meaning of late-acquired words, the meaning of early-acquired words are less likely to change over time in the conceptual representation of the speaker and community. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Age of acquisition predicts rate of lexical evolution’](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027714001644), Monaghan 2014; experiment, n = 200 words. [citations= 42(GS, December 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Age of acquisition predicts rate of lexical evolution’](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.007), Monaghan 2014; experiment, n = 200 words. [citations= 42(GS, December 2022)]. * Critiques:[ Vejdemo and Hörberg 2016](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147924) [n = 167 words, citations = 34(GS, December 2022)]​. [Monaghan and Roberts 2021](https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12968) [n = 784 words, citations = 7 (GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: Beta = .120. * Replication effect size: Veidemo and Horberg: Beta = -0.35. Monaghan and Roberts: pseudo-R2 = 1.7%. @@ -1565,7 +1565,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: NA * Original paper: ‘[Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/294035.Frames_of_Mind)’, Gardener 1983; book/theoretical work, n=NA. [citation=45591(GS, March 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Shearer and Karanian 2017](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949317300030?via%3Dihub) [n = 172 neuroscience reports, citations = 92 (GS, February 2023)]. [Sternberg 1994](https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819409500411) [n = NA, citations = 103 (GS, February 2023)].[ Tirri and Nokelainen 2008](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1) [n = 410, citations = 92 (GS, February 2023)]. [Visser et al. 2006](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000201?via%3Dihub) [n = 200, citations = 379 (GS, February 2023)]. [Waterhouse 2006](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1) [n = NA, citations = 103 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Shearer and Karanian 2017](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2017.02.002) [n = 172 neuroscience reports, citations = 92 (GS, February 2023)]. [Sternberg 1994](https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819409500411) [n = NA, citations = 103 (GS, February 2023)].[ Tirri and Nokelainen 2008](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1) [n = 410, citations = 92 (GS, February 2023)]. [Visser et al. 2006](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.004) [n = 200, citations = 379 (GS, February 2023)]. [Waterhouse 2006](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1) [n = NA, citations = 103 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: No empirical data collected [Allix, [2000](https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410004400306); Lubinski & Benbow, [1995](https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/02/Empiricism1995.pdf); Sternberg 1994; Waterhouse, [2006](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1); Gardner acknowledged lack of empirical data, [2004](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00329.x) (p. 214)]. * Replication effect size: Shearer and Karanian: NA; descriptive statistics, neural patterns consistent with Gardner’s hypothesis. Tirri and Nokelainen: NA; Confirmatory Factor Analysis; supports existence of logical-mathematical and spatial intelligences. Visser et al.: NA; Factor Analysis, modest support for Gardner. Strong loadings on g factor. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1600,8 +1600,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Bilingual advantages in executive control - Non-verbal task switching**. The idea that bilingual language switching on a daily basis makes bilinguals better at general non-verbal task switching, compared to monolinguals who do not perform this extensive daily language switching. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X9892602X)’, Meuter and Allport 1999 (conceptual original article); within-group design, sample size = 16. [citations = 1557(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [de Bruin et al. 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X15000844) [n1 = 28, n2 = 24, n3 = 24, citations = 110(GS, January 2023)]. [Paap and Greenberg 2013](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010028513000029) [study 1: n1 = 30, n2 = 44; Study 2: n1 = 31; n2 = 49; study 3: n1 = 48; n2 = 51, citations = 1135(GS, January 2023)]. [Prior and Macwhinney 2009](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition/article/bilingual-advantage-in-task-switching/CC68F518019E8D5471D0B0381AC945E7) [n1 = 32, n2 = 47, citations = 782(GS, January 2023)]. [Stasenko et al. 2017](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-30925-001) [n1 = 80, n2 = 80, citations = 55(GS, January 2023)]. [Timmermeister et al. 2020](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01832/full) [n1 = 27, n2 = 27, citations = 8(GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection](https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2602)’, Meuter and Allport 1999 (conceptual original article); within-group design, sample size = 16. [citations = 1557(GS, January 2023)]​. +* Critiques: [de Bruin et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.07.001) [n1 = 28, n2 = 24, n3 = 24, citations = 110(GS, January 2023)]. [Paap and Greenberg 2013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.12.002) [study 1: n1 = 30, n2 = 44; Study 2: n1 = 31; n2 = 49; study 3: n1 = 48; n2 = 51, citations = 1135(GS, January 2023)]. [Prior and Macwhinney 2009](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition/article/bilingual-advantage-in-task-switching/CC68F518019E8D5471D0B0381AC945E7) [n1 = 32, n2 = 47, citations = 782(GS, January 2023)]. [Stasenko et al. 2017](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-30925-001) [n1 = 80, n2 = 80, citations = 55(GS, January 2023)]. [Timmermeister et al. 2020](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01832/full) [n1 = 27, n2 = 27, citations = 8(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: de Bruin et al.: ηp2 (language group X trial type) = .74; ηp2 (raw switching costs) = .09; ηp2 (proportional switching) = ns; ηp2 (language group X trial type) = ns; (mixed). Paap and Greenberg: _ηp2 _(study 1)=.001; _ηp2 _(study 2)= .014; _ηp2 _(study 3)= .000; _ηp2 _(all bilingual vs. monolingual)= .004; (not replicated). .Stasenko et al.: _ηp2_ (CTI)=.892, _ηp2_ (trial type) = 488; _ηp2_ (half) = .339; _ηp2 _(CTI X language group)=.037; _ηp2 _(CTI X half) = .259; _ηp2 _(CTI X trial type) = .079; _ηp2 _(CTI X trial type X half) = .025; _ηp2 _(trial type X half X group) = .044; _d_ (language group in trials half 1) = .34; _d_ (language group in trials half 2) = ns; _ηp2 _(CTI X group, on only switch trials) = .55; _ηp2 _(CTI X group, on only switch trials) = ns; _ηp2 _(CTI X half, on error rates for bilinguals only) = .059; (mixed). Timmermeister et al.: _ηp2_ (accuracy and switching costs)= 0.10; _ηp2_ (MANCOVA with the previous factors, and SES and knowledge of Dutch as covariates) = 0.03; _ηp2_ (RTs and mixing costs) = 0.13; _ηp2_ (MANCOVA with the previous factors, and SES and knowledge of Dutch as covariates) = 0.06; (not replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1671,7 +1671,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[Music and spatial task performance](https://www.nature.com/articles/365611a0)’, Rauscher et al. 1993; experimental design, n=36. [citations= 2110 (GS, November 2021)]. -* Critiques: Pi[etschnig et al. 2010](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289610000267) [meta analysis: _k_=39, citations= 235 (GS, November 2021)]. [Steele et al. 1999a](https://www.nature.com/articles/23611) [n=86, citations=555 (GS, November 2021)].[ Steele et al. 1999](https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1999.88.3.843)b [n=206, citations=126 (GS, November 2021)]. +* Critiques: Pi[etschnig et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.03.001) [meta analysis: _k_=39, citations= 235 (GS, November 2021)]. [Steele et al. 1999a](https://www.nature.com/articles/23611) [n=86, citations=555 (GS, November 2021)].[ Steele et al. 1999](https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1999.88.3.843)b [n=206, citations=126 (GS, November 2021)]. * Original effect size: _d_= 1.5 [0.65, 2.35]. * Replication effect size: All reported in Pietschnig et al.: Adlmann: _d_ = 0.57 [0.25, 0.89]. Carstens: Study 1: _d_ = -0.22 [-0.89, 0.45]; Study 2: _d_ = 0.47 [-0.23, 1.17]. Cooper: _d_ = 0.42 [-0.23, 1.08]. Flohr: Study 1: _d_ = 0.14 [-0.35, 0.63]; Study 2: _d_ = 0.16 [-0.26, 0.58]. Gileta: Study 1: _d_ =0.13 [-0.26, 0.51]; Study 2: _d_ = -0.05 [-0.43, 0.34]. Ivanov: _d_ = 0.77 [0.20, 1.34]. Jones: _d_ = 0.92 [0.27, 1.56]. Jones: _d_ = 0.54 [0.11, 0.97]. Kenealy: _d_ = -0.22 [-1.08, 0.64]. Knell: _d_ = 0.45 [0.13, 0.77]. Lints: _d_ = -0.37 [0.75, 0.02]. McClure: _d_ = 0.46 [-0.02, 0.95]. Nantals: Study 1: _d _= 0.77 [-0.07, 1.61]; Study 2: _d_ = 0.06 [-0.72, 0.84]. Rauscher and Hayes: _d_ = 0.52 [0.18, 0.86]. Rauscher and Ribar: Study 1: _d_ = 1.81 [1.24, 2.37]; Study 2: _d_ = 0.93 [0.46, 1.39]. Rideout: _d_ = 1.54 [-0.67, 3.75]. Rideout: _d_ = 1.01 [0.19, 1.82]. Rideout: _d_ =1.01 [-0.21, 2.23]. Rideout: _d_ = 0.28 [-1.04, 1.60]. Siegel: _d_ = 0.26 [-0.39, 0.91]. Spitzer: _d_ = 0.01 [-0.32, 0.33]; Steele et al.: _d _= 0.85 [0.41, 1.30]. Steele, Dalla Bella, et al.: Study 1: _d_ = 0.49 [-0.01, 1.00]; Study 2: _d_ = -0.41 [1.15, 0.33]. Steele, Dalla Bella, et al.: _d_ = 0.85 [0.41, 1.30]. Steele, Brown and Stoecker: _d_=0.20 [-.08, 0.48]. Sweeny: Study 1: _d_ = -0.43 [-0.93, 0.07]; Study 2: _d_ = -0.06 [-0.56, 0.42]; Study 3: _d_ = 0.14 [-0.37, 0.65]. Twomey: _d_ = 0.63 [-0.01, 1.27]. Wells: _d_ = -0.18 [-0.83, 0.47]. Wilson: _d_ =0.85 [-0.44, 2.13]. Pietschnig et al.: meta-analytic estimate: _d_ = 0.37 [0.23, 0.52]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1698,7 +1698,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1978-20309-001)’, Neely 1977; speeded word–nonword classification task, n = 120. [citation = 3963 (PSYCNET.APA, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Aczel et al. 2021](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.191353) [Kan et al. 2013 replication, n=103, 70 and 38 participants for Experiments 1, 2 and 3, citations=4(GS, Feb 2022)]. [Gratton et al. 1992](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-12151-001) [n1=6, n2=5, n3a=6, n3b= 8, citation = 2004 (GS, April 2023)].[ Gyurkovics et al. 2020 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.001)[n=489 over four tasks, citations=3(GS, April 2023)]. [Kan et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.001) [n = 41 in Experiment 1; n = 28 in Experiment 2; n = 15 in Experiment 3, citation=81(GS, February 2022)] +* Critiques: [Aczel et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191353) [Kan et al. 2013 replication, n=103, 70 and 38 participants for Experiments 1, 2 and 3, citations=4(GS, Feb 2022)]. [Gratton et al. 1992](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-12151-001) [n1=6, n2=5, n3a=6, n3b= 8, citation = 2004 (GS, April 2023)].[ Gyurkovics et al. 2020 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.001)[n=489 over four tasks, citations=3(GS, April 2023)]. [Kan et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.001) [n = 41 in Experiment 1; n = 28 in Experiment 2; n = 15 in Experiment 3, citation=81(GS, February 2022)] * Original effect size: Greatest facilitation in Non-shift-Expected-Related word X target condition and greatest inhibition effects in Shift-Unexpected-Unrelated and Nonshift-Unexpected-Unrelated conditions; _η2 _= 0.689 (calculated from the reported _F_(4, 84) = 46.85, using this conversion). * Replication effect size: Aczel et al.: The congruency sequence effect for the RT analysis was inconclusive in all three experiments, _ηp2 _=0.00 to 0.02 (calculated from the reported _F _statistic), and for the accuracy in two out of three experiments, _ηp2 _=0.00 to 0.04 (calculated from the reported _F _statistic). Gratton et al.: compatible vs. incompatible trials, Reaction time _ηp2 _=0.88 to 0.94 (calculated from the reported _F _statistic), Error rate - _ηp2 _=0.59 to 0.98 (calculated from the reported _F _statistic). Gyurkovics et al.: _ηp2_=.40-.96. Kan et al.: congruent vs. incongruent trials, Stroop accuracy _ηp2 _=0.14 to 0.57 (calculated from the reported _F_ statistic), Stroop reaction time _ηp2 _=0.19 to 0.46 (calculated from the reported _F_ statistic). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1715,7 +1715,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **The attentional spatial-numerical association of response codes (Att-SNARC) effect**. The finding that participants had quicker detects to left-side targets preceded by small numbers and to the right-side targets preceded by large numbers. This finding triggered many assumptions about the number representations grounded in body experience. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[The mental representation of parity and number magnitude’, ](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0096-3445.122.3.371)Dehaene et al. 1993; 9 experiments of timed odd-even judgements investigated how parity and number magnitude were accessed from Arabic and verbal numerals, Experiment 1: n=20, Experiment 2: n=20, Experiment 3: n=12, Experiment 4:, n=20, Experiment 5: n=10, Experiment 6: n=8, Experiment 7: n=20, Experiment 8: n=24, Experiment 9: n=24. [citations= 3233 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The mental representation of parity and number magnitude’, ](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371)Dehaene et al. 1993; 9 experiments of timed odd-even judgements investigated how parity and number magnitude were accessed from Arabic and verbal numerals, Experiment 1: n=20, Experiment 2: n=20, Experiment 3: n=12, Experiment 4:, n=20, Experiment 5: n=10, Experiment 6: n=8, Experiment 7: n=20, Experiment 8: n=24, Experiment 9: n=24. [citations= 3233 (GS, January 2023)]. * Critiques: [Fischer et al.](http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v6/n6/full/nn1066.html) 2003 [n=15, citations= 857 (GS, January 2023)]. [Colling et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920903079) [n=1105 at 17 labs, citations= 34, (GS, January 2023)]. [Wood et al. 2008](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=On+the+cognitive+link+between+space+and+number%3A+A+meta-analysis+of+the+SNARC+effect&author=G.+Wood&author=K.+Willmes&author=H.-C.+Nuerk&author=M.+H.+Fischer&publication_year=2008&journal=Psychology+Science+Quarterly&pages=489-525286387/On_the_cognitive_link_between_space_and_20160606-24636-lu1n8x-libre.pdf?1465236856=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DOn_the_cognitive_link_between_space_and.pdf&Expires=1674746642&Signature=LkMRaFD~-L3BlavA9c8V~btx~MRjqxudP7egqpeDLZvdkPoanxxgF5IHY~nuClvL0PTEofK04IAo1BJvez-2dSV2Ay6RTkXeUeFxzA3kUOsrevPHfa-cT85qMCiasqhCdC6RfBKNbqlEQ1GU9eqS8mdjogdpXrQhN4Z16-gj3GApraDmKsoxJrpDfdeS--eErqeCErRxnjvOdwoMPJ4-Aw~XI9PtOxjmdxqgR~FnzFeMs7JeSeK2VF8z5TYx34vMG6eNjaZpKXstsC8TyNt2svcQ~DGMX6sf-MZUB21A-K-P8L39ONLXcP5LLeP7nxeDGGIFPKszUpxwaO6U8A6zxw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA) [n=46 studies (meta analysis), citations= 545, (GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Fischer et al.: not reported. All reported in Colling et al.: The estimate for a 250 ms interstimulus-interval (ISI) condition [90% CI]: Fischer et al.: −5.00 ms [−12.48, 2.48]. Ansari: 1.22 ms [−1.74, 4.19]. Bryce: −0.25 ms [−3.20, 2.71]. Chen: −2.59 ms [−5.25, 0.06]. Cipora: 2.65 ms [−0.15, 5.44]. Colling (Szucs):−1.93 ms [−4.39, 0.54]. Corballis: −0.25 ms [−3.03, 2.53]. Hancock: 0.55 ms [−2.50, 3.61]. Holmes: −0.67 ms [−3.34, 2.00]. Lindemann: 0.13 ms [−3.33, 3.59]. Lukavský: −0.06 ms [−2.52, 2.40]. Mammarella: −1.66 ms [−3.95, 0.63]. Mieth: 1.01 ms [−1.30, 3.31]. Moeller: −0.34 ms [−3.32, 2.64]. Ocampo: −0.44 ms [−3.05, 2.18]. Ortiz-Tudela: 0.51 ms [−2.27, 3.28]. Toomarian: 0.37 ms [−2.35, 3.08]. Treccani: 0.38 ms [−2.70, 3.46]. Model 1 (No Moderators): −0.05 ms [−0.82, 0.71]. Model 2 (Consistent Right-Starter): 0.29 ms [−0.89, 1.47]. Model 2 (Consistent Left-Starter): 0.12 ms [−1.24, 1.48]. Model 3 (Left-to-Right): 0.10 ms [−0.87, 1.06]. Model 3 (Not Left-to-Right): −1.65 ms [−3.58, 0.28]. Model 4 (Left-Handed): −1.83 ms [−3.88, 0.22]. Model 4 (Right-Handed): −0.03 ms [−0.72, 0.66]; the estimate for a 500 ms interstimulus-interval (ISI) condition: Fischer et al.:18.00 ms [7.51, 28.49]. Ansari: 0.72 ms [−1.89, 3.32]. Bryce: −0.13 ms [−2.78, 2.52]. Chen: 2.79 ms [0.45, 5.12]. Cipora: 0.27 ms [−1.79, 2.33]. Colling (Szucs):−0.48 ms [−3.45, 2.49]. Corballis: 0.09 ms [−2.33, 2.52]. Hancock: 2.21 ms [−0.29, 4.71]. Holmes: 0.99 ms [−1.95, 3.94]. Lindemann: −1.56 ms [−5.31, 2.19]. Lukavský: −1.10 ms [−3.61, 1.40]. Mammarella: 1.54 ms [−0.08, 3.16]. Mieth: 4.19 ms [2.23, 6.14]. Moeller: 0.57 ms [−2.88, 4.01]. Ocampo: 3.88 ms [1.54, 6.23]. Ortiz-Tudela: −3.43 ms [−6.30, −0.55]. Toomarian: 3.16 ms [0.53, 5.80]. Treccani: −0.42 ms [−2.61, 1.77]. Model 1 (No Moderators): 1.06 ms [0.34, 1.78]. Model 2 (Consistent Right-Starter): 1.24 ms [0.15, 2.32]. Model 2 (Consistent Left-Starter): 0.18 ms [−1.03, 1.39]. Model 3 (Left-to-Right): 0.91 ms [−0.02, 1.83]. Model 3 (Not Left-to-Right): 2.21 ms [−0.27, 4.69]. Model 4 (Left-Handed): 1.69 ms [−0.28, 3.65]. Model 4 (Right-Handed): 0.95 ms [0.07, 1.84]; the estimate for a 750 ms interstimulus-interval (ISI) condition: Fischer et al.:23.00 ms [8.30, 37.70]. Ansari: −4.07 ms [−6.76, −1.37]. Bryce: −0.69 ms [−3.19, 1.82]. Chen: 0.08 ms [−2.56, 2.72]. Cipora: −1.58 ms [−3.68, 0.53]. Colling (Szucs):0.70 ms [−1.53, 2.94]. Corballis: 0.30 ms [−2.51, 3.11]. Hancock: −1.44 ms [−4.02, 1.14]. Holmes: 0.35 ms [−2.48, 3.19]. Lindemann: 2.45 ms [−0.43, 5.33]. Lukavský: 1.48 ms [−1.29, 4.24]. Mammarella: −0.60 ms [−2.47, 1.26]. Mieth: 0.61 ms [−1.17, 2.39]. Moeller: 0.66 ms [−1.57, 2.88]. Ocampo: 5.75 ms [3.44, 8.06]. Ortiz-Tudela: −1.73 ms [−4.93, 1.48]. Toomarian: 0.35 ms [−2.61, 3.31]. Treccani: −2.18 ms [−4.36, 0.01]. Model 1 (No Moderators): 0.19 ms [−0.53, 0.90]. Model 2 (Consistent Right-Starter): 0.13 ms [−0.97, 1.23]. Model 2 (Consistent Left-Starter): −0.03 ms [−1.23, 1.18]. Model 3 (Left-to-Right): 0.24 ms [−0.68, 1.17]. Model 3 (Not Left-to-Right): −2.25 ms [−4.31, −0.20]. Model 4 (Left-Handed): −1.92 ms [−4.03, 0.19]. Model 4 (Right-Handed): 0.24 ms [−0.84, 1.31]; the estimate for a 1,000 ms interstimulus-interval (ISI) condition: Fischer et al.:11.00 ms [1.47, 20.53]. Ansari: 1.22 ms [−1.03, 3.48]. Bryce: 0.53 ms [−1.90, 2.96]. Chen: −1.71 ms [−3.90, 0.49]. Cipora: −1.09 ms [−3.31, 1.12]. Colling (Szucs):2.48 ms [0.28, 4.68]. Corballis: 0.67 ms [−1.55, 2.89]. Hancock: −0.18 ms [−2.78, 2.42]. Holmes: 0.36 ms [−1.97, 2.69]. Lindemann: 2.06 ms [−0.83, 4.95]. Lukavský: −3.86 ms [−7.10, −0.63]. Mammarella: 1.42 ms [−0.34, 3.18]. Mieth: −0.57 ms [−2.66, 1.51]. Moeller: 0.97 ms [−2.31, 4.25]. Ocampo: −1.34 ms [−3.84, 1.15]. Ortiz-Tudela: −0.39 ms [−2.99, 2.21]. Toomarian: 2.44 ms [0.11, 4.76]. Treccani: −1.39 ms [−3.53, 0.74]. Model 1 (No Moderators): −1.27 ms [−3.29, 0.75]. Model 2 (Consistent Right-Starter): 0.12 ms [−1.12, 1.35]. Model 2 (Consistent Left-Starter): 0.42 ms [−0.71, 1.55]. Model 3 (Left-to-Right): 0.50 ms [−0.54, 1.54]. Model 3 (Not Left-to-Right): 0.29 ms [−0.62, 1.19]. Model 4 (Left-Handed): 0.18 ms [−0.51, 0.88]. Model 4 (Right-Handed): −2.51 ms [−4.59,-0.43]. Wood et al.: Pooled size of the SNARC effects - Parity _d_= -0.99; Magnitude classification (fixed standard) _d_=-1.04; Magnitude comparison (variable standard) _d_=-0.59; Tasks without semantic manipulation _d_=-0.60; bimanual response _d_=-0.79; eye saccades latency _d_=-1.20; eye saccade amplitudes _d_=-0.07; manual bisection _d_=-1.08; pointing RT _d_=-1.02; pointing MT_ d_= -0.94; unimanual finger response _d_=-1.69; naming _d_=0.09; foot response _d_=-1.59; grip aperture _d_=-3.29. All reported in Wood et al.: Shaki and Petrusic: intermixed adj. _R2_=.45; negative blocked adj. _R2_=.94; positive blocked adj. _R2_=.94. Shaki et al.: adj. _R2_=.92. Bachot et al.: control children adj. _R2_=.42; VSD children adj. _R2_=.24. Gevers et al.: adj. _R2_=.82. Castronovo & Seron: blind participants adj. _R2_=.92; sighted participants adj. _R2_=.93. Nuerk et al.: adj. _R2_=.96. Fischer and Rottmann: whole interval adj. _R2_=.69; negative interval adj. _R2_=0.01. Bull et al.: deaf participants adj. _R2_=.94; hearing participants adj. _R2_=.60. Ito and Hatta: adj. _R2_=.16. Bächthold et al.: ruler task adj. _R2_=.96; clock-face task adj. _R2_=.97. @@ -1824,7 +1824,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Choice reaction time as a function of angular stimulus-response correspondence and age](https://doi.org/10.1080/00140136308930679)’, Simon and Wolf 1963; experimental design, n1 = 20, n2 = 20. [citation=289(GS, June 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Ehrenstein 1994](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419703) [n1=12, n2=14, citations=27(GS, June 2022)]. ​ [Marble and Proctor 2000](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0096-1523.26.5.1515) [n1=48, n2=20, n3=32, n4=80, citations=89(GS, June 2022)]. [Proctor et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260000041) [n1=64, n2=64, citations=74(GS, June 2022)]. [Theeuwes et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-22383-001) [n1=30, n2=30, n3=30, n4=30, citations=30(GS, June 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Ehrenstein 1994](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419703) [n1=12, n2=14, citations=27(GS, June 2022)]. ​ [Marble and Proctor 2000](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.26.5.1515) [n1=48, n2=20, n3=32, n4=80, citations=89(GS, June 2022)]. [Proctor et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260000041) [n1=64, n2=64, citations=74(GS, June 2022)]. [Theeuwes et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-22383-001) [n1=30, n2=30, n3=30, n4=30, citations=30(GS, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: not reported but could be calculated. * Replication effect size: Ehrenstein: not reported but could be calculated. Marble and Proctor: not reported but could be calculated. Proctor et al.: not reported but could be calculated. Theeuwes et al.: _ηp_ ² (the compatible S-R instructions condition vs. the incompatible S-R instructions condition)=.12; _ηp_ ²(the compatible S-R instructions condition vs. the incompatible practised S-R instructions condition)=.07; _ηp_ ²(the incompatible S-R instructions condition vs. the compatible S-R instructions condition)=.21; _ηp_ ² (e incompatible practised S-R instructions condition vs. the compatible S-R instructions condition)=.11. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1833,7 +1833,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Late Vertex Positivity in Event-Related Potentials as a Guilty Knowledge Indicator: A New Method of Lie Detection](https://doi.org/10.3109/00207458708985947)’, Rosenfeld et al. 1987; experimental design, n1=10, n2=6. [citation=126(GS, May 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Abootalebi et al. 2006](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167876006001425?via%3Dihub) [n=62, citations=159(GS, May 2022)]. [Bergström et al. 2013](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051113001154) [n1=24, n2=24; citations=61(GS, May 2022)]. [Mertens & Allen 2008](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00615.x) [n=79, citations=187(GS, May 2022)]. [Rosenfeld et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00158.x) [n-ex1=33; n-ex2.1=12, n-ex2.2=10, citations=419(GS, May 2022)]. [Wang et al. 2016](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417416000348?via%3Dihub) [n=28, citations=61(GS, May 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Abootalebi et al. 2006](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.05.009) [n=62, citations=159(GS, May 2022)]. [Bergström et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.04.012) [n1=24, n2=24; citations=61(GS, May 2022)]. [Mertens & Allen 2008](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00615.x) [n=79, citations=187(GS, May 2022)]. [Rosenfeld et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00158.x) [n-ex1=33; n-ex2.1=12, n-ex2.2=10, citations=419(GS, May 2022)]. [Wang et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.01.024) [n=28, citations=61(GS, May 2022)]. * Original effect size: N/A. * Replication effect size: Abootalebi et al.: not reported but could be calculated. Bergström et al.: _d_=2.89 (effort in uncooperative recall suppression); _d_=2.28 (success in uncooperative recall suppression); partial _η2 = _0.20 (experiment 1 - voluntary modulations of P300); partial _η2 _= 0.31 (experiment 2 - voluntary modulations of P300); _d_ = 0.48 and _d_ = 0.31 (experiment 1 - cooperative phase); _d_ =0.03 ( experiment 1 - uncooperative phase); _d_ = 0.14 (experiment 1 - innocent phase); _d_ = 0.77 (experiment 1: targets vs. probes - innocent phase); _d_ = 0.71 (experiment 1: targets vs. probes - uncooperative phase); _d_ = 1.03 and _d_ = 0.48 (experiment 2 - cooperative phase); _d_ = 0.48 and _d_ = 0.99 (experiment 2 - uncooperative phase); _d_ = 1.81 (experiment 2 - innocent phase); _d_ = 0.50 (experiment 1: cooperative vs. uncooperative); _d_ = 0.52 (experiment 2: cooperative vs. uncooperative); _d_ = 0.07 ( experiment 1: uncooperative vs. innocent); _d_ = 0.57 (experiment 2: uncooperative vs. innocent); _d_ < 0.17 (targets vs. irrelevants for experiment 1 and 2). Mertens and Allen: not reported but could be calculated. Rosenfeld et al.: not reported but could be calculated. Wang et al.: not reported but could be calculated. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1850,8 +1850,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Bilingual deficit in lexical retrieval**. Compared to monolinguals, bilinguals have often been found to be slower or less accurate in accessing the meaning of a certain word or the word for a certain representation under certain conditions. ​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: [‘Memory in a monolingual mode: When are bilinguals at a disadvantage?’](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0749596X87900982), Ransdell and Fischler, 1987; between-group multi-experiment study, with monolingual and bilingual young adults, n1 = 28, n2 = 28. [citations=216(GS, May 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Bialystok et al. 2007](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0911604407000449?via%3Dihub) [study 1: n1=24, n2 = 24; study 2: n1 = 50, n2 = 16, citations=338(GS, May 2022)]. [Gollan et al. 2002](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-18399-011) [n1=30, n2=30, citations=584(GS, May 2022)]. [Gollan et al. 2005](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193224) [study 1: n1=31, n2=31; study 2: n1=36, n2=36, citations=665(GS, May 2022)]. [Rosselli et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324826AN0701_3) [n1=45, n2=18, n3=19, citations=341(GS, May 2022)]. [Rosselli et al. 2002](https://doi.org/10.1080/00207450290025752) [n= 45, n2=18, n3=19, citations=151(GS, May 2022)]. +* Original paper: [‘Memory in a monolingual mode: When are bilinguals at a disadvantage?’](https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(87)90098-2), Ransdell and Fischler, 1987; between-group multi-experiment study, with monolingual and bilingual young adults, n1 = 28, n2 = 28. [citations=216(GS, May 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Bialystok et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2007.07.001) [study 1: n1=24, n2 = 24; study 2: n1 = 50, n2 = 16, citations=338(GS, May 2022)]. [Gollan et al. 2002](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-18399-011) [n1=30, n2=30, citations=584(GS, May 2022)]. [Gollan et al. 2005](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193224) [study 1: n1=31, n2=31; study 2: n1=36, n2=36, citations=665(GS, May 2022)]. [Rosselli et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324826AN0701_3) [n1=45, n2=18, n3=19, citations=341(GS, May 2022)]. [Rosselli et al. 2002](https://doi.org/10.1080/00207450290025752) [n= 45, n2=18, n3=19, citations=151(GS, May 2022)]. * Original effect size: not reported but could be calculated. * Replication effect size: Bialystok et al.: not reported but could be calculated. Rosselli et al.: not reported but could be calculated. Rosselli et al.: not reported but could be calculated. Gollan et al.: not reported but could be calculated. ​Gollan et al.: not reported but could be calculated. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1869,7 +1869,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology](https://archive.org/details/memorycontributi00ebbiuoft/page/80/mode/2up?view=theater)’, Ebbinghaus 1964; series of single-case studies, n=1. [citations=6103 (GS, September, 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Cepeda et al. 2006](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.132.3.354), meta-analysis [n= 184 articles, citations=1894 (GS, September 2022)]. [Janiszewski et al. 2003](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/30/1/138/1801740?login=false), meta-analysis [n= 97 verbal learning studies, citations= 373 (GS, September 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Cepeda et al. 2006](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354), meta-analysis [n= 184 articles, citations=1894 (GS, September 2022)]. [Janiszewski et al. 2003](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/30/1/138/1801740?login=false), meta-analysis [n= 97 verbal learning studies, citations= 373 (GS, September 2022)]. * Original effect size: N/A. * Replication effect size: Cepeda et al.: Cohen’s _d_ for the difference in the accuracy between massed and spaced learning trials in verbal recall tasks= 0.567 (calculated). Janiszewski et al.: _ηp2_= 0.093 (calculated from the reported _F_(1, 478)=49.23,_p_<.01 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)) for a linear relationship between the number of lags between learning events and the accuracy of recall; _ηp2_= 0.051 for the log relationship (calculated from the reported _F_(1, 478)=25.69, _p_<.01 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1923,7 +1923,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: [‘Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215908416289)’, Moray 1959; experimental design, n1=1, n2=12, n3=28. [citation=1972 (GS, February 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Conway et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196169) [n=40, citation=1195 (GS, February 2022)]. [Röer and Cowan 2021](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-62831-001) [n=80, citation=3 (GS, February 2022)]. [Wood and Cowan 1995](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0278-7393.21.1.255) [Replication, n=34, citation=467 (GS, February 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Conway et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196169) [n=40, citation=1195 (GS, February 2022)]. [Röer and Cowan 2021](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-62831-001) [n=80, citation=3 (GS, February 2022)]. [Wood and Cowan 1995](https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.255) [Replication, n=34, citation=467 (GS, February 2022)]. * Original effect size: Detection rate = 33%. * Replication effect size: Conway et al.: Detection rate = 43%. Röer and Cowan: Detection rate = 29%. Wood and Cowan: Detection rate = 35%. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1950,7 +1950,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: reversed * Original paper: ‘[Language comprehenders represent object distance both visually and auditorily](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/9320F4D38E43C3EABFAFAAC50259FF40/S1866980800000880a.pdf/div-class-title-language-comprehenders-represent-object-distance-both-visually-and-auditorily-div.pdf)’, Winter and Bergen 2012; experimental design, Experiment 1: n =22. [citation=54(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Vukovic and Williams 2014](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691813002503?via%3Dihub#s0010) [n=20, citations=36(GS, November 2022)]. ​ +* Critiques: [Vukovic and Williams 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.11.002) [n=20, citations=36(GS, November 2022)]. ​ * Original effect size: Experiment 1: _ηp2_= 0.230. * Replication effect size: Vukovic and Williams: _ηp2_=0.44. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1968,7 +1968,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Language Comprehenders Mentally Represent the Shapes of Objects](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00430)’, Zwaan et al. 2002; experiment, study 1: n = 51, study 2: n = 57. [citation=1031(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [de Koning et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1281283) [n = 160, citation = 14(GS, November, 2022)]. [Ostarek et al. 2019](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027718302233) [n1=115, n2=114,n3=112, n4=115, citations = 21 (GS, November 2022)]. [Rommers et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613490746) [study 1: n = 52, study 2: n = 44; study 3: n = 88, citation = 48(GS, November 2022)]. [Zwaan and Pecher 2012](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051382) [experiment 2a n= 176, experiment 2b n=176, citations=192(GS, November 2022)]. +* Critiques: [de Koning et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1281283) [n = 160, citation = 14(GS, November, 2022)]. [Ostarek et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.017) [n1=115, n2=114,n3=112, n4=115, citations = 21 (GS, November 2022)]. [Rommers et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613490746) [study 1: n = 52, study 2: n = 44; study 3: n = 88, citation = 48(GS, November 2022)]. [Zwaan and Pecher 2012](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051382) [experiment 2a n= 176, experiment 2b n=176, citations=192(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: Study 1: _d_ = 0.58, Study 2: _d_ = 0.39 [calculated using this conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). * Replication effect size: [de Koning et al.:](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)_d_ = 0.27. Ostarek et al.: experiment 1: _d_ = 0.22; experiment 2: _d_ = 0.20; experiment 3: _d_ = 0.13; experiment 4: _d_ = 0.19 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Rommers et al.: study 1: _ηp2_= .016/_d_ = 0.12 [calculated, using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)], _ηp2_ = .46/d = 0.91[calculated, using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]; study 3: _ηp2_ =.11 /d = 0.35 [calculated, using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. Zwaan and Pecher: experiment 2a: _d_ = 0.25 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared), experiment 2b: _d_ = 0.30 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1986,7 +1986,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Size matters: Bigger is faster’](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802618900), Sereno et al. 2009; experiment, n =28. [citation=47(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Kang et al. 2011](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.575947) [n=80, citations=23(GS, November 2022)]. [Wei and Cook 2016](https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1175899) [n =42, citations = 7 (GS, November, 2022)]. [Yao et al. 2013](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075000) [n = 60, citations =24(GS, November 2022)]. [Yao et al. 2022 ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X22000560)[Experiment 2: n = 56, citations =0(GS, November 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Kang et al. 2011](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.575947) [n=80, citations=23(GS, November 2022)]. [Wei and Cook 2016](https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1175899) [n =42, citations = 7 (GS, November, 2022)]. [Yao et al. 2013](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075000) [n = 60, citations =24(GS, November 2022)]. [Yao et al. 2022 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104369)[Experiment 2: n = 56, citations =0(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = 0.52. * Replication effect size: Kang et al.: _d_ = 0.14. Wei and Cook: _d_ =0.37 [calculated using this conversion from partial eta to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Yao et al.: _d_ = 0.59 [calculated using this conversion from partial eta to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Yao et al.: Experiment 2: _d_ = 0.43 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1995,7 +1995,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[You that read wrong again! A transposed-word effect in grammaticality judgments](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618806296)’, Mirault et al. 2018; two experiments, laboratory: n = 57, online: n = 94. [citation=47(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Huang and Staub 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02150-9) [Experiment 1: n = 49, Experiment 2: n = 51, citations=0(GS, November 2022)]. [Liu et al. 2020 ](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02114-y)[Experiment 1: n = 63, Experiment 2: n = 69, Experiment 3: n = 63, citations=5(GS, November 2022)]. [Liu et al. 2021 ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691821000226)[Experiment 1: n = 60, Experiment 2: n = 32, citations=4(GS, November 2022)].[ Liu et al. 2022](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027721003450) [n = 112, citations=2(GS, November 2022)]. [Mirault et al. 2020 ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590260120300163)[n = 112, citations=13(GS, November 2022)]. [Mirault et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02421-y) [Experiment 1: n = 60, Experiment 2: n = 32, citations=4(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado and Grainger 2019a ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691819303117)[n = 28, citations=11(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado and Grainger 2019b](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2019-68134-001.pdf) [Experiment 1: n = 28, Experiment 2: n = 28, citations=13(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado and Grainger 2021](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01819-3) [n = 28, citations=6(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado et al. 2021](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346130946_On_the_noisy_spatiotopic_encoding_of_word_positions_during_reading_Evidence_from_the_change-detection_task) [n = 31, citations=2(GS, November 2022)]. [Snell and Grainger 2019](https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02448204/document) [n = 24, citations=21(GS, November 2022)]. [Wen et al. 2021a ](https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1880608)[n = 40, citations=3(GS, November 2022)]. [Wen et al. 2021b ](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338782241_Fast_Syntax_in_the_Brain_Electrophysiological_Evidence_from_the_Rapid_Parallel_Visual_Presentation_Paradigm_RPVP)[experiment 2: n = 26, citations=10(GS, November 2022)][. Wen et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1880608) [n = 124, citations=0(GS, November 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Huang and Staub 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02150-9) [Experiment 1: n = 49, Experiment 2: n = 51, citations=0(GS, November 2022)]. [Liu et al. 2020 ](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02114-y)[Experiment 1: n = 63, Experiment 2: n = 69, Experiment 3: n = 63, citations=5(GS, November 2022)]. [Liu et al. 2021 ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691821000226)[Experiment 1: n = 60, Experiment 2: n = 32, citations=4(GS, November 2022)].[ Liu et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104922) [n = 112, citations=2(GS, November 2022)]. [Mirault et al. 2020 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2020.100029)[n = 112, citations=13(GS, November 2022)]. [Mirault et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02421-y) [Experiment 1: n = 60, Experiment 2: n = 32, citations=4(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado and Grainger 2019a ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691819303117)[n = 28, citations=11(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado and Grainger 2019b](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2019-68134-001.pdf) [Experiment 1: n = 28, Experiment 2: n = 28, citations=13(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado and Grainger 2021](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01819-3) [n = 28, citations=6(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado et al. 2021](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346130946_On_the_noisy_spatiotopic_encoding_of_word_positions_during_reading_Evidence_from_the_change-detection_task) [n = 31, citations=2(GS, November 2022)]. [Snell and Grainger 2019](https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02448204/document) [n = 24, citations=21(GS, November 2022)]. [Wen et al. 2021a ](https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1880608)[n = 40, citations=3(GS, November 2022)]. [Wen et al. 2021b ](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338782241_Fast_Syntax_in_the_Brain_Electrophysiological_Evidence_from_the_Rapid_Parallel_Visual_Presentation_Paradigm_RPVP)[experiment 2: n = 26, citations=10(GS, November 2022)][. Wen et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1880608) [n = 124, citations=0(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: laboratory: _d_ = 1.86, online: _d_ = 1.58. * Replication effect size: Huang and Staub: Experiment 1: _d_ = 1.27 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared), Experiment 2: _d_ = 0.97 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Liu et al.: Experiment 1: _d_ = 1.37 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared), Experiment 2: _d_ = 1.37 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d,](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared) Experiment 3: _d_ = 1.26 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Liu et al.: Experiment 1: _d_= 2.40 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared), Experiment 2: _d_ = 1.69 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Liu et al.: serial visual presentation: _d_ = 1.02 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d,](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)parallel visual presentation: _d_ = ​2.00 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Mirault et al.: _d_ = 0.52 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Mirault et al.: Experiment 1: _d_ = 0.40 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d; ](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)Experiment 2: _d_ = 0.88. Pegado and Grainger: _d_ = 0.73 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Pegado and Grainger: Experiment 1: _d_ = 2.97 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared), Experiment 2: _d_ = 0.78 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Pegado and Grainger: _d_ =1.40. Pegado et al.: _d_ = 2.08 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Snell and Grainger: _d_ = 1.58 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Wen et al.: _d_ = 0.64 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Wen et al.: Experiment 2: _d_ = 1.62 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d. ](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)Wen et al.: _d_ = 0.32 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2004,7 +2004,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[What grades and achievement tests measure](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1601135113)’, Borghans et al. 2016; correlational study, n=23,023 over four large-scale survey datasets. [citations=265(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Zisman and Ganzach 2022](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289622000125) [n=26,600 over six large-scale datasets, citations=5(GS, January 2023)].​ +* Critiques: [Zisman and Ganzach 2022](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2022.101631) [n=26,600 over six large-scale datasets, citations=5(GS, January 2023)].​ * Original effect size: Personality more predictive of education, _R2_ = 0.143, grades, _R2_ = 0.028 to _R2_ = 0.093, and wage, _R2_ = 0.021 to _R2_ = 0.053, then intelligence (education – _R2_ = 0.108, grades – _R2_ = 0.009 to _R2_ = 0.216, wage, _R2_ = 0.024 to _R2_ = 0.18. * Replication effect size: Zisman & Ganzach: Intelligence more predictive of educational attainment, _R2_ = 0.120 to _R2_ = 0.328 (average _R2 _= 0.232), grades, _R2_ = 0.175 to _R2_ = 0.268 (average _R2 _= 0.229), and pay, _R2_ = 0.031 to _R2_ = 0.148 (average _R2 _= 0.080), then personality (educational attainment – _R2_ = 0.029 to _R2_ = 0.079, average _R2 _= 0.053; grades – _R2_ = 0.011 to _R2_ = 0.041, average _R2 _= 0.024; pay, _R2_ = 0.021 to _R2_ = 0.079, average _R2 _= 0.040) (not replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2022,7 +2022,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Gettier intuition effect**. Participants attributed knowledge in Gettier-type cases (where an individual is justified in believing something to be true but their belief was only correct due to luck) at rates similar to cases of justified true belief. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed. -* Original paper: ‘[The folk conception of knowledge](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027712001096)’ Starmans and Friedman 2012; between-subject experiments, n1a=144, n1b=133, n1c=46, n2=51, n3=43. [citations=183(GS, March 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The folk conception of knowledge](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.05.017)’ Starmans and Friedman 2012; between-subject experiments, n1a=144, n1b=133, n1c=46, n2=51, n3=43. [citations=183(GS, March 2023)]. * Critiques: [Turri et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0683-5) [n1=135, n2=141, n3=576, n4= 813, citations = 97 (GS, March 2023)]. [Hall et al. 2018](https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr321832) (pre-print) [n=4724, Citations=4 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: Experiment 1a: knowledge attribution exceeded chance in both the Gettier and Control conditions; in the False Belief condition knowledge was attributed less than in the Gettier condition and at rates less than would be expected by chance (_ηp2 _=0.47, calculated from the reported _F_(2,141) = 63.65, _p_ < .001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)); Experiment 1b: participants attributing knowledge equally in the Control and in the Gettier condition, but less in the False Belief condition than in the Gettier condition (_ηp2 _=0.34, calculated from the reported _F_(2,91) = 23.75, _p_ < .001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)); Experiment 1c: laypeople consider Gettier cases to be instances of knowledge (_d_ = 1.75, calculated from the reported _t_(45) = 5.93, _p_ < .001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)); Experiment 2: participants attributed knowledge in High justification condition, but not in the Low justification condition (_ηp2 _=0.19, calculated from the reported _F_(1,49) = 11.75, _p_ = .001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)); Experiment 3: participants readily attributed knowledge when the Gettiered individual formed a belief based on authentic evidence as compared to apparent evidence (_ηp2 _=0.29, calculated from the reported _F_(1,42) = 17.51, p < .001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)). * Replication effect size: Turri et al.: knowledge attributions are surprisingly insensitive to lucky events that threaten, but ultimately fail to change the explanation for why a belief is true, Experiment 1 - Cramér’s V = .509, Experiment 2: Cramér’s V =.534, Experiment 3: Cramér’s _V_ = .406, Experiment 4: Cramér’s _V_ = .546 (all replicated). Hall et al.: participants were more likely to attribute knowledge in standard cases of justified true belief than in Gettier cases, Pseudo- _R_2 = 0.12 - 0.15. @@ -2032,7 +2032,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Handedness as a major determinant of functional cradling bias](https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500500513565)’, van de Meer and Husby 2007; laboratory study in which left- and right-handers were asked to cradle a baby doll, side of holding was recorded in the studies, n=765. [citations = 67(GS, June 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Packheiser et al. 2019](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763419301691) [meta-analysis, n=6799, citations = 27(GS, June 2022)]. ​ +* Critiques: [Packheiser et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.035) [meta-analysis, n=6799, citations = 27(GS, June 2022)]. ​ * Original effect size: _d_ = 1.06. * Replication effect size: Packheiser et al.: _d_ = 0.34. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2040,7 +2040,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Handedness differences - schizophrenia**. Non-right-handedness is more prevalent in individuals with schizophrenia compared to the healthy population. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Imbalance of hemispheric functions in the major psychoses: A study of handedness in the People's Republic of China](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0006322385902161)’, Shan-Ming et al. 1985; study of hand preference in individuals with schizophrenia, depression and healthy controls, n=225 schizophrenics and 432 controls. [citations=84(GS, June 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Imbalance of hemispheric functions in the major psychoses: A study of handedness in the People's Republic of China](https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3223(85)90216-1)’, Shan-Ming et al. 1985; study of hand preference in individuals with schizophrenia, depression and healthy controls, n=225 schizophrenics and 432 controls. [citations=84(GS, June 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Sommer et al. 2001](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/handedness-language-lateralisation-and-anatomical-asymmetry-in-schizophrenia/BDC270AEC0189932993F7F9917CCEAFA) [meta-analysis, n=5467, citations=536(GS, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_= 0.59. * Replication effect size: Sommer et al.: _d_ = 0.26. @@ -2050,7 +2050,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Cerebral laterality and depression: Differences in perceptual asymmetry among diagnostic subtypes](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-29506-001)’, Bruder et al. 1989; analysis of different patterns of brain lateralization between depressed individuals and controls, n = 70. [citations=202 (GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Denny 2009 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500802362869)[n= 27,482, citations = 49 (Tandfonline, June 2022)]. [Elias et al. 2001](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278262601800488) [n=541, citations = 37 (ScienceDirect, June 2022)]. [Packheiser et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016503272100731X) [meta-analysis, _k_=87, n = 35501, citations = 1 (ScienceDirect, June 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Denny 2009 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500802362869)[n= 27,482, citations = 49 (Tandfonline, June 2022)]. [Elias et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-2626(01)80048-8) [n=541, citations = 37 (ScienceDirect, June 2022)]. [Packheiser et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.07.052) [meta-analysis, _k_=87, n = 35501, citations = 1 (ScienceDirect, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_= 0.57. * Replication effect size: Elias et al.: No main effect but a significant interaction with sex; left-handed men show higher depression scores (no effect size). Denny: being left-handed is associated with a higher level of depressive symptoms, no significant interaction with sex (no effect size). Packheiser et al.: No link between handedness and depression (OR = 1.04 [0.95 - 1.15]). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2076,8 +2076,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Handedness differences - intelligence.** Left-handedness is associated with lower scores in fluid intelligence. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ’[Handedness and Intelligence](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945278800562)’, Hicks and Beveridge, 1978; correlational survey, n = 67. [citations = 29 (Science Direct, June 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Ntolka and Papadatou-Pastou 2017](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763417300210) [systematic review of 36 studies, n = 65,519, citations = 20 (Science Direct, June 2022)]. [Papadatou-Pastoua & Tomprou 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763415001712#!) [meta-analysis, n = 16,076, citations = 39 (Science Direct, June 2022)]. [Somers et al. 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763415000056) [meta-analysis, _k_=30, n = 359,890, citations = 63 (SD, June 2022)]. +* Original paper: ’[Handedness and Intelligence](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-9452(78)80056-2)’, Hicks and Beveridge, 1978; correlational survey, n = 67. [citations = 29 (Science Direct, June 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Ntolka and Papadatou-Pastou 2017](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.08.007) [systematic review of 36 studies, n = 65,519, citations = 20 (Science Direct, June 2022)]. [Papadatou-Pastoua & Tomprou 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.06.017) [meta-analysis, n = 16,076, citations = 39 (Science Direct, June 2022)]. [Somers et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.003) [meta-analysis, _k_=30, n = 359,890, citations = 63 (SD, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: N/A. * Replication effect size: Ntolka & Papadatou-Pastou: for a subset of n = 19,744 statistically significant but marginal differences in IQ were found between the right-handed and the left-handed (_d_ = -.07) and between the right-handed and the not-right-handed (_d_ = -.06) each time in favour of the right-handed. Papadatou-Pastoua & Tomprou: _d_ = -.09 (for a subset of n = 195). No effect size could be calculated for the rest of the studies in this meta-analysis. Overall, there were higher levels of non-right-handedness among the intellectually impaired, but the level was not different between typically developed individuals and gifted individuals. Somers et al.: No significant differences in overall verbal ability: Hedges’ _g_ = −0.03; spatial ability was significantly higher for right-handed individuals: Hedges’ _g_ = −0.14. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2086,7 +2086,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: [‘Possible Basis for the Evolution of Lateral Specialization of the Human Brain](https://www.nature.com/articles/224614a0)’, Levy 1969; comparison between spatial IQ (WAIS) in left and right handers in graduate students, n=25. [citations=857, GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Briggs et al. 1976](https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747608400586) [n = 34, citations = 114 (GS, January 2023)]. [Inglis and Lawson 1984](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945284800143) [n=1880, citations=37 (GS, January 2023)]. [Somers et al. 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763415000056) [meta-analysis, n = 218,351, citations=97, (GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Briggs et al. 1976](https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747608400586) [n = 34, citations = 114 (GS, January 2023)]. [Inglis and Lawson 1984](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-9452(84)80014-3) [n=1880, citations=37 (GS, January 2023)]. [Somers et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.003) [meta-analysis, n = 218,351, citations=97, (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = 1.42. * Replication effect size: Briggs et al.: no difference between left and right handers in spatial ability. Inglis and Lawson: no difference between left and right handers in spatial ability. Somers et al.: _g_ = 0.14 (effect was significant, but did not survive sensitivity analyses). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2095,7 +2095,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Cerebral Lateralization Biological Mechanisms, Associations, and Pathology: II. A Hypothesis and a Program for Research](https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1985.04060060019009)’, Greschwind and Galaburda 1985; theory paper meaning no sample size present. [citations = 780 (GS, October 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Becker et al. 1992](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0028393292900024#:~:text=https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/0028%2D3932(92)90002%2D4) [n = 1,612, citations = 43 (GS, October 2022)]. [Lalumière et al. 2001](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.126.4.575#:~:text=https%3A//doi.org/10.1037/0033%2D2909.126.4.575) [n = 23,410 (meta-analysis), citations = 301 (GS, October 2022)]. [Lindesay 1987](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002839328790100X#:~:text=https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/0028%2D3932(87)90100%2DX) [n = 194, citations = 101 (GS, October 2022)].[Lippa and Blanchard 2007](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9159-7) [n = 159,779, citations = 159 (GS, October 2022)]. [Marchant-Haycox et al. 1991](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945213802687#:~:text=https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/S0010%2D9452(13)80268%2D7) [n = 774, citations = 53 (GS, October 2022)]. [Rosenstein and Bigler 1987](https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1987.60.3.704) [n = 89, citations = 31 (GS, October 2022)]. [Satz et al. 1991](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945213801347#:~:text=https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/S0010%2D9452(13)80134%2D7) [n = 993, citations = 62 (GS, October 2022)]. [Tran et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1346-9) [n = 3,870, citations = 7 (GS, October 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Becker et al. 1992](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0028393292900024#:~:text=https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/0028%2D3932(92)90002%2D4) [n = 1,612, citations = 43 (GS, October 2022)]. [Lalumière et al. 2001](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.126.4.575#:~:text=https%3A//doi.org/10.1037/0033%2D2909.126.4.575) [n = 23,410 (meta-analysis), citations = 301 (GS, October 2022)]. [Lindesay 1987](https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(87)90100-x)90100%2DX) [n = 194, citations = 101 (GS, October 2022)].[Lippa and Blanchard 2007](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9159-7) [n = 159,779, citations = 159 (GS, October 2022)]. [Marchant-Haycox et al. 1991](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-9452(13)80268-7)80268%2D7) [n = 774, citations = 53 (GS, October 2022)]. [Rosenstein and Bigler 1987](https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1987.60.3.704) [n = 89, citations = 31 (GS, October 2022)]. [Satz et al. 1991](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-9452(13)80134-7)80134%2D7) [n = 993, citations = 62 (GS, October 2022)]. [Tran et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1346-9) [n = 3,870, citations = 7 (GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: NA (based on anecdotal correspondence between Greschwind and Galaburda and the homosexual community). * Replication effect size: Lindesay: Significantly more homosexual men were left-handed than heterosexual men (_χ2_(1) = 6.2, _p_ = .013) (replicated). Rosenstein and Bigler: _r_ = .06 (not replicated). Marchant-Haycox et al.: No ES available, but non-significant relationship found between handedness and homosexuality (_χ2_(1) = 2.6, _p_ = .107) (not replicated). Satz et al.: No ES available, but non-significant effect found between handedness and sexuality (not replicated). Becker et al.: _φ _= .08 to .11 (replicated). Lalumière et al.: OR = 1.39 (replicated). Lippa and Blanchard: _φ(Males)_ = .02, _φ(Females)_ = .05. Tran et al.: OR(Men) = 0.98 (_p_ > .050), OR(Women) = 1.96 (_p _< .010). Homosexual women found to be more likely to be “mixed handed” (ambidextrous) (not replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2112,8 +2112,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Handedness differences - sex.** Handedness differences between men and women. Men have been suggested to show increased rates of left-handedness compared to women. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Measuring handedness with questionnaires](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0028393277900677)’, Bryden 1977; questionnaire study to assess handedness using factor analysis, n=1106. [citations=963 (GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Cornell and& McManus 1992](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02423.x) [n = 266, citations = 11 (GS, January 2023)]. [Green and Young 2001](https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011908532367) [n=284, citations = 93 (GS, January 2023)]. [Holtzen 1994](https://doi.org/10.1080/01688639408402683) [n = 260, citations = 45 (GS, January 2023)]. [Papadatou-Pastou et al. 2008](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0012814) [meta-analysis, _k_ = 144 studies, totaling N = 1,787,629 participants, citations = 323(GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Measuring handedness with questionnaires](https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(77)90067-7)’, Bryden 1977; questionnaire study to assess handedness using factor analysis, n=1106. [citations=963 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Cornell and& McManus 1992](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02423.x) [n = 266, citations = 11 (GS, January 2023)]. [Green and Young 2001](https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011908532367) [n=284, citations = 93 (GS, January 2023)]. [Holtzen 1994](https://doi.org/10.1080/01688639408402683) [n = 260, citations = 45 (GS, January 2023)]. [Papadatou-Pastou et al. 2008](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012814) [meta-analysis, _k_ = 144 studies, totaling N = 1,787,629 participants, citations = 323(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: OR = 1.38​. * Replication effect size: Green and Young: similar rates of handedness between men and women. Holtzen: similar rates of handedness between men and women. Cornell and McManus: similar rates of handedness between men and women. Papadatou-Pastou et al.: OR = 1.23 [1.19 - 1.27] (replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2158,7 +2158,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Pseudoword repetition ability in learning-disabled children](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics/article/pseudoword-repetition-ability-in-learningdisabled-children/75732F81E92F853278D56264D39E1581)’, Taylor et al. 1989; experiment, neurotypical: n1 = 20, dyslexic: n2 = 24. [citations=142(GS, March 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Elsherif et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X20300826#sec0100) [AWS: n = 30, NT: n = 84, AWD: n = 50, citations=10(GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Elsherif et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2020.105827#sec0100) [AWS: n = 30, NT: n = 84, AWD: n = 50, citations=10(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = 0.97 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Elsherif et al.: _d_ = 1.54. ​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2175,8 +2175,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Phonological awareness impairment in dyslexic adults**. Dyslexic show lower scores on phonological awareness than neurotypical adults. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: [‘Persistence of Dyslexics' Phonological Awareness Deficits’, ](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0012-1649.28.5.874)Bruck 1992; experiment, dyslexic adults: n = 39; neurotypical adults: n = 20. [citations = 734 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Elsherif et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X20300826#sec0100) [AWS: n = 30, NT: n = 84, AWD: n = 50, citations=10(GS, March 2023)]. +* Original paper: [‘Persistence of Dyslexics' Phonological Awareness Deficits’, ](https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.874)Bruck 1992; experiment, dyslexic adults: n = 39; neurotypical adults: n = 20. [citations = 734 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Elsherif et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2020.105827#sec0100) [AWS: n = 30, NT: n = 84, AWD: n = 50, citations=10(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: _η2 _ = 0.33 [[calculated using this conversion from F to partial eta squared](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Elsherif et al.: Δ = 0.43. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2185,8 +2185,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Organizational deficits in dyslexia: Possible frontal lobe dysfunction](https://doi.org/10.1080/87565649009540453)’, Levin 1990; experiment, children with dyslexia: n = 20, dyslexic children: n = 20. [citation = 97(GS, November 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Frith et al. 1994](https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=52dc2ab7d5a3f20b1c8b4657&assetKey=AS:272424631767040@1441962501465) [NT: n = 19, LD: n = 19, citations = 80(GS, November 2022)]. [Hatcher et al. 2002](https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158801) [NT: n = 50, AWD: n = 23, citations = 426(GS, November 2022)]. [Marzocchi et al. 2008](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01859.x) [neurotypical children: n = 30, dyslexic children: n = 22, ADHD children: n = 35, citations = 202(GS, November 2022)]. [Menghini et al. 2010](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393209004333) [neurotypical children and adolescents: n = 65, dyslexic children and adolescent: n = 60, citations = 330(GS, November 2022)]. [Moura et al. 2014 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.964326)[neurotypical children: n = 50, dyslexic children: n = 50, citations = 104(GS, November 2022)]. [Plaza et al. 2002 ](https://europepmc.org/article/med/12030497)[neurotypical age-matched children: n = 26, neurotypical reading-age matched children: n = 26, dyslexic children: n = 26, citations = 81 (GS, November 2022)]. [Reiter et al. 2005 ](https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.289)[neurotypical children: n = 42, dyslexic children: n = 42, citations = 485 (GS, November 2022)]. [Shareef et al. 2019](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics/article/abs/verbal-fluency-in-relation-to-reading-ability-in-students-with-and-without-dyslexia/E50F5FA55028070CF24F4812DDB15114) AWD: n = 16, NT: n = 26, citations = 6 (GS, November [2022)]. Smith-Spark et al. 2017 [AWD: n = 28, NT: n = 28, citations = 36 (GS, November 2022)]. Snowling et al. 1997(https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732) NT: n = 19, AWD: n = 14, citations = 262 (GS, November [2022)]. [Varvava et al. 2014](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00120/full) AWD: n = 60, NT: n = 65, citations = 177 (GS, November 2022). [Wilson and Lesaux 2001](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732), NT: n = 31, AWD: n = 28, citations = 265 [GS, November (2022)]. -* Critiques: [Frith et al. 1994](https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=52dc2ab7d5a3f20b1c8b4657&assetKey=AS:272424631767040@1441962501465) [NT: n = 19, LD: n = 19, citations = 80(GS, November 2022)] [Hatcher et al. 2002](https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158801) [NT: n = 50, AWD: n = 23, citations = 426(GS, November 2022)]. [Marzocchi et al. 2008](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01859.x) [neurotypical children: n = 30, dyslexic children: n = 22, ADHD children: n = 35, citations = 202(GS, November 2022)]. [Menghini et al. 2010](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393209004333) [neurotypical children and adolescents: n = 65, dyslexic children and adolescent: n = 60, citations = 330(GS, November 2022)]. [Moura et al. 2014 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.964326)[neurotypical children: n = 50, dyslexic children: n = 50, citations = 104(GS, November 2022)]. [Plaza et al. 2002 ](https://europepmc.org/article/med/12030497) [neurotypical age-matched children: n = 26, neurotypical reading-age matched children: n = 26, dyslexic children: n = 26, citations = 81 (GS, November 2022)]. [Reiter et al. 2005 ](https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.289)[neurotypical children: n = 42, dyslexic children: n = 42, citations = 485 (GS, November 2022)]. [Shareef et al. 2019](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics/article/abs/verbal-fluency-in-relation-to-reading-ability-in-students-with-and-without-dyslexia/E50F5FA55028070CF24F4812DDB15114) AWD: n = 16, NT: n = 26, citations = 6 [GS, November 2022]. Smith-Spark et al. 2017 [AWD: n = 28, NT: n = 28, citations = 36 (GS, November 2022)]. [Snowling et al. 1997](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732) NT: n = 19, AWD: n = 14, citations = 262 (GS, November [2022)]. [Varvava et al. 2014](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00120/full) AWD: n = 60, NT: n = 65, citations = 177 (GS, November 2022). [Wilson and Lesaux 2001](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732), NT: n = 31, AWD: n = 28, citations = 265 [GS, November 2022]. +* Critiques: [Frith et al. 1994](https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=52dc2ab7d5a3f20b1c8b4657&assetKey=AS:272424631767040@1441962501465) [NT: n = 19, LD: n = 19, citations = 80(GS, November 2022)]. [Hatcher et al. 2002](https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158801) [NT: n = 50, AWD: n = 23, citations = 426(GS, November 2022)]. [Marzocchi et al. 2008](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01859.x) [neurotypical children: n = 30, dyslexic children: n = 22, ADHD children: n = 35, citations = 202(GS, November 2022)]. [Menghini et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.11.003) [neurotypical children and adolescents: n = 65, dyslexic children and adolescent: n = 60, citations = 330(GS, November 2022)]. [Moura et al. 2014 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.964326)[neurotypical children: n = 50, dyslexic children: n = 50, citations = 104(GS, November 2022)]. [Plaza et al. 2002 ](https://europepmc.org/article/med/12030497)[neurotypical age-matched children: n = 26, neurotypical reading-age matched children: n = 26, dyslexic children: n = 26, citations = 81 (GS, November 2022)]. [Reiter et al. 2005 ](https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.289)[neurotypical children: n = 42, dyslexic children: n = 42, citations = 485 (GS, November 2022)]. [Shareef et al. 2019](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics/article/abs/verbal-fluency-in-relation-to-reading-ability-in-students-with-and-without-dyslexia/E50F5FA55028070CF24F4812DDB15114) AWD: n = 16, NT: n = 26, citations = 6 (GS, November [2022)]. Smith-Spark et al. 2017 [AWD: n = 28, NT: n = 28, citations = 36 (GS, November 2022)]. Snowling et al. 1997(https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732) NT: n = 19, AWD: n = 14, citations = 262 (GS, November [2022)]. [Varvava et al. 2014](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00120/full) AWD: n = 60, NT: n = 65, citations = 177 (GS, November 2022). [Wilson and Lesaux 2001](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732), NT: n = 31, AWD: n = 28, citations = 265 [GS, November (2022)]. +* Critiques: [Frith et al. 1994](https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=52dc2ab7d5a3f20b1c8b4657&assetKey=AS:272424631767040@1441962501465) [NT: n = 19, LD: n = 19, citations = 80(GS, November 2022)] [Hatcher et al. 2002](https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158801) [NT: n = 50, AWD: n = 23, citations = 426(GS, November 2022)]. [Marzocchi et al. 2008](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01859.x) [neurotypical children: n = 30, dyslexic children: n = 22, ADHD children: n = 35, citations = 202(GS, November 2022)]. [Menghini et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.11.003) [neurotypical children and adolescents: n = 65, dyslexic children and adolescent: n = 60, citations = 330(GS, November 2022)]. [Moura et al. 2014 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.964326)[neurotypical children: n = 50, dyslexic children: n = 50, citations = 104(GS, November 2022)]. [Plaza et al. 2002 ](https://europepmc.org/article/med/12030497) [neurotypical age-matched children: n = 26, neurotypical reading-age matched children: n = 26, dyslexic children: n = 26, citations = 81 (GS, November 2022)]. [Reiter et al. 2005 ](https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.289)[neurotypical children: n = 42, dyslexic children: n = 42, citations = 485 (GS, November 2022)]. [Shareef et al. 2019](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics/article/abs/verbal-fluency-in-relation-to-reading-ability-in-students-with-and-without-dyslexia/E50F5FA55028070CF24F4812DDB15114) AWD: n = 16, NT: n = 26, citations = 6 [GS, November 2022]. Smith-Spark et al. 2017 [AWD: n = 28, NT: n = 28, citations = 36 (GS, November 2022)]. [Snowling et al. 1997](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732) NT: n = 19, AWD: n = 14, citations = 262 (GS, November [2022)]. [Varvava et al. 2014](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00120/full) AWD: n = 60, NT: n = 65, citations = 177 (GS, November 2022). [Wilson and Lesaux 2001](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732), NT: n = 31, AWD: n = 28, citations = 265 [GS, November 2022]. * Original effect size: _d_ =-0.32 [[calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Frith et al.: _r_ = 0.50 [[calculated using the conversion from Mann Whitney U test to r](https://datatab.net/tutorial/mann-whitney-u-test)]. Hatcher et al.: Effect size = 0.82; Marzocchi et al. (2008): _ηp2_= .20/ d = 0.25[[calculated using this conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. Menghini et al.: Effect size (%)= 7.3. Moura et al.: _ηp2_ = .134/ _d_ = 0.15 [[calculated using this conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. Plaza et al.: age-matched neurotypical children vs dyslexic children: _ηp2_= 0.33 [[calculated using this conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]/ _d_ = 0.48 [[calculated using this conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)], reading-aged matched neurotypical children vs. dyslexic children: _ηp2_= 0.08 [[calculated using this conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared) _ηp2_]/ _d_ = 0.09 [[calculated using this conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. Reiter et al.: NA = 0.489. Shareef et al.: _d_ = 1.02. Smith-Spark et al.: _ß_ = .388. Snowling et al.: Effect size (% of variance explained) = 9.56. Varvava et al.: φ = 0.26 [[calculated using the conversion from Chi square to Phi coefficient]](http://www.people.vcu.edu/~pdattalo/702SuppRead/MeasAssoc/NominalAssoc.html#:~:text=Computationally%2C%20phi%20is%20the%20square,(X2%2Fn).). Wilson and Lesaux: _d_ = 0.57. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2195,7 +2195,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Organizational deficits in dyslexia: Possible frontal lobe dysfunction](https://doi.org/10.1080/87565649009540453)’, Levin 1990; experiment, children with dyslexia: n = 20, dyslexic children: n = 20. [citation = 97(GS, November 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Frith et al. 1994](https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=52dc2ab7d5a3f20b1c8b4657&assetKey=AS:272424631767040@1441962501465) [NT: n = 19, LD: n = 19, citations = 80(GS, November 2022)]. [Hall and McGregor 2017](https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0440?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed) [NT: n = 132, LD: n = 53, citations = 25(GS, November 2022)]. [Hatcher et al. 2002](https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158801) [NT: n = 50, AWD: n = 23, citations = 426(GS, November 2022)]. [Kinsbourne et al. 1991 ](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1991.tb14960.x)[[AWD: ](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/35428191/Kinsbourne__Rufo__Gamzu__Palmer___Roland__1991._Neuropsychological_deficits_in_adults_with_dyslexia-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1668215635&Signature=GVGd-9RsJxo5kfqpoKpS20D719tmqqS~nxqNw07S83farr9J0Gc8tf9xkTbzAOf8~RKnVI8dXwKth-cQVX9bEKlcEmXWHIwpYUQ9rKXJ5pbtohC9I5GqZrdM25SvraXIer29rY5Vh8bnByCMiY~UUc0L6bHuBJ6UZoa8WyRklEmnkEOD-FyShfvwbQeHrEBeSA-x~nz1Kec75MRZahayDA2uQRKujcNk~0rBuzaELeW9LZ76pyvOW8FiUWyW7FrFDYN0o~fD3zPFiGHyBarmvL1Le4SMLQ6PF5eYiMLTD0iw~d07GUflQL~KNm~91~UzRO~YuVKufX42khZrXGKI4A__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA)n= 23, NT: n =21; Recovered AWD: n = 11, citation=144(GS, November 2022)]. [Marzocchi et al. 2008](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01859.x) [neurotypical children: n = 30, dyslexic children: n = 22, ADHD children: n = 35, citations = 202(GS, November 2022)]. [Menghini et al. 2010](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393209004333) [neurotypical children and adolescents: n = 65, dyslexic children and adolescent: n = 60, citations = 330(GS, November 2022)]. [Moura et al. 2014 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.964326)[neurotypical children: n = 50, dyslexic children: n = 50, citations = 104(GS, November 2022)]. [Plaza et al. 2002 ](https://europepmc.org/article/med/12030497)[neurotypical age-matched children: n = 26, neurotypical reading-age matched children: n = 26, dyslexic children: n = 26, citations = 81 (GS, November 2022)]. [Reid et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.321) [neurotypical students: n = 15, AWD: n = 15, citations = 134 (GS, November 2022)]. [Reiter et al. 2005 ](https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.289)[neurotypical children: n = 42, dyslexic children: n = 42, citations = 485 (GS, November 2022)]. [Shareef et al. 2019](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics/article/abs/verbal-fluency-in-relation-to-reading-ability-in-students-with-and-without-dyslexia/E50F5FA55028070CF24F4812DDB15114) [AWD: n = 16, NT: n = 26, citations = 6 (GS, November [2022)]. Smith-Spark et al. 2017 [AWD: n = 28, NT: n = 28, citations = 36 (GS, November 2022)]. Snowling et al. 1997](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732) [NT: n = 19, AWD: n = 14, citations = 262 (GS, November 2022)]. [Varvava et al. 2014](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00120/full) [AWD: n = 60, NT: n = 65, citations = 177 (GS, November 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Frith et al. 1994](https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=52dc2ab7d5a3f20b1c8b4657&assetKey=AS:272424631767040@1441962501465) [NT: n = 19, LD: n = 19, citations = 80(GS, November 2022)]. [Hall and McGregor 2017](https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0440?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed) [NT: n = 132, LD: n = 53, citations = 25(GS, November 2022)]. [Hatcher et al. 2002](https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158801) [NT: n = 50, AWD: n = 23, citations = 426(GS, November 2022)]. [Kinsbourne et al. 1991 ](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1991.tb14960.x)[[AWD: ](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/35428191/Kinsbourne__Rufo__Gamzu__Palmer___Roland__1991._Neuropsychological_deficits_in_adults_with_dyslexia-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1668215635&Signature=GVGd-9RsJxo5kfqpoKpS20D719tmqqS~nxqNw07S83farr9J0Gc8tf9xkTbzAOf8~RKnVI8dXwKth-cQVX9bEKlcEmXWHIwpYUQ9rKXJ5pbtohC9I5GqZrdM25SvraXIer29rY5Vh8bnByCMiY~UUc0L6bHuBJ6UZoa8WyRklEmnkEOD-FyShfvwbQeHrEBeSA-x~nz1Kec75MRZahayDA2uQRKujcNk~0rBuzaELeW9LZ76pyvOW8FiUWyW7FrFDYN0o~fD3zPFiGHyBarmvL1Le4SMLQ6PF5eYiMLTD0iw~d07GUflQL~KNm~91~UzRO~YuVKufX42khZrXGKI4A__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA)n= 23, NT: n =21; Recovered AWD: n = 11, citation=144(GS, November 2022)]. [Marzocchi et al. 2008](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01859.x) [neurotypical children: n = 30, dyslexic children: n = 22, ADHD children: n = 35, citations = 202(GS, November 2022)]. [Menghini et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.11.003) [neurotypical children and adolescents: n = 65, dyslexic children and adolescent: n = 60, citations = 330(GS, November 2022)]. [Moura et al. 2014 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.964326)[neurotypical children: n = 50, dyslexic children: n = 50, citations = 104(GS, November 2022)]. [Plaza et al. 2002 ](https://europepmc.org/article/med/12030497)[neurotypical age-matched children: n = 26, neurotypical reading-age matched children: n = 26, dyslexic children: n = 26, citations = 81 (GS, November 2022)]. [Reid et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.321) [neurotypical students: n = 15, AWD: n = 15, citations = 134 (GS, November 2022)]. [Reiter et al. 2005 ](https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.289)[neurotypical children: n = 42, dyslexic children: n = 42, citations = 485 (GS, November 2022)]. [Shareef et al. 2019](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics/article/abs/verbal-fluency-in-relation-to-reading-ability-in-students-with-and-without-dyslexia/E50F5FA55028070CF24F4812DDB15114) [AWD: n = 16, NT: n = 26, citations = 6 (GS, November [2022)]. Smith-Spark et al. 2017 [AWD: n = 28, NT: n = 28, citations = 36 (GS, November 2022)]. Snowling et al. 1997](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732) [NT: n = 19, AWD: n = 14, citations = 262 (GS, November 2022)]. [Varvava et al. 2014](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00120/full) [AWD: n = 60, NT: n = 65, citations = 177 (GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_ =0.37 [[calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Frith et al.: not reported. Hall and McGregor: _ηp2_= .04/ _d_ = 0.04 [[calculated using this conversion from to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)] Hatcher et al.: Effect size = 0.46. Kinsbourne et al.: recovered dyslexics vs. controls: _d_ = 0.49; severe dyslexics vs. control = not reported. Marzocchi et al.: _ηp2_= .01/ _d_ = 0.01 [[calculated using this conversion from to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. Menghini et al.: NA (%)= 17.2. Moura et al.: _ηp2_ = .115 / _d_ = 0.129 [[calculated using this conversion from to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. Plaza et al.: age-matched neurotypical children vs dyslexic children: _ηp2_= 0.26 [calculated using this conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)/ _d_ = 0.34 [[calculated using this conversion to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)], reading-aged matched neurotypical children vs. dyslexic children: not reported. Reid et al.: _d_ = -0.2. Reiter et al.: NA = 0.814. Shareef et al.: _d_ = 0.80. Smith-Spark et al.: _ß_ = -.216. Snowling et al.: Effect size (% of variance explained) = 17.2. Varvava et al.: φ = 0.40 [[calculated using the conversion from Chi square to Phi coefficient]](http://www.people.vcu.edu/~pdattalo/702SuppRead/MeasAssoc/NominalAssoc.html#:~:text=Computationally%2C%20phi%20is%20the%20square,(X2%2Fn).). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2213,7 +2213,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[The powerful placebo](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13271123/)’, Beecher 1955; analysis of 15 studies on patients receiving either a placebo or an active treatment for various conditions such as pain, nausea, and anxiety. [citations= 2885 (GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Hróbjartsson 2001](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11372012/) [a systematic review of 130 clinical trials, n = 4730, citations=2011 (GS, January 2023)]. [Tang 2022](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35022650/#:~:text=Meta%2Danalysis%20revealed%20that%20choice,smaller%20placebo%20effects%20without%20choice.) [meta-analysis of studies on pain, discomfort, sleep difficulty, and anxiety, _k_= 15, n= 1506, citations = 3 (GS, January, 2023)]. [Yeung 2018 ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1087079217300795)[meta-analysis on placebo on insomnia symptoms, _k_= 15, n= 566, citations= 56 (GS, January, 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Hróbjartsson 2001](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11372012/) [a systematic review of 130 clinical trials, n = 4730, citations=2011 (GS, January 2023)]. [Tang 2022](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35022650/#:~:text=Meta%2Danalysis%20revealed%20that%20choice,smaller%20placebo%20effects%20without%20choice.) [meta-analysis of studies on pain, discomfort, sleep difficulty, and anxiety, _k_= 15, n= 1506, citations = 3 (GS, January, 2023)]. [Yeung 2018 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2017.03.006)[meta-analysis on placebo on insomnia symptoms, _k_= 15, n= 566, citations= 56 (GS, January, 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Hróbjartsson: As compared with no treatment, placebo had no significant effect on binary outcomes (pooled relative risk of an unwanted outcome with placebo, 0.95 [0.88 to 1.02]; for the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect (pooled standardised mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome between the placebo and untreated groups: MD= -0.28[-0.38, -0.19]; trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial effect MD = -0.27 [-0.40, -0.15]. Tang: _g_ = .298 (replicated). Yeung:placebo treatment led to improved perceived sleep onset latency (_g_ = 0.272), total sleep time (_g_ = 0.322), and global sleep quality (_g_ = 0.581). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2222,7 +2222,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated. * Original paper: [‘Placebo analgesia and its opioidergic regulation suggest that empathy for pain is grounded in self pain](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1511269112)’, Rütgen et al. 2015; between-subjects behavioural and fMRI experiment, _n_ = 102 [citations=189(GS, May 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Hartmann et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192030882X#sec0031) [n=45, citations=3(GS, May 2023)]. [Hartmann et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221119727) [n=90, citations=3(GS, May 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Hartmann et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117397) [n=45, citations=3(GS, May 2023)]. [Hartmann et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221119727) [n=90, citations=3(GS, May 2023)]. * Original effect size: _d = 0.44_ (unpleasantness ratings). * Replication effect size: Hartmann et al.: _ηp2_ < 0.001 (unpleasantness ratings, intensity x group); Hartmann et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.002 (pre-effort unpleasantness ratings, intensity x group), _ηp2_ = 0.001 (post-effort unpleasantness ratings, intensity x group). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2240,7 +2240,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions](http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Stroop)’, Stroop 1935; list of colour words (e.g. "red", "blue", "green") that were printed in different ink colours, and asked them to name the ink colour as quickly as possible, n = 70. [citations = 24125 (PSYCNET, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Damen 2021](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.688048/full) [n=66, citations= 1 (GS, April 2023)]. [Epp et al. 2012](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735812000281) [meta-analysis, _k_=47, citations= 235 (GS, April 2023)]. [Homack and Riccio 2004](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088761770300146X) [meta-analysis, _k_=33, citations= 520 (gs, April 2023)]. [MacLeod 1991](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-14380-001)[n = NA, citations = 7389(PsycNet, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Damen 2021](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.688048/full) [n=66, citations= 1 (GS, April 2023)]. [Epp et al. 2012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.02.005) [meta-analysis, _k_=47, citations= 235 (GS, April 2023)]. [Homack and Riccio 2004](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088761770300146X) [meta-analysis, _k_=33, citations= 520 (gs, April 2023)]. [MacLeod 1991](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-14380-001)[n = NA, citations = 7389(PsycNet, January 2023)]. * [MacKenna and Sharma 2004](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14979812/) [n=176, citations= 376 (PUBMED, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Damen: _ηp2_ = 0.541 [0.369, 0.652]. Epp et al.: Emotional Stroop task in depression (replicated): on negative stimuli, _g_=.98, and on positive stimuli, _g_=.87. Homack and Riccio: individuals with ADHD fairly consistently exhibit poorer performance as compared to normal controls on the Stroop (mean weighted effect size of 0.50 or greater). MacKenna and Sharma: doubt on the fast and non-conscious nature of emotional Stroop. @@ -2258,7 +2258,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Retrieval-induced forgetting** (RIF). Forgetting of some items is in part a consequence of remembering other items. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory’](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0278-7393.20.5.1063), Anderson et al. 1994; tested retrieval-induced forgetting, three experiments, n = 148. [citations=2065 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory’](https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1063), Anderson et al. 1994; tested retrieval-induced forgetting, three experiments, n = 148. [citations=2065 (GS, January 2023)]. * Critiques: [Jonker et al. 2013](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-37634-005) [n=30 across two experiments, citations=175 (GS, December 2022)]. [Rowland et al. 2014](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01343/full) [n=72 (experiment 1); n=140 (experiment 2); n=70 (experiment 3), citations=18 (GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Jonker et al.: reported _ηp2_ - experiment 1: 0.25; Experiment 2a: 0.29; Experiment 2b=0.19; Experiment 3: Standard condition: 0.43, study reinstatement condition: 0.31. Rowland et al.: reported Cohen’s _d_. Experiment 1: 0.31; Experiment 2: 0.38. @@ -2277,7 +2277,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated. * Original paper: ‘[An experimental study of imagination](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1413350)’, Perky 1910; experimental design, Experiment 1 n=3 children, Experiment 2 n=24, Experiment 3 n=5. [citations=933(GS, March 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Craver-Lemley and Reeves 1987](https://doi.org/10.1068/p160599) [n=125, citations=109(GS, March 2023)]. [Okada and Matsuoka 1992](https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1992.74.2.443) [n=14, citations=26(GS, March 2023)].​[ Reeves et al. 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698919302172) [n=111, citations=4(GS, March 2023)].​ [Segal and Fusella 1970](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fh0028840) [n1=8, n2=6, citations=579(GS, March 2023)]. [Segal and Gordon 1969](https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1969.28.3.791) [n1=24, n2=24, citations=52(GS, March 2023)].[ ](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fh0028840) +* Critiques: [Craver-Lemley and Reeves 1987](https://doi.org/10.1068/p160599) [n=125, citations=109(GS, March 2023)]. [Okada and Matsuoka 1992](https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1992.74.2.443) [n=14, citations=26(GS, March 2023)].​[ Reeves et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2019.12.004) [n=111, citations=4(GS, March 2023)].​ [Segal and Fusella 1970](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028840) [n1=8, n2=6, citations=579(GS, March 2023)]. [Segal and Gordon 1969](https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1969.28.3.791) [n1=24, n2=24, citations=52(GS, March 2023)].[ ](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028840) * Original effect size: ES not reported but the data in all three experiments showed that respondents mistook the perceptual for the imaginative consciousness; they did not report a perception, but the image described resembled the unreported stimulus. * Replication effect size: Craver-Lemley and Reeves: Mean accuracy for reporting the offset of vertical line targets declined from 80% to 65% when subjects were requested to imagine vertical lines near fixation (replicated). Okada and Matsuoka: the Perky effect described in the auditory modality. The auditory imagery of a pure tone affected the detection only when the frequency of the imaged tone was the same as that of the detected tone (_ηp2 _=0.346, calculated from the reported _F_(4,52) = 6.90, _p_ < .01 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)) (replicated). Reeves et al.: Visual imagery interferes with acuity when performance is good but facilitates it when performance is poor. The mean Perky effect for the 47 subjects which scored over 80% in No Imagery condition was 21%; average correlation between Perky effects with baseline accuracy level across 111 subjects _r_ = 0.63 (replicated). Segal and Fusella: Mental imagery was found to block detection of both visual and auditory signals; Experiment 1 - sensitivity _(d')_ was lower during visual (1.70) and auditory imaging (2.13) than in either the preceding (1.93) or following discrimination tasks (1.72) (all _p_s <.001) (replicated); Experiment 2 - sensitivity _(d')_ was lower during visual (1.48) and auditory imaging (1.68) than in either the preceding (2.64) or following discrimination tasks (2.84) (all _p_s <.001) (replicated). Segal and Gordon: Experiment 1: The significant differences in the perceptual sensitivity, _d'_ measures, in the Perky condition (0.74) and in the informed task (2.03) (replicated); Experiment 2: greater sensitivity in the discrimination task (_d'_= 2.39), compared to the imaging procedures, Experimenter-projection (_d'_=1.54) and self-projection (_d'_=1.19) (replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2412,7 +2412,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: NA * Original paper: ‘Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates’, [Meltzoff and Moore 1977](https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.198.4312.75); observational and experimental design, 2 studies with: Study 1: n=6, Study 2: n=12. [citation=5311 (GS, December 2021)]​. -* Critiques: [Oostenbroek et al. 2016](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216302573) [n=106, citations=259 (GS, December 2021)]. +* Critiques: [Oostenbroek et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.047) [n=106, citations=259 (GS, December 2021)]. * Original effect size: Not reported​. * Replication effect size: Not reported. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2429,7 +2429,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Mutual exclusivity bias**. When presented with two objects, one of which has a known label and one which does not, infants (by ~20mo) are more likely to choose the object without a known label when prompted with a novel label. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: [‘Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words’](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010028588900175), Markman and Wachtel 1988; two-alternative forced choice task, Study 1: n=20. [Citations=1524 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Original paper: [‘Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words’](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90017-5), Markman and Wachtel 1988; two-alternative forced choice task, Study 1: n=20. [Citations=1524 (GS, February 2023)]. * Critiques: [Lewis et al. 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002772030010X) [meta-analysis, n=2505, citations=35 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: _g_=1.688 [0.655, 2.720]. * Replication effect size: Lewis et al.: _d_=1.27 [0.99, 1.55]. @@ -2457,7 +2457,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: [‘Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception’](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010027783900045), Wimmer and Perner 1983; false belief task with pointing, Experiment 2: n=10. [Citations=9112 (GS, February 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Barone et al. 2019](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638319300414) [meta-analysis, n=1469, citations=44 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Barone et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2019.101350) [meta-analysis, n=1469, citations=44 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: Cohen’s _h_=-1.57 [-2.44, -0.69]. * Replication effect size: Barone et al.: _d_=0.57 [0.33, 0.89]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2466,7 +2466,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: [‘Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception’](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010027783900045), Wimmer and Perner 1983; false belief task with pointing, Experiment 2: n=34. [Citations=9112 (GS, February 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Barone et al. 2019](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638319300414) [meta-analysis, n=1469, citations=44 (GS, February 2023)]. [Wellman et al. 2001](https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8624.00304) [meta-analysis, _k_=178 studies, citations=5596 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Barone et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2019.101350) [meta-analysis, n=1469, citations=44 (GS, February 2023)]. [Wellman et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00304) [meta-analysis, _k_=178 studies, citations=5596 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: Cohen’s _h_=2.42 [1.68, 3.16] (3–4yo vs 4–6yo). * Replication effect size: Barone et al.: _β_=0.08 [0.0.1, 0.15] (per month). Wellman et al.: OR=2.94 (per year) {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2497,7 +2497,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: '[Finger length as an index of assertiveness in women](https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(83)90061-2)', Wilson 1983; correlational study, n = 985 females. [citations=125 (GS, January 2022)]. -* Critiques: Consumers' choices of gender-imaged products: [Aspara et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.09.001) _ _[n=588, citations=43 (GS, January 2022)]. Associations with different psychological traits/biological states: Sex role identity: [Csathó, et al. 2003](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(02)00127-8) [n=46, citations=185 (GS, October 2021)]. Attractiveness in men: [Ferdenzi et al. 2011](https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0544) [n=49 males, citations=35 (GS, January 2022)]. Critical comment: [Jones et al. 2020](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7256504/) [n=NA, citations=4 (GS, January 2022)]; Gender and Intelligence: [Grisilda et al. 2021](https://biomedicineonline.org/index.php/home/article/view/797) [n=88 (50:50 f/m), citations=0 (GS, June 2022)]. Celebrity worship: [Huh 2012](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.025) [n=106 (adolescence), citations=14 (GS, January 2022)]. Signal of male reproductive fitness: [Longman et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121560) [n=542, citations=21 (GS, January 2022)].Gender and COVID-19 mortality: [Manning and Fink 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378378220302929) [n=41 nations, largest BBC Internet study, citations=22 (GS, January 2022)]; From the same group and again a BBC study: [Manning et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932021000043) [n=169,467, BBC Internet study 2005, citations=1 (GS, January 2022)]; [Smoliga et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-067849) [n=176, citations=3 (GS, January 2022)]. Empirical studies & Meta-analysis: [Voracek et al. 2011](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.009) [3 studies, n=1867, citations=55 (GS, October 2021)]. [Wilson (2010)](http://www.drglennwilson.com/Quarterly_Review_2010_4_2_Wilson.pdf) [Review, n=NA, citations=14 (GS, October 2021)]. +* Critiques: Consumers' choices of gender-imaged products: [Aspara et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.09.001) _ _[n=588, citations=43 (GS, January 2022)]. Associations with different psychological traits/biological states: Sex role identity: [Csathó, et al. 2003](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(02)00127-8) [n=46, citations=185 (GS, October 2021)]. Attractiveness in men: [Ferdenzi et al. 2011](https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0544) [n=49 males, citations=35 (GS, January 2022)]. Critical comment: [Jones et al. 2020](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7256504/) [n=NA, citations=4 (GS, January 2022)]; Gender and Intelligence: [Grisilda et al. 2021](https://biomedicineonline.org/index.php/home/article/view/797) [n=88 (50:50 f/m), citations=0 (GS, June 2022)]. Celebrity worship: [Huh 2012](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.025) [n=106 (adolescence), citations=14 (GS, January 2022)]. Signal of male reproductive fitness: [Longman et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121560) [n=542, citations=21 (GS, January 2022)].Gender and COVID-19 mortality: [Manning and Fink 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105074) [n=41 nations, largest BBC Internet study, citations=22 (GS, January 2022)]; From the same group and again a BBC study: [Manning et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932021000043) [n=169,467, BBC Internet study 2005, citations=1 (GS, January 2022)]; [Smoliga et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-067849) [n=176, citations=3 (GS, January 2022)]. Empirical studies & Meta-analysis: [Voracek et al. 2011](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.009) [3 studies, n=1867, citations=55 (GS, October 2021)]. [Wilson (2010)](http://www.drglennwilson.com/Quarterly_Review_2010_4_2_Wilson.pdf) [Review, n=NA, citations=14 (GS, October 2021)]. * Original effect size: : _d_=0.13 (estimated from the reported χ² (1, N=896)=3.79). * Replication effect size: (all |r| < .04); Aspara et al.:for males _β_ = -.18. Csathó et al.: the relationship between Bem sex role inventory and second to fourth digit ratio, Right hand _b_=0.29, Left hand _b_=0.26 (n.s.), Mean ratio _b_=0.31. Ferdenzi et al.: _r_2 = [-.25, -.43]. Grisilda et al.: No ES reported. Huh: females _r_ = .50. Jones et al.: no significant association between male 2D:4D and % of male deaths (left hand: _r_ = −0.32, _p_ = .079; right hand: _r_ = −0.20, _p_ = .283). Longman et al.: _r_ = .23 for females, .43 for males. Manning and Fink: _R2_ = .12-.40; no ES for (2021). Manning et al.: the association of income inequality (operationalized as relative parental income) and children’s 2D:4D, in males: right hand _F_(3,109668)=12.55, _p_<0.0001; left hand _F_(3,109668)=14.86, _p_<0.000; in females: right hand _F_(3,89642)=4.74, _p_=0.003; left hand _F_(3,89642)=4.02, _p_=0.007. Smoliga et al.: _r_ = .28. Voracek et al.: Critique in general and a great empirical study. The authors show that 2D:4D can be associated with anything, e.g, good luck. They did find a significant association between 2D:4D and “poker hand”. However, they stress that this and similar associations are found simply due to chance only and are one of the reasons for a replication crisis in psychology. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2563,7 +2563,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Risky Choice Framing Effect** (term used by Levin et al., 1998), alt-term = framing effect in risky-decision making. Under loss-frame, people are risk-seeking, whereas under gain-frame, people are risk-averse. In framing studies, logically equivalent choice situations are differently described and the resulting preferences are studied ([Kühberger, 1998](https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781)). In risky choice problems, the way a choice is presented influences the decision. (e.g. saving 10 people out of 100 vs losing 90 people out of 100). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-2391-4_2)’, Tversky & Kahnemann, 1981; experimental design, P1: 152; P2: 155; P3: 150; P4: 86; P5: 77; P6: 85; P7: 81; P8: 183; P9: 200; P10.1: 93; P10.2: 88; Total = 1350* (unclear if those samples are different samples) [citations = 24617 (GS, October 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2391-4_2)’, Tversky & Kahnemann, 1981; experimental design, P1: 152; P2: 155; P3: 150; P4: 86; P5: 77; P6: 85; P7: 81; P8: 183; P9: 200; P10.1: 93; P10.2: 88; Total = 1350* (unclear if those samples are different samples) [citations = 24617 (GS, October 2022)]​. * Critiques: Meta-analysis: [Kühberger, 1998](https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781). [Total studies reviewed=136, citations=1554 (GS, June 2022)] The author finds that certain characteristics of framing studies are crucial to getting a consistent framing effect, but that the closer a methodology is to the original methodology, the better chance to replicate the original effect. Large scale replication in Klein et al., 2014 [Total replication studies = 36, citations=1082 (GS, June 2022)] * Original effect size: Kahneman and Tversky (1982): _d_ = 1.13, 95% CI [0.89, 1.37] (based on Klein et al., 2014 calculation) Meta-analytical effect size (many close and conceptual replications): Steiger & Kühberger (2018): d = 0.52 to 0.56. * Replication effect size: Kühberger, 1998: d = .308.; Revised in Steiger & Kühberger, 2018 to d = .522 with only 81 of the 136 studies; Klein et al., 2014 : d=.60 (95% CI 0.53-0.67); Steiger & Kühberger, 2018 : d=.56. @@ -2590,7 +2590,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[The temporal pattern to the experience of regret](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-05382-001)’, Gilovich and Medvec 1994; hypothetical scenario experiments and real-life experience studies, Study 1: n =60, Study 2: n=77, Study 3: n= 80, Study 4: n=34, Study 5: n=32. [citations=564(GS, June 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Bonnefon and Zhang 2008](https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1386) [n=957, citations = 23 (GS, April 2023)]. [Feldman et al. 1999](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597899928339) [n1=157, n2=622, citations = 97 (GS, April 2023)]. [Towers et al. 2016](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01941/full) [n=500, citations = 31 (GS, April 2023)]. [Yeung and Feldman 2022](https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/8/1/37122/190272/Revisiting-the-Temporal-Pattern-of-Regret-in) [n=988, citations = 0 (GS, April 2023)]. [Zeelenberg et al. 1998](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.82.3.314) [n1=165, n2=75, n3=100, n4=150, citations = 455(GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Bonnefon and Zhang 2008](https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1386) [n=957, citations = 23 (GS, April 2023)]. [Feldman et al. 1999](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597899928339) [n1=157, n2=622, citations = 97 (GS, April 2023)]. [Towers et al. 2016](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01941/full) [n=500, citations = 31 (GS, April 2023)]. [Yeung and Feldman 2022](https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/8/1/37122/190272/Revisiting-the-Temporal-Pattern-of-Regret-in) [n=988, citations = 0 (GS, April 2023)]. [Zeelenberg et al. 1998](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.314) [n1=165, n2=75, n3=100, n4=150, citations = 455(GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect sizes: Study 1: _V_ = 0.50, Study 3: _V_ = 0.28 to _V_ = 0.53, Study 4: _V_ = 0.24 to _V_ = 0.53, Study 5: _V_ = 0.06 to _V_ = 0.56​ (reported in Yeung and Feldman 2022). * Replication effect sizes: Bonnefon and Zhang: The intensity of recent regrets is predicted by the consequences of the behaviour, and especially so for actions. The intensity of distant regrets is predicted by the consequences of the behaviour and by its justification, the effect of justification being stronger for actions than for inactions; failed to find support for temporal pattern. Feldman et al.: Participants reported more inaction than action regrets, and, contrary to prior research findings, regrets produced by actions and inactions were equally intense; failed to find support for temporal pattern. Towers et al.: Although regrets of inaction were more frequent than regrets of action, regrets relating to actions were slightly more intense; failed to find support for temporal pattern. Yeung and Feldman: Study 1: _V_ = 0.25, Study 3: _V_ = 0.15 to _V_ = 0.23, Study 4: _V_ = 0.10 to _V_ = 0.24, Study 5: _V_ = 0.04 to _V_ = 0.05. Zeelenberg et al.: found support for temporal pattern of regret with real-life experience studies; when prior outcomes were positive or absent, people attributed more regret to action than to inaction; however, following negative prior outcomes, more regret was attributed to inaction, a finding that the authors label the _inaction effect_. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2625,7 +2625,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Exceptionality effect.** (emotional amplification, normality bias, exceptional-routine effect). The affective response to an event is enhanced if its causes are abnormal. Exceptionality effect is the phenomenon that people associate stronger negative affect with a negative outcome when it is a result of an exception (abnormal behaviour) compared to when it is a result of routine (normal behaviour). The exceptionality enhances the response to an event for the emotion of regret, self-blame, the cognitive response for victim compensation and offender punishment. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-295X.93.2.136)’, Kahneman and Miller, 1986; within subject design (exceptional vs. normal), n=92 participants. [citations=4427(GS, July 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136)’, Kahneman and Miller, 1986; within subject design (exceptional vs. normal), n=92 participants. [citations=4427(GS, July 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Fillon et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2020.1816910) [meta-analysis, _k_= 48, citations = 10 (GS, July 2022)]. [Kutscher and Feldman 2019](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1504747) [exact replication (within-subject), n1= 342, n2 = 342, citations = 19 (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: Hedge’s _g_ =1.09 to _g_=2.78​. * Replication effect size: Kutscher and Feldman: _d_= 1.58 to _d_= 3.12. Fillon et al.: _g_= 0.41 to _g_= 0.79; the effect of exceptionality on counterfactuals was not significant and close to zero (_k_ = 5, _g_ = 0.39 [0.08, 0.70]). They also found that the effect for between-participants design is half the size of studies with a within-subject design. @@ -2653,7 +2653,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[On the psychology of experimental surprise](https://www.cmu.edu/epp/people/faculty/research/Slovic%20and%20Fischhoff-1977-on%20the%20psychology%20of%20experimental%20surprises1.pdf)’, Slovic and Fishhoff 1977; between study design, n=184. [citations = 591 (GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Chen et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103121000573) [n = 608, citations = 1 (GS, October 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Chen et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104154) [n = 608, citations = 1 (GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_=0.36 to _d_=0.61. * Replication effect size: Chen et al.: _d_=0.05 to _d_=0.32. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2662,8 +2662,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[The Disjunction Effect in Choice under Uncertainty](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00678.x)’, Tversky and Shafir 1992; within and between subject design, n1=199, n2=98, n3=213, n4=171. [citations=860(GS, March 2023)]​​. -* Critiques: [Kühberger et al. 2001](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S074959780092942X?via%3Dihub) [n1=177, n2=184, n3=35, n4=97, citations=58(GS, March 2023)].[ Lambdin and Burdsal 2007](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597806000409?via%3Dihub) [N=55, citations=51(GS, March 2023)].[ Ziano et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167487020301070) [N=890, citations=3(GS, March 2023)]. -* Original effect size: “Paying-to-know” paradigm – participants were willing to pay a small fee to postpone a decision about a vacation package promotion when outcome of an exam was uncertain, despite preferences to purchase the package regardless of exam outcome, Cramer’s _V_ = 0.22 [0.14, 0.32] (reported in[ Ziano et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167487020301070)); “Choice under risk” problem – facing uncertainty about the outcome of an initial bet led to less willingness to again accept the exact same bet, compared to when having learned the outcome of the first bet, Cramer’s _V_ = 0.26 [0.14, 0.39] (reported in[ Ziano et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167487020301070))​. +* Critiques: [Kühberger et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2942) [n1=177, n2=184, n3=35, n4=97, citations=58(GS, March 2023)].[ Lambdin and Burdsal 2007](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.04.001) [N=55, citations=51(GS, March 2023)].[ Ziano et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102350) [N=890, citations=3(GS, March 2023)]. +* Original effect size: “Paying-to-know” paradigm – participants were willing to pay a small fee to postpone a decision about a vacation package promotion when outcome of an exam was uncertain, despite preferences to purchase the package regardless of exam outcome, Cramer’s _V_ = 0.22 [0.14, 0.32] (reported in[ Ziano et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102350)); “Choice under risk” problem – facing uncertainty about the outcome of an initial bet led to less willingness to again accept the exact same bet, compared to when having learned the outcome of the first bet, Cramer’s _V_ = 0.26 [0.14, 0.39] (reported in[ Ziano et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102350))​. * Replication effect size: “choice under risk” problem: Kühberger et al.: ES not reported but failed to replicate the “choice under risk” problem in four experiments. Lambdin & Burdsal: ES not reported but failed to replicate. Ziano et al.: Cramer’s _V_ = 0.11 [- 0.07, 0.20]) (not replicated). “paying to know“ problem: Ziano et al.: Cramer’s _V_ = 0.30 [0.24, 0.37] (replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2708,7 +2708,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.680) * [evaluation](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.680)’, Hsee and Zhang 2004; study 1: 5 conditions, pairwise comparisons between groups, total sample size n = 249; Study 2: 9 conditions, pairwise comparisons between groups, total sample size n = 360. [citations = 380 (GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Anvari et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103120303929) [n = 824, citations = 6 (GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Anvari et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104052) [n = 824, citations = 6 (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: Study 1: _d_ = 1.17 and 3.26; Study 2: = 0.60, 0.75, 0.91, and 1.20. * Replication effect size: Anvari et al.: Study 1: _d_ = 2.60 and 4.13; Study 2: _d_= 0.45, 0.02, 1.55, and 0.02. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2725,7 +2725,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Mere ownership effect**. The mere ownership effect refers to an individual's tendency to evaluate an object more favourably merely because he or she owns it. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.62.2.229)’, Beggan 1992; 3 experimental studies with study 3 not relevant here, study 1: n=43, study 2: n=59. [citations=1132(GS, June 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.229)’, Beggan 1992; 3 experimental studies with study 3 not relevant here, study 1: n=43, study 2: n=59. [citations=1132(GS, June 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Białek et al. 2022](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gilad-Feldman/publication/326462915_Owning_leads_to_valuing_Meta-analysis_of_the_Mere_Ownership_Effect/links/61e818b09a753545e2e0eb85/Owning-leads-to-valuing-Meta-analysis-of-the-Mere-Ownership-Effect.pdf?_sg%5B0%5D=flKi4YObrKKciJdA_gh0asz3lEZutoCH9z52jgqLcH4Kaei51AAWIlYJDd63EfHcwdZnZZ-HTSK6ed0iFLa0BQ.DSlOYy6ksQu_D3Gn90s_ygujEJudqyckGihxxPpV57Kd9XYTU9MKjGCx7QvYyZh4UdXCP3O9T-YNzLv98xwzyA&_sg%5B1%5D=sT8-vg8GQm8xPm4oeX9uqBj5l9qgi8XTyzvGPmvl5jH5Y9pVVSWfQjeClXuk0un1OJBUN8KIulgNirTNpechwksr4VmMH5ExKHTjSv8nMWP8.DSlOYy6ksQu_D3Gn90s_ygujEJudqyckGihxxPpV57Kd9XYTU9MKjGCx7QvYyZh4UdXCP3O9T-YNzLv98xwzyA&_sg%5B2%5D=sGuSRca4LRrBRP-7mvlWhp2oZP_6nSoBmP5jY6gYdeJrNtJ7c5KOguNBzHv0cwmSeADTa69JpVR6QYc.qL32bx84tP2HZ9H4c6dpy1bmILZmro0ZMEqLTzpBrus7DFVsJqqKMjYpMa1My0FtVm-rtVCUmb7xodjR5z7-rQ&_iepl=) [n=3024, citations=3(GS,June 2022)], pre-registered meta-analysis/preprint. * Original effect size: study 1: _r_=0.33 study 2: _r_=0.35. * Replication effect size: Białek et al.: _g_ = 0.55 [0.43, 0.66]. @@ -2753,7 +2753,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing’,](https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007744326393) Fetherstonhaugh et al. 1997; 3 studies with within-subjects design, 2 of which are split into Part A and Part B with n’s = 1: 54; 196 ; 2: 162; Experiment 3: n=165. [citations = 468 (GS, December 2021)]. -* Critique: [Ziano et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103121001256) [n=4799, citations = 0 (GS, December 2021)]. +* Critique: [Ziano et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104222) [n=4799, citations = 0 (GS, December 2021)]. * Original Study 1 effect size: _: ηp2 = _0.14 * Replication effect size: Study 1a: _ηp2 _= 0.06, Study 1b: _ηp2 _= 0.21; Study 1c: _ηp2 _= 0.13. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2779,7 +2779,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Effort heuristic**. People judge products that took longer time to complete as higher in quality and monetary value. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[The effort heuristic](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103103000659)’, Kruger et al. 2004; Study 1: Between-subject design, n = 144, Study 2: Mixed design, n = 66. [Citations = 404 (GS, October 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The effort heuristic](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00065-9)’, Kruger et al. 2004; Study 1: Between-subject design, n = 144, Study 2: Mixed design, n = 66. [Citations = 404 (GS, October 2022)]. * Critiques:[ Ziano et al. 2022](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349099268_Replication_Mixed_results_of_close_replications_of_Kruger_et_al_2004's_The_Effort_Heuristic) [total N = 1405, citations=0 (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect sizes:Study 1: _d_ = 0.34 [0.00, 0.68] (liking/quality), _d_ = 0.33 [-0.02, 0.67] (monetary value); Study 2: _ηp2 _=_ _0.09 [0.01, 0.21] (liking/quality), _ηp2 _=_ _0.15 [0.03, 0.28] (calculated by Ziano et al. 2022). * Replication effect sizes: Ziano et al.: Study 1 MTurk: _d_ = -0.05 [-0.21, 0.11] (liking/quality), _d_ = 0.02 [-0.14, 0.18] (monetary value); Study 1 Prolific: _d_ = 0.23 [0.08, 0.38] (liking/quality), _d_ = 0.08 [-0.07, 0.22] (monetary value); Study 2: _ηp2_= 0.02 [0.00, 0.04] (liking/quality), _ηp2_= 0.04 [0.02, 0.07] (monetary value). @@ -2835,7 +2835,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original: ‘[Decreasing classroom misbehavior through the use of DRL schedules of reinforcement](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1310858/)’, Deitz and Repp 1973; case studies and observational design, N(experiment 1) = 1, N(experiment 2) = 10, N(experiment 3) = 15. [citations= 205 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Deitz and Repp 1974](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311676/) [N(experiment 1) = 1, N(experiment 2) = 1, N(experiment 3) = 1, citations= 54 (GS, March 2023)]. [Deitz 1977](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0005796777900936) [N = 3, citations= 71 (GS, March 2023)]. [Deitz et al. 1978](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005789478800525) [N = 14, citations= 46 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Deitz and Repp 1974](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311676/) [N(experiment 1) = 1, N(experiment 2) = 1, N(experiment 3) = 1, citations= 54 (GS, March 2023)]. [Deitz 1977](https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(77)90093-6) [N = 3, citations= 71 (GS, March 2023)]. [Deitz et al. 1978](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7894(78)80052-5) [N = 14, citations= 46 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Deitz & Repp: NA. Deitz: NA. Deitz et al.: NA. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2852,7 +2852,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Above-Average Effect** (Better-Than-Average Effect). People have the tendency to perceive themselves as superior in comparison to the average peer. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.49.6.1621)’, Alicke 1985; within-subject design, n=164. [citations = 1589(GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1621)’, Alicke 1985; within-subject design, n=164. [citations = 1589(GS, January 2023)]. * Critiques: Meta-analysis: [Zell et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000218) [n=124 published articles, 291 independent samples, and more than 950,000 participants, citations = 84 (GS, February 2022)]. Replication and extension by [Ziano et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620948973) [n = 1, 573, citations = 14(GS, January 2023)]. [Korbmacher et al. 2022 ](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357837373_Both_better_and_worse_than_others_depending_on_difficulty_Replication_and_extensions_of_Kruger's_1999_above_and_below_average_effects)[n=756, citations = 0 (GS, February 2022)]. * Original effect size: For the trait desirability effect, _ηp2_ = .78 [.73, .81]; for the effect of desirability being stronger for more controllable traits, _ηp2_ = .21 [.12, .28]. * Replication effect size: Zell et al.: _dz_ = 0.78 [0.71, 0.84]. Ziano et al.: For the trait desirability effect, _sr2_ = .54 [.43, .65]; for the effect of desirability being stronger for more controllable traits, _sr2_ = .07 [.02, .12]. Korbmacher et al.: Own ability & comparative ability _r_= .99, Domain difficulty and comparative ability _r_= -.85; Easy domains: from _d_ = 0.54 to _d_ = 1.18, Difficult domains: from _d_ =0.11 (non-sig) to _d_ = -0.65. @@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Do Those Who Know More Also Know More about How Much They Know?](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Baruch-Fischhoff/publication/222917287_Do_Those_Who_Know_More_Also_Know_More_about_How_Much_They_Know/links/5c0e5960299bf139c74ddc8d/Do-Those-Who-Know-More-Also-Know-More-about-How-Much-They-Know.pdf)”, Lichtenstein & Fischhoff 1977; five experiments with various designs, Experiment la: n= 92, Experiment 1b: n= 63, Experiment 2: n= 57, Experiment 3: n= 120, Experiment 4: n= 50, Experiment 5: n= 93. [citations=1548 (GS, March 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Gigerenzer et al. 1991](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.506) [n=2081, citations=2 (GS, March 2023)]. [Dawes & Mulford 1996](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597896900205) [n=145, citations=383 (GS, March 2023)]. [Klayman et al. 1999](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597899928479) [Experiment 1: n=32, Experiment 2: n= 54, Experiment 3: n=32, citations=942 (GS, March 2023)]. [Olsson 2014](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014829631400099X) [n=NA(review study), citations=74(GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Gigerenzer et al. 1991](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.506) [n=2081, citations=2 (GS, March 2023)]. [Dawes & Mulford 1996](https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0020) [n=145, citations=383 (GS, March 2023)]. [Klayman et al. 1999](https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2847) [Experiment 1: n=32, Experiment 2: n= 54, Experiment 3: n=32, citations=942 (GS, March 2023)]. [Olsson 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.03.002) [n=NA(review study), citations=74(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: ​proportions over/-underconfidence: Experiment 1a – +.15; Experiment 1b – +.18, Experiment 2 – training (+.07), no training (+.14); Experiment 3 – best subjects (+.05), middle subjects (+.07), worst subjects (+.15), best subjects-easy items (-.05), best subjects-hard items (+.14), middle subjects-easy items (-.05), middle subjects-hard items (+.19), worst subjects-easy items (+.03), worst subjects-hard items (+.25); Experiment 4 - best subjects-easy items (-.06), best subjects-hard items (+.05), worst subjects-easy items (-.03), worst subjects-hard items (+.17); Experiment 5 – Easy test (-.02), Hard test (+.12).​. * Replication effect size: Gigerenzer et al.: Experiment 1 – correct was 52.9, mean confidence was 66.7, and overconfidence was 13.8; Experiment 2 – In the selected set, mean confidence was 71.6%, and percentage correct was 56.2, overconfidence 15.4; in the representative set, overconfidence largely disappeared (2.8%), mean confidence was 78.1% and percentage correct was 75.3%. Dawes and Mulford: ES not reported; regression effects account for the evidence cited in support of overconfidence. Klayman et al.: Experiment 1 – overconfidence between -.073 and +.130 on forty questions, mean overconfidence +.046; Experiment 2 – July temperatures +.150, State poverty levels -.014, Mountain heights -.115, State populations +.023, Shampoo prices -.025, Presidential sequence +.008; Experiment 3 – With confidence-range questions, overconfidence is large, on the order of 45%; differences between domains and between individuals are strong as well. Olson: ES not reported; methodological and statistical artefacts can explain many of the observed instances of apparent overconfidence. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2879,7 +2879,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Better-than-average effect**. People tend to rate themselves as better than average on desirable traits and skills.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers?](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001691881900056?via%3Dihub)’, Svenson 1981; participants in a US (n = 81) and a Swedish (n = 80) sample rated their driving safety or driving skill compared to others. [citations = 2699 (GS, June 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers?](https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(81)90005-6)’, Svenson 1981; participants in a US (n = 81) and a Swedish (n = 80) sample rated their driving safety or driving skill compared to others. [citations = 2699 (GS, June 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Koppel et al. 2021](https://psyarxiv.com/2ewb9/) [n = 1,203, citations = 0 (GS, June 2022)]. Meta-analysis: [Zell et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000218) [n = 965,307, citations = 100 (GS, June 2022)]​. * Original effect size: Hedges’s _g _= 0.41 to Hedges’s _g_ = 1.25 (calculated from statistics reported in original paper). * Replication effect size: Koppel et al.: Hedges’s _g_ = 1.18 to Hedges’s _g_ = 1.70. Zell et al.: robust across studies (_dz_ = 0.78 [0.71, 0.84]), with little evidence of publication bias. @@ -2897,7 +2897,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Resultant moral luck**. The phenomenon of moral judgments being influenced by factors beyond the agent’s control that affect the outcome of their actions. Kneer and Machery (2019) claim that there is no evidence for resultant moral luck and that the puzzle of moral luck is not a genuine problem.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: NA -* Original paper: ‘[No luck for moral luck](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027718302403)’, Kneer (2019); two experiments conducted, between-subjects (1a) and within-subjects (1b), 1a: n=196 and 1b: n=95. [citations=76(GS, January 2023)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[No luck for moral luck](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.09.003)’, Kneer (2019); two experiments conducted, between-subjects (1a) and within-subjects (1b), 1a: n=196 and 1b: n=95. [citations=76(GS, January 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Laves 2020](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-020-00221-6) [theoretical/review paper, n=NA, citations=12(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: Between-subjects Design (1a): Wrongness: _d_=0.44 [0.16, 0.72], Blame: _d_=0.39 [0.17, 0.58], Permissibility: _d_=0.26 [-0.02, 0.55], Punishment: _d_=0.79 [0.50, 1.08]; Within-subjects Design (1b): Wrongness: _d_=0.16 [0.004, 0.27], Blame: _d_=0.24 [0.09, 0.38], Permissibility: _d_=0.06 [-0.02, 0.14], Punishment: _d_=0.47 [0.30, 0.64]; Within paper replications. * Replication effect size: Laves: NA; Laves argues that Kneer and Machery’s experiments do not dissolve the puzzle of moral luck, but rather show that people have inconsistent intuitions about moral luck depending on the context and framing of the scenarios; he also questions the validity and reliability of the measures used by Kneer and Machery, and suggests that their results are influenced by confounding factors such as moral emotions, causal responsibility, and moral principles. No replication studies conducted as of January 2023. ​ @@ -3025,8 +3025,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.7455683)’, Tversky & Kahneman 1981; correlational, two “Asian disease problem” situations N1=152, N2=155. [citations=25,330(GS, February 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Diederich et al. 2018](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/moderators-of-framing-effects-in-variations-of-the-asian-disease-problem-time-constraint-need-and-disease-type/7FE127D11A024B3EA8D1A8D18A244F7F) [N = 43, citations=31(GS, February 2023)]. Meta-analysis:[ Kühberger 1998](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597898927819) [n≈30,000 respondents over 136 empirical papers, citations=1607(GS, February 2023)].[ Otterbring et al. 2021](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/moderators-of-framing-effects-in-variations-of-the-asian-disease-problem-time-constraint-need-and-disease-type/7FE127D11A024B3EA8D1A8D18A244F7F) [Study 1 N = 200, Study 2 N=800, citations=27(GS, February 2023)].[ Peterson and Tollefson 2023](https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7116/3/1/12) [N = 1,209, citations=0(GS, February 2023)].​ -* Original effect size: _d_=1. 16 [reported in[ Kühberger 1998](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597898927819)]. +* Critiques: [Diederich et al. 2018](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/moderators-of-framing-effects-in-variations-of-the-asian-disease-problem-time-constraint-need-and-disease-type/7FE127D11A024B3EA8D1A8D18A244F7F) [N = 43, citations=31(GS, February 2023)]. Meta-analysis:[ Kühberger 1998](https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781) [n≈30,000 respondents over 136 empirical papers, citations=1607(GS, February 2023)].[ Otterbring et al. 2021](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/moderators-of-framing-effects-in-variations-of-the-asian-disease-problem-time-constraint-need-and-disease-type/7FE127D11A024B3EA8D1A8D18A244F7F) [Study 1 N = 200, Study 2 N=800, citations=27(GS, February 2023)].[ Peterson and Tollefson 2023](https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7116/3/1/12) [N = 1,209, citations=0(GS, February 2023)].​ +* Original effect size: _d_=1. 16 [reported in[ Kühberger 1998](https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781)]. * Replication effect size: Diederich et al.: Gain versus Loss effect on Risky option preference significant in two regression models, β=-0.206 and β=-0.303, respectively. (replicated). Kühberger: mean effect size for the 80 studies with Asian _d_=0.57 [0.53, 0.61] (replicated). Otterbring et al.: Study 1 - statistically significant effect of framing on participants’ choice of program (_b_ = 1.52, _Z_ = 4.80, _p_ < 0.001), such that a larger proportion of participants chose the risky program under conditions of negative (78.0%) compared to positive framing (44.0%); Study 2 - statistically significant effect of framing on participants’ choice of program (_b_ = 1.82, _Z_ = 11.13, _p_ < 0.001), such that a larger proportion of participants chose the risky program under conditions of negative (68.8%) compared to positive framing (26.6%) (replicated). Peterson and Tollefson: _d_ =0.26 [calculated from the reported chi-square and sample size, χ2 =17.41, N = 1021] (replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3065,7 +3065,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed (duelling meta-analyses, mix of successful and failed replications). * Original study: ‘[When choice is demotivating](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-16701-012)’, Iyengar and Lepper, 2000; field experiment, 3 experiments, Study 1: n=502, Study 2: n=197, Study 3: 134. [citations = 2460(GS, April 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Chernev et al. 2010](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/37/3/426/1828761) [commentary, n=NA, citations=98 (GS, April 2023)]. [Chernev et al. 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740814000916) [meta-analysis of 99 observations, N = 7202, citations=717 (GS, April 2023)]. [Scheibehenne 2008](https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/handle/18452/16392) [three replications in the field and in the lab with a total of n= 850 participants and six laboratory experiments with n=595, citations=50 (GS, April 2023)]. Greifeneder 2008 [unpublished manuscript (link not available), n=NA, citations=4 (GS, April 2023)]. [Scheibehenne et al. 2010 ](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/37/3/409/1827647)[meta-analysis of 63 conditions from 50 published and unpublished experiments, N = 5,036, citations=1241 (GS, April 2023)]. [Simonsohn et al. 2014](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614553988) [n=NA, citations=681 (GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Chernev et al. 2010](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/37/3/426/1828761) [commentary, n=NA, citations=98 (GS, April 2023)]. [Chernev et al. 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740814000916) [meta-analysis of 99 observations, N = 7202, citations=717 (GS, April 2023)]. [Scheibehenne 2008](https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/handle/18452/16392) [three replications in the field and in the lab with a total of n= 850 participants and six laboratory experiments with n=595, citations=50 (GS, April 2023)]. Greifeneder 2008 [unpublished manuscript (link not available), n=NA, citations=4 (GS, April 2023)]. [Scheibehenne et al. 2010 ](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/37/3/409/1827647)[meta-analysis of 63 conditions from 50 published and unpublished experiments, N = 5,036, citations=1241 (GS, April 2023)]. [Simonsohn et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614553988) [n=NA, citations=681 (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: _d_=0.77 (study1) and _d_=0.29 (study2), and _d_=0.88 (study3) (as calculated from the χ2 values in the text with [this](https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/calculator/) online calculator). * Replication effect sizes: Scheibehenne: failed to directly replicate Iyengar and Lepper (2000) jam study. Greifeneder: a lab experiment with chocolates and also failed to conceptually replicate. Scheibehenne et al. 2010: “We found a mean effect size of virtually zero” (_d_=.02). Chernev et al. 2010: That’s because many of the studies were designed to show instances when there is no effect. You need to split the data into “choice is good” vs. “choice is bad.” Simonsohn et al.: We agree with Chernev et al.: When we split it up, we found that the choice is bad studies (choice overload) lack collective evidential value (uniform _p_-curve). Chernev et al.: <ignoring Simonsohn et al. 2014> Choice overload is a reliable effect under certain conditions (moderators). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3204,7 +3204,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed. * Original paper: ‘[Some functional effects of sectioning the cerebral commissures in man](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.48.10.1765)’, Gazzaniga et al. 1962; case study, n=1. [citations=617(GS, October 2022)]. -* Critiques: [de Haan et al. 2020](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7305066/) [review paper, n=NA, citations=44(GS, April 2023)]. [Pinto et al. 2017](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661317301900) [review paper, n=NA, citations=43(GS, April 2023)]. [Pinto et al., 2017](https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww358) [n=2, citations=39(GS, October 2022)]. +* Critiques: [de Haan et al. 2020](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7305066/) [review paper, n=NA, citations=44(GS, April 2023)]. [Pinto et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.09.003) [review paper, n=NA, citations=43(GS, April 2023)]. [Pinto et al., 2017](https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww358) [n=2, citations=39(GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: NA (verbal descriptions, no quantitative data)​. * Replication effect size: de Haan et al.: NA, body of evidence is insufficient to answer this question, different theories of consciousness have different predictions on the unity of mind in split-brain patients, and await the results of further investigation into this intriguing phenomenon. Pinto et al.: argue that the data could instead be indicative of a single undivided consciousness experiencing two parallel and unintegrated perceptual streams. Pinto et al.: replicated (no ES; replicate the standard finding that stimuli cannot be compared across visual half-fields, indicating that each hemisphere processes information independently of the other). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3222,7 +3222,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Hirnpotentialänderungen bei Willkürbewegungen und passiven Bewegungen des Menschen: Bereitschaftspotential und reafferente Potentiale](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00412364)’, Kornhuber and Deecke 1956; 12 healthy subjects in 94 experiments. [citations = 1410 (SPRINGERLINK, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Alexander et al. 2016](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810015300593) [n=17, citations = 83 (GS, April 2023)]. [Fried et al. 2011](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627310010822) [n=12, citations = 589 (GS, April 2023)]. [Libet et al. (1964/1983) ](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6640273/) [6 different experimental sessions with each of 5 subjects, citations = 3814 (PUBMED, January 2023)]. [McGilchrist 2012](https://books.google.rs/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QnA90Z_MrhkC&oi=fnd&pg=PP3&dq=McGilchrist+(2012)+RD&ots=WPVI6oVbL8&sig=oElLubeEQ0EKs2DYlKIzlxLY22g&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=McGilchrist%20(2012)%20RD&f=false) [n=NA, citations = 55 (GS, April 2023)]. [Travers et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2020.1824176) [n=19, citations = 25 (GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Alexander et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.11.011) [n=17, citations = 83 (GS, April 2023)]. [Fried et al. 2011](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.11.045) [n=12, citations = 589 (GS, April 2023)]. [Libet et al. (1964/1983) ](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6640273/) [6 different experimental sessions with each of 5 subjects, citations = 3814 (PUBMED, January 2023)]. [McGilchrist 2012](https://books.google.rs/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QnA90Z_MrhkC&oi=fnd&pg=PP3&dq=McGilchrist+(2012)+RD&ots=WPVI6oVbL8&sig=oElLubeEQ0EKs2DYlKIzlxLY22g&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=McGilchrist%20(2012)%20RD&f=false) [n=NA, citations = 55 (GS, April 2023)]. [Travers et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2020.1824176) [n=19, citations = 25 (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Fried et al.: replicated (no ES). Travers et al.: replicated (no ES). McGilchrist/ Alexander et al.: The neural activity observed may not necessarily be associated with the preparation for a voluntary movement, but rather with a cognitive process such as attention or decision making. Some studies have suggested that RP may reflect the neural activity associated with attentional processes rather than motor preparation, and that the relationship between RP and voluntary movement is not as clear-cut as initially thought. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3293,8 +3293,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Structural brain-behaviour associations - the association between executive function and grey matter volume**. Grey matter volume in the rostral dorsal premotor cortex is associated with individual differences in executive function as measured by the trail making test. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper:[ ‘Searching for behavior relating to grey matter volume in a-priori defined right dorsal premotor regions: Lessons learned’, ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811917304524)Genon et al. 2017; correlational design, n = 135. [citations=17 (GS, August 2022)]​. -* Critiques:[ Genon et al. 2017](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811917304524) [n = 87, citations=17 (GS, August 2022)]. +* Original paper:[ ‘Searching for behavior relating to grey matter volume in a-priori defined right dorsal premotor regions: Lessons learned’, ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.05.053)Genon et al. 2017; correlational design, n = 135. [citations=17 (GS, August 2022)]​. +* Critiques:[ Genon et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.05.053) [n = 87, citations=17 (GS, August 2022)]. * Original effect size: _r_ = 0.26. * Replication effect size: Genon et al.: _r_ = 0.​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3302,8 +3302,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Fear conditioning - Amygdala**. Animal research suggests that fear conditioning activates the amygdala ([LeDoux, 1993](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb17246.x)), which has been replicated in some (but not all) human fMRI fear conditioning studies. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Human Amygdala Activation during Conditioned Fear Acquisition and Extinction: a Mixed-Trial fMRI Study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627300804754)’, LaBar et al. 1998; differential fear conditioning paradigm, N=18. [citations=1826(GS, March 2023)]​. Note that amygdala activation habituated over time, as it would be expected from research in animals; this methodological consideration has been neglected in many replication attempts. -* Critiques: [Fullana et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.88) [meta-analysis, total n=677 from 27 studies, citations=503(GS, March 2023)]. [Mechias et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.040) [meta-analysis, total n=360, citations=430 (GS, March 2023)] [Öhman et al. 2009](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-02740-006) [n=NA, citation=20 (GS, March 2023)]. [Phelps et al. 2004](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627304005689) [replication, n=18, citations=2144(GS, March 2023)]. . [Sehlmeyer et al. 2009](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005865) [systematic review, n=NA, citations=612(GS, March 2023)]. the following studies demonstrated that amygdala activation can be detected in fear conditioning experiments when amygdala habituation over time is explicitly modelled/considered: [Armony and Dolan 2001](https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200110290-00051) [n=8, citations=60(GS, March 2023)]. [Büchel et al. 1998](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80476-6) [n=9, citations=1264(GS, March 2023); [Büchel et al. 1999](https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-24-10869.1999) [n=11, citations=561(GS, March2023)].[Sperl et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx353) [n=21, citations=33(GS, March-2023)].​ [Yin et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0445-17.2018) [n=18, citations=21(GS, March 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Human Amygdala Activation during Conditioned Fear Acquisition and Extinction: a Mixed-Trial fMRI Study](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80475-4)’, LaBar et al. 1998; differential fear conditioning paradigm, N=18. [citations=1826(GS, March 2023)]​. Note that amygdala activation habituated over time, as it would be expected from research in animals; this methodological consideration has been neglected in many replication attempts. +* Critiques: [Fullana et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.88) [meta-analysis, total n=677 from 27 studies, citations=503(GS, March 2023)]. [Mechias et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.040) [meta-analysis, total n=360, citations=430 (GS, March 2023)] [Öhman et al. 2009](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-02740-006) [n=NA, citation=20 (GS, March 2023)]. [Phelps et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.08.042) [replication, n=18, citations=2144(GS, March 2023)]. . [Sehlmeyer et al. 2009](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005865) [systematic review, n=NA, citations=612(GS, March 2023)]. the following studies demonstrated that amygdala activation can be detected in fear conditioning experiments when amygdala habituation over time is explicitly modelled/considered: [Armony and Dolan 2001](https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200110290-00051) [n=8, citations=60(GS, March 2023)]. [Büchel et al. 1998](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80476-6) [n=9, citations=1264(GS, March 2023); [Büchel et al. 1999](https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-24-10869.1999) [n=11, citations=561(GS, March2023)].[Sperl et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx353) [n=21, citations=33(GS, March-2023)].​ [Yin et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0445-17.2018) [n=18, citations=21(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Armony and Dolan: the presence of the aversive visual context was associated with enhanced activity in parietal cortex, which may reflect an increase in attention to the presence of environmental threat stimuli. Büchel et al.: Differential evoked responses, related to conditioning, were found in the anterior cingulate and the anterior insula, regions with known involvement in emotional processing. Büchel et al.: Differential responses (CS+ vs CS−), related to conditioning, were observed in anterior cingulate and anterior insula, regions previously implicated in delay fear conditioning; differential responses were also observed in the amygdala and hippocampus that were best characterized with a time × stimulus interaction, indicating rapid adaptation of CS+-specific responses in medial temporal lobe. Fullana et al.: no robust and consistent involvement of the amygdala in fear acquisition across studies; see effect size maps (Fig. 1, 2, 3, and 4; maps are difficult to convert into numbers). Mechias et al.: consistent activation in rostral dmPFC but not in the other candidate areas; discussing methodological constraints. Öhman et al.: excellent overview about early replications and methodological considerations to capture amygdala activity in humans. Phelps et al.: amygdala activation was correlated across subjects with the conditioned response in both acquisition and early extinction.. Sehlmeyer et al.: A network consisting of fear-related brain areas, such as amygdala, insula, and anterior cingulate cortex, is activated independently of design parameters. However, some neuroimaging studies do not report these findings in the presence of methodological heterogeneities. Furthermore, other brain areas are differentially activated, depending on specific design parameters. These include stronger hippocampal activation in trace conditioning and tactile stimulation. Furthermore, tactile unconditioned stimuli enhance activation of pain related, motor, and somatosensory areas. Sperl et al.: Fear and extinction recall as indicated by theta explained 60% of the variance for the analogous effect in the right amygdala. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3322,7 +3322,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * Status: mixed * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Prefrontal Oscillations during Recall of Conditioned and Extinguished Fear in Humans](https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3427-13.2014)’, Mueller et al. 2014; two-day differential fear conditioning study, n=42. [citations=87(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Bierwirth et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451902221000574) [n=60, citations=11 (GS, January 2023)]. [Chen et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf4198) [n=13, citations=16(GS, January 2023)]. [Mueller and Pizzagalli 2016](https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv122) [n=16, citations=26(GS, January 2023)]. [Sperl et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx353) [n=21, citations=31(GS, January 2023)]. [Starita et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14247) [n=20, citations=0(Wiley; January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Bierwirth et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2021.02.011) [n=60, citations=11 (GS, January 2023)]. [Chen et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf4198) [n=13, citations=16(GS, January 2023)]. [Mueller and Pizzagalli 2016](https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv122) [n=16, citations=26(GS, January 2023)]. [Sperl et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx353) [n=21, citations=31(GS, January 2023)]. [Starita et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14247) [n=20, citations=0(Wiley; January 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: ierwirth et al.: results replicated and extended by the influence of sex hormones, _ηp2_ (estradiol status for E2 level by group)_ =.076; _d_ (one-sided; MC women vs. OC women) = .698; _d_ (one-sided; MC women vs. men) = .756; _d_ (one-sided; OC women vs. men) = .077. _ηp2_(estradiol status for P4 level by group) =.099; _d_ (MC women vs. OC women) = .718; _d_ (MC women vs. men) = .867; _d_ (OC women vs. men) = .219; _ηp2_(estradiol status for testosterone level by group) =.681; _d_ ( men vs. MC women) = 3.303; _d_ (men vs. OC women) = 3.303; _d_ (MC women vs. OC women) = .598; _ηp2_(skin conductance responses, day 1: contingency) = .426; _ηp2 _(skin conductance responses, day 1: estradiol status) = .139; _ηp2_(skin conductance responses, day 1: estradiol status X contingency) = .115; _d_ (diffSCR, men vs. OC women) = .797; _d_ (diffSCR, men vs. MC women) = .665; _ηp2_(extinction learning, day 1: contingency) = .277; _ηp2_(extinction learning, day 1: contingency X estradiol status) = .250; _d_ (diffSCR during learning, men vs. OC women) = .937; _d_ (diffSCR during learning, men vs. MC women) = 1.175; _d_ (one-sided; diffSCR during extinction learning vs. fear acquisition) = .353; _ηp2_(skin conductance responses, day 2: contingency) = .491; _ηp2_(skin conductance responses, day 2: contingency X extinction status) < .001 (ns); _d_ (diffSCR, extinction learning vs. extinction recall) = .269; _d_ (diffSCR, fear acquisition vs. extinction recall) = .069; _ηp2_(diffSCR, day 2: estradiol status) = .137; _d_ (one-sided; diffSCR, MC women vs. OC women) = .615; _d_ (one-sided; diffSCR, MC women vs. men) = .879; _ηp2_(estradiol status, FRI vs. ERI) = .103; _d_ (one-sided; FRI, MC women vs. OC women) = .639; _d_ (one-sided; ERI, MC women vs. OC women) = .547; _d_ (one-sided; FRI, MC women vs. men) = .928; _d_ (one-sided; ERI, MC women vs. men) = .796; _ηp2_(theta oscillations, electrode) = .119; _ηp2_(theta oscillations, electrode X contingency) = .730; _ηp2_(dACC source, contingency effect) = .090; _ηp2_(dACC source, contingency X extinction status) = .023; _ηp2_(dACC source, contingency X estradiol status) = .100; _d_ (one-sided; differential theta power in dACC, MC women vs. OC women) = .609; _d_ (one-sided; differential theta power in dACC, MC women vs. men) = .741; _ηp2_(frontal theta power during extinction learning, contingency factor) = .061.Chen et al.: NA; results replicated by intracranial EEG. Mueller and Pizzagalli: ES=NA; replicated during a fear recall test one year after conditioning. Sperl et al.: ES=NA; results replicated and extended by simultaneous EEG-fMRI. B Starita et al.: replicated and extended by reversal learning, main effect of CS type in midcingulate cortex _ηp2_=.37 [0.08, 0.56]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3376,7 +3376,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper:[ ‘Disease state prediction from resting state functional connectivity’, ](https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.22159)Craddock et al. 2009; quasi-experimental design, ncontrols = 20, nclinical = 20. [citations=464(GS, April 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Bhaumik et al. 2017](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213158216300390#s0060) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 38, Citations=58 (GS, April 2023)]. [Cao et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12106) [ncontrols = 37, nclinical = 39, Citations= 51 (GS, April 2023)].[Guo et al. 2014](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4146162/) [ncontrols = 27, nclinical = 36, Citations= 73 (GS, April 2023)]. [Lord et al. 2012](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041282) [ncontrols = 22, nclinical = 21, Citations=177 (GS, April 2023)].[Ma et al. 2013](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006899312018483)[ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=89 (GS, April 2023)]. [Qin et al. 2015](https://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abstract/2015/08020/Predicting_clinical_responses_in_major_depression.3.aspx) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=38 (GS, April 2023)]. [Ramasubbu et al. 2016](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213158216301322) [ncontrols = 19, nclinical = 45, Citations= 51 (GS, April 2023)]. [Sundermann et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-016-1673-8) [ncontrols = 180/60 (whole sample/severe symptoms only), nclinical = 180/60, Citations= 17 (GS, April 2023)]. [Yu et al. 2013](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068250) [ncontrols = 38, nclinical = 19, Citations= 69 (GS, April 2023)]. [Zeng et al. 2012](https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/135/5/1498/306674#89121201) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=753 (GS, April 2023)]. [Zeng et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22278) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=169 (GS, April 2023)] +* Critiques: [Bhaumik et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.02.018) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 38, Citations=58 (GS, April 2023)]. [Cao et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12106) [ncontrols = 37, nclinical = 39, Citations= 51 (GS, April 2023)].[Guo et al. 2014](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4146162/) [ncontrols = 27, nclinical = 36, Citations= 73 (GS, April 2023)]. [Lord et al. 2012](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041282) [ncontrols = 22, nclinical = 21, Citations=177 (GS, April 2023)].[Ma et al. 2013](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006899312018483)[ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=89 (GS, April 2023)]. [Qin et al. 2015](https://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abstract/2015/08020/Predicting_clinical_responses_in_major_depression.3.aspx) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=38 (GS, April 2023)]. [Ramasubbu et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.07.012) [ncontrols = 19, nclinical = 45, Citations= 51 (GS, April 2023)]. [Sundermann et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-016-1673-8) [ncontrols = 180/60 (whole sample/severe symptoms only), nclinical = 180/60, Citations= 17 (GS, April 2023)]. [Yu et al. 2013](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068250) [ncontrols = 38, nclinical = 19, Citations= 69 (GS, April 2023)]. [Zeng et al. 2012](https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/135/5/1498/306674#89121201) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=753 (GS, April 2023)]. [Zeng et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22278) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=169 (GS, April 2023)] * Original effect size: 62.5% - 95% Classification Accuracy (cross-validation; CV); 16.7–83.3% (Hold-out validation). * Replication effect size: Bhaumik et al.: 76.1% (CV); 77.8%. (Hold-out validation). Lord et al.: 99.3% (CV). Zeng et al. /[ Zeng et al.](https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22278)/ [Ma et al.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006899312018483)/[ Qin et al.](https://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abstract/2015/08020/Predicting_clinical_responses_in_major_depression.3.aspx): 69.8–96.2% (CV). Yu et al.: 80.9% (CV). Guo et al.: 90.5% (CV). Cao et al.: 84.2% (CV). Ramasubbu et al.: 49–66% (CV) – mixed, only significant in group with most severe symptoms. Sundermann et al.: no significant results in main analysis on whole sample (ES not reported); only significant in group with most severe symptoms 40.8 to 65.0% (CV), 54.2-61.7 (hold-out validation). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3407,8 +3407,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[The Lunar effect](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/lunar-effect-biological-tides-and-human-emotions)’, Lieber 1978; correlational study, N ≈ 26,000. [Citations= 118 (GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Gutiérrez-Garcia and Tusell 1997](https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1997.80.1.243) [n=897 deaths by suicide citations= 64 (GS, January 2023)]. [Kung, and Mrazek 2005](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15703358/) [n=1,826 nights (186 nights fit the definition of the full-moon effect), citations= 15 (GS, January 2023)]. [Kamat et al. 2014](https://journals.lww.com/pec-online/Abstract/2014/12000/Pediatric_Psychiatric_Emergency_Department_Visits.6.aspx) [n=559, citations= 17 (GS, January 2023)]. [Rotton and Kelly 1985](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.97.2.286) Meta-analysis [N≈781,000 across 37 studies, citations= 262 (GS, January 2023)]. -* Original effect size: Effects on criminal offences – (Cohen’s)_ h_=.03 (reported in[ Rotton and Kelly 1985](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.97.2.286)); Suicide and Self-harm: ES not reported; Psychiatric admissions: ES not reported (but study found disproportionate number of episodes during full moon). +* Critiques: [Gutiérrez-Garcia and Tusell 1997](https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1997.80.1.243) [n=897 deaths by suicide citations= 64 (GS, January 2023)]. [Kung, and Mrazek 2005](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15703358/) [n=1,826 nights (186 nights fit the definition of the full-moon effect), citations= 15 (GS, January 2023)]. [Kamat et al. 2014](https://journals.lww.com/pec-online/Abstract/2014/12000/Pediatric_Psychiatric_Emergency_Department_Visits.6.aspx) [n=559, citations= 17 (GS, January 2023)]. [Rotton and Kelly 1985](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.286) Meta-analysis [N≈781,000 across 37 studies, citations= 262 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Original effect size: Effects on criminal offences – (Cohen’s)_ h_=.03 (reported in[ Rotton and Kelly 1985](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.286)); Suicide and Self-harm: ES not reported; Psychiatric admissions: ES not reported (but study found disproportionate number of episodes during full moon). * Replication effect size: All reported in Rooton and Kelly (1985): Homicides - Frey et al.: (Cohen’s) _h_=.06. Lester: _rpb_=.10. Lieber and Sherin: _h_=.00 to _h_=.02. Pokorny: _h_=-.01. Pokorny and Jachimczyk: _h_=.00. Tasso and Miller: _h_=.18. Combined probabilities for lunar indexes (full moon) Unweighted _Z_ =0.93 (n.s.); Criminal offences - Forbes andLebo: _h_=-.01. Frey et al.: _h_=.00. Purpura: _h_=.03. Tasso andMiller: _h_=.04. Combined probabilities for lunar indexes (full moon) Unweighted _Z_ =2.78 (significant); Suicide and Self-harm - DeVoge and Mikawa:_h_=-.02. Frey et al.: _h_=.00. Garth and Lester: _h_=.01. Jones and Jones: _h_=-.01. Lester: _rpb_=-.03. Lester et al.: _h_=.07. Ossenkamp and Ossenkamp: _h_=.01. Pokorny: _h_=.03. Taylor and Diespecker: _h_=.04. Combined probabilities for lunar indexes (full moon) Unweighted _Z_ =0.80 (n.s.); Psychiatric disturbances – Angus: _h_=-.04 to _h_=.08. Chapman: _h_=.09. Frey et al.: _h_=.00. Gilbert: _r_=-.13 to _r_=-.02. Templer and Veleber: _h_=.08. Combined probabilities for lunar indexes (full moon) Unweighted _Z_ =0.37 (n.s.); Psychiatric admissions - Bauer and Hornick: _h_=.00. Blackman and Catalina: _rpb_=.54. Climent and Plutchik: _h_=.00 to _h_=-.04. Edelstein et al.: _h_=.03. Geller and Shannon: _h_=.04. Osborn: _h_=.06. Pokorny: _h_=-.02. Walters et al.:_ rpb_=-.67. Weiskott and Tipton: _h_=.03. Combined probabilities for lunar indexes (full moon) Unweighted _Z = -_0.09 (n.s.)Crisis calls – Angus: _h_=.02. DeVoge and Mikawa: _h_=-.03. Michelson et al.: _r_=.01. Templer and Veleber: _h_=-.11. Weiskott: _h_=.08. Combined probabilities for lunar indexes (full moon) Unweighted _Z_ =0.27 (n.s.). Gutiérrez-Garcia and Tusell: ES not reported, but no relationship between lunar phases and suicide. Kamat et al. 2014: ES not reported but no statistical difference when comparing the number of psychiatric-related visits between the actual full moon day and the controls at 7 and 10 days (_P_ = 0.7608 and _P_ = 0.8323, respectively). Kung and Mrazek: ES not reported, but t test (not reported) showed no significant differences between the number of patients seen on full-moon (M=2.30) and non-full-moon nights (M=2.32). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3450,9 +3450,9 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Dunbar’s number**. The number of neocortical neurons limits the organism's information-processing capacity and this then limits the number of relationships that an individual can monitor simultaneously. Humans are cognitively or emotionally limited to 150 relationships with other people. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004724849290081J)’, Dunbar 1992; correlational design, n=38 genuses of primate with mean brain volumes, few brains per genus. [citations=3168 (GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Lindenfors et al. 2021](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0158) [different datasets with n= 71 to n =142, citations=23 (GS, December 2022)]. -* Original effect size: neocortex ratio and mean group size _r2 _=0.764 [translates to ≈150 members of the expected human group size, reported in[ Lindenfors et al.](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0158)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates](https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(92)90081-j)’, Dunbar 1992; correlational design, n=38 genuses of primate with mean brain volumes, few brains per genus. [citations=3168 (GS, December 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Lindenfors et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0158) [different datasets with n= 71 to n =142, citations=23 (GS, December 2022)]. +* Original effect size: neocortex ratio and mean group size _r2 _=0.764 [translates to ≈150 members of the expected human group size, reported in[ Lindenfors et al.](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0158)]. * Replication effect size: Lindenfors et al.: human group size average of 69.2 individuals [3.8, 292.0]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3469,9 +3469,9 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[God is watching you: Priming god concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01983.x)’, Shariff and Norenzayan (2007); 2 experiments, ns=50 in each experiment [citations=1473, GS, November 2021]. -* Critiques: [Gomes and McCullough (2015](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0000027), [n=455 citations=86, (GS, November 2021)]; [Billingsley et al. (2018](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.170238); 2 experiments, n=489 and n=511 [citations=22, (GS, November 2021)]. +* Critiques: [Gomes and McCullough (2015](https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000027), [n=455 citations=86, (GS, November 2021)]; [Billingsley et al. (2018](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170238); 2 experiments, n=489 and n=511 [citations=22, (GS, November 2021)]. * Original effect size: Study 1, _d_=1.07; Study 2, _d_=0.71. -* Replication effect size: [Gomes and McCullough 2015](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.170238): _d_=-0.06; Billingsley et al. (2018) Study 1: _g_ = -0.05; Billingsley et al. (2018) Study 2: _g_= -0.09. +* Replication effect size: [Gomes and McCullough 2015](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170238): _d_=-0.06; Billingsley et al. (2018) Study 1: _g_ = -0.05; Billingsley et al. (2018) Study 2: _g_= -0.09. {{< /spoiler >}} * **Implicit analytic priming** Implicitly priming analytic thinking by seeing a photo of Auguste Rodin's The Thinker decreases belief in God. @@ -3487,7 +3487,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: '[Menstrual cycle variation in women's preferences for the scent of symmetrical men](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689051/pdf/9633114.pdf)', Gangestad and Thornhill 1998; within-subjects design, n=100. [citations=673 (GS, April 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Gildersleeve et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0035438) [meta-analysis, total sample of 134 effects from 38 published and 12 unpublished studies, n=5471, citations=491(GS, April 2023)]. [Jones et al. 2018](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661318302560) [review paper, n=NA, citations=111 (GS, April 2023)]. [Wood et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914523073) [meta-analysis, _k_=58, citations=277(GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Gildersleeve et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035438) [meta-analysis, total sample of 134 effects from 38 published and 12 unpublished studies, n=5471, citations=491(GS, April 2023)]. [Jones et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.008) [review paper, n=NA, citations=111 (GS, April 2023)]. [Wood et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914523073) [meta-analysis, _k_=58, citations=277(GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: the greater the fertility risk of a woman, the greater her preference for scent associated with male symmetry, _r_ =0.54. * Replication effect size: Gildersleeve et al.: women’s preference for men with characteristics that reflected genetic quality ancestrally was approximately 0.15 of a standard deviation stronger at high fertility than at low fertility; weighted mean _g_ in a short-term context _g_ = 0.21, SE = 0.06, in an unspecified relationship context _g_ = 0.16, SE = 0.05, and in a long-term context was near zero _g_ = 0.06, SE = 0.06, _p_ =.32; comparing the three contexts revealed that the weighted mean g was larger in a short-term context than in a long-term context, and this difference was statistically significant (p = .002). Jones et al.: NA. Wood et al.: Preferences of fertile versus nonfertile women - Testosterone _g_= 0.11 [−0.20, 0.42], Masculinity _g_=0.08 [−0.01, 0.16], Dominance _g_=0.05 [−0.06, 0.16], Symmetry _g_=0.22 [0.05, 0.39], Kindness _g_=0.07 [−0.04, 0.18], Health _g_=−0.19 [−0.29, –0.09]; Between-phase effect sizes across short term, long term, and no relationship contexts – Masculinity: Short term _g_=0.09 [−0.07, 0.24], Long term _g_= 0.03 [−0.08, 0.13], No context _g_=0.09 [−0.03, 0.20]; Dominance: Short term _g_=0.02 [−0.14, 0.18], Long term _g_=−0.01[−0.16, 0.14], No context _g_=0.10 [−0.14, 0.34]; Symmetry: Short term _g_=0.11 [−0.18, 0.40], Long term _g_=0.06 [−0.13, 0.25], No context_ g_= 0.32 [0.09, 0.55]; Kindness: Short term _g_=0.11 [−0.07, 0.28], Long term _g_=0.06 [−0.08, 0.20], No context _g_=−0.004 [−0.27, 0.26]; Health: Short term _g_=−0.33 [−0.67, 0.02], Long term _g_=0.00 [−0.20, 0.20], No context _g_=−0.24 [−0.34, −0.13]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3540,8 +3540,8 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Orgasm gap** (Orgasm equality). There is a gendered orgasm gap, with men experiencing orgasm more frequently than women in heterosexual sexual encounters.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated. -* Original paper: ‘[The Incidental Orgasm: The Presence of Clitoral Knowledge and the Absence of Orgasm for Women](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J013v42n01_07)’, Wade et al. 2005; correlational study, n=833 [citations=135(GS, May 2023)]​. -* Critiques:[ Garcia et al. 2014](https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article-abstract/11/11/2645/6958368) [n=2,850 single individuals, citations=134(GS, May 2023)]. ​[Mahar et al. 2020](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-020-00237-9) [systematic review, n=NA, citations=74(GS, May 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The Incidental Orgasm: The Presence of Clitoral Knowledge and the Absence of Orgasm for Women](https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v42n01_07)’, Wade et al. 2005; correlational study, n=833 [citations=135(GS, May 2023)]​. +* Critiques:[ Garcia et al. 2014](https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article-abstract/11/11/2645/6958368) [n=2,850 single individuals, citations=134(GS, May 2023)]. ​[Mahar et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-020-00237-9) [systematic review, n=NA, citations=74(GS, May 2023)]. * Original effect size: The orgasm gap was 52 percent: 39 percent of women, compared to 91 percent of men, usually or always experienced orgasm in partnered sex; _d_= -1.26 [-1.44, -1.07] (estimated from the data in Table 6 and using this[ conversion](https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/calculator/)). * Replication effect size: Garcia et al.: Compared with women, men reported a significantly higher mean occurrence rate of orgasm frequency, _η2_ = 0.12. Mahar et al.: ES not reported; six covered studies all showed that males report more frequent orgasm than females. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3603,7 +3603,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day](https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=-YOZCgAAQBAJ&dq)’, Sams and Bergmann 2012; book, n = NA. [citation=6585(GS, December 2021)]​. -* Critiques: [Cheng et al. 2019](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11423-018-9633-7) [n=7912, citation=195(GS, January 2022)]. [Låg and Sæle 2019](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419870489) [n=not reported, number of reports=272, citation=106(GS, January 2022)]. [Lo and Hew 2017](https://telrp.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41039-016-0044-2) [n=NA, citations=423(GS, December 2021)]. [Lo and Hew](https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20293) 2019 [n=5329, citation=43(GS, January 2022)]. [Shi et al.](https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00142-8) 2020 [n=6947, citation=60(GS, January 2022)]. [Strelan et al.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1747938X19301599) 2020 [n=33678, citation=107(GS, January 2022)]. [van Altren et al.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X18305694) 2019 [n=24771, citation=239(GS, January 2022)]. [Vitta & Al-Hoorie](https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820981403) 2020 [n=4220, citation=17(GS, January 2022)]. [Xu et al.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0260691718309195) 2019 [n=4295, citation=33(GS, January 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Cheng et al. 2019](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11423-018-9633-7) [n=7912, citation=195(GS, January 2022)]. [Låg and Sæle 2019](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419870489) [n=not reported, number of reports=272, citation=106(GS, January 2022)]. [Lo and Hew 2017](https://telrp.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41039-016-0044-2) [n=NA, citations=423(GS, December 2021)]. [Lo and Hew](https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20293) 2019 [n=5329, citation=43(GS, January 2022)]. [Shi et al.](https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00142-8) 2020 [n=6947, citation=60(GS, January 2022)]. [Strelan et al.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314) 2020 [n=33678, citation=107(GS, January 2022)]. [van Altren et al.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.05.003) 2019 [n=24771, citation=239(GS, January 2022)]. [Vitta & Al-Hoorie](https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820981403) 2020 [n=4220, citation=17(GS, January 2022)]. [Xu et al.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.06.005) 2019 [n=4295, citation=33(GS, January 2022)]. * Original effect size: NA, theoretical paper/book (although report a descriptive data that the flipped class model helped students with lower maths skills perform at a similar level as a group with higher maths skills in a mathematically heavy science class). * Replication effect size: Strelan et al.: _g_ = 0.50 [0.42, 0.52] cross-disciplinary. Cheng et al.: _g_ = 0.19 [0.11, 0.27]​ cross-disciplinary. Låg and Sæle: _g_ = 0.35 [0.31, 0.40] cross-disciplinary. Lo and Hew: _g_ = .29 [0.17, 0.41) engineering education. Shi et al.: _g_ = 0.53 [0.36, 0.70] cross-disciplinary. van Altren et al.: _g_ = 0.36 [0.28, 0.44] cross-disciplinary. Xu et al.: _d_ = 1.79 [1.32, 2.27] nursing education in China. Vitta and Al-Hoorie: _g_ = 0.99 [0.81, 1.16] second language learning. In Vitta and Al-Hoorie’s study, Trim and Fill suggested possible publication bias inflating the results, but the adjusted effect size remained sizable: _g_ = 0.58 [0.37, 0.78]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3670,7 +3670,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed. * Original paper: Multiple sources, but one of the earliest published ‘[Chronic stress and peptic ulcer](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/313068)’ Gray et al. 1951; experimental and observational study, n= 7. [citations=279(GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Skillman et al. 1969](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0002961069900117) [n=150, citations=406(GS, March 2023)].[ Marshall and Warren 1983](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(84)91816-6/fulltext) [n=100, citations=7515(GS, March 2023)].[ Gough et al. 1984](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(84)91224-8/fulltext) [n=484, citations=145(GS, March 2023)].[ Levenstein et al. 1997](https://journals.lww.com/jcge/Abstract/1997/04000/Psychological_Predictors_of_Peptic_Ulcer_Incidence.4.aspx) [n=484, citations=113(GS, March 2023)].[ Levenstein et al. 1999](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/188314) [n=4,595, citations=84(GS, March 2023)].[ Levenstein et al. 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1542356514011367) [n=3,379, citations=188(GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Skillman et al. 1969](https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(69)90011-7) [n=150, citations=406(GS, March 2023)].[ Marshall and Warren 1983](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(84)91816-6/fulltext) [n=100, citations=7515(GS, March 2023)].[ Gough et al. 1984](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(84)91224-8/fulltext) [n=484, citations=145(GS, March 2023)].[ Levenstein et al. 1997](https://journals.lww.com/jcge/Abstract/1997/04000/Psychological_Predictors_of_Peptic_Ulcer_Incidence.4.aspx) [n=484, citations=113(GS, March 2023)].[ Levenstein et al. 1999](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/188314) [n=4,595, citations=84(GS, March 2023)].[ Levenstein et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2014.07.052) [n=3,379, citations=188(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: ES not reported but the studies suggested that chronic emotional and physical stress is transmitted to the stomach by a hormonal mechanism mediated through the adrenal gland and may induce gastrointestinal ulceration through the hypothalamic-pituitary-gastric pathway. * Replication effect size: Skillman et al.: Stress ulceration described; increased secretion of acid may be an important cause of this disease (replicated). Marshall and Warren: ES not reported, but the bacterium _Helicobacter pylori_ identified as correlated with ulcers and were present in almost all patients with active chronic gastritis, duodenal ulcer, or gastric ulcer and thus may be an important factor in the aetiology of these diseases (not replicated). Gough et al.: treating ulcers with antibiotics reduced recurrence by approximately 90-95% (not replicated). Leventstein et al.: five baseline psychological measures (depression, hostility, ego resiliency, social alienation or anomy, and personal uncertainty) had significant age-adjusted associations with incident ulcer [OR= 1.8 to 2.6]. Levenstein et al.: ES not reported, but conclusion that in most ulcer cases where stress is involved, _H. pylori_ is likely to be present as well. The impact of the two factors may be additive (replicated). Levenstein et al.: ulcer incidence was significantly higher among subjects in the highest tertile of stress scores (3.5%) than the lowest tertile (1.6%) (adjusted odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2–3.9; _P_ < .01); Stress had similar effects on ulcers associated with _H. pylori_ infection and those unrelated to either _H. pylori_ or use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3780,7 +3780,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Personality correlates of sociopolitical attitudes.** Liberals tend to socially conform whereas conservatives are more willing to violate established societal conventions. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: reversed. -* Original paper: ‘[The nature of the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886909004760)’, Verhults et al. 2010; correlational study, N= 20,559 / 7234 twins. [citations=127(GS, February 2023)] (same data and sample used in later studies by the same authors [Verhulst et al. 2012](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809096/?mod=article_inline)). +* Original paper: ‘[The nature of the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.013)’, Verhults et al. 2010; correlational study, N= 20,559 / 7234 twins. [citations=127(GS, February 2023)] (same data and sample used in later studies by the same authors [Verhulst et al. 2012](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809096/?mod=article_inline)). * Critiques: [Ludeke and Rasmussen 2016](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188691630232X) [Review paper and independent study, n=1,085, citations=12(GS, February 2023)].​ [Verhulst et al. 2016](http://www.people.vcu.edu/~bverhulst/pubs/Verhulst_et_al-2016_Correction.pdf) Erratum [n=NA, citations=12(GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: correlations between General ideology (higher scores –more liberal) and Psychoticism (_r_ = -.495), Extraversion (_r_ =-.061), Neuroticism (_r_ =-.008) and Social desirability (_r_ =.261) among men and among women (_r_ =-.566, _r_ =-.177, _r_ =.001, _r_ =.357, respectively) (all significant at .01 or better). * Replication effect size: Ludeke and Rasmussen: Literature review: ES not reported but general conclusion that those on the right/conservative are typically higher in Conscientiousness, behavioural constraint (as measured by by the Orderliness and Politeness aspects in the Big Five model of personality and the low pole of Eysenck's Psychoticism construct) and on moralistic bias measures such as IM and EPQ-Lie (Reversed); Big Five measures and socio-political attitudes: Openness negatively correlated with Conservative self-placement (_r_ = -.21), Authoritarianism (_r_ = -.29), and Social Dominance Orientation (_r_ = -.39), Conscientiousness positively correlated with Conservative self-placement (_r_ = .21), and Authoritarianism (_r_ = .19), Agreeableness negatively correlated with Social Dominance Orientation (_r_ = -.39) (_p_s <.001); Eysenckian measures (EPQ): Psychoticism correlated negatively with Conservative ideological self-placement (_r_ = -.22) and with Authoritarianism (_r_ = -.20), but correlated positively with Social Dominance Orientation (_r_ = .11) (ps <.001), The Lie scale correlated positively with Conservative ideological self-placement (_r_ = .10) and with Authoritarianism (_r_ = .17) (_p_s <.001) (Reversed). Verhulst et al.: coding error in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative (reversed). @@ -3793,7 +3793,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Gaze following in monkeys**. Monkeys fail to follow the gaze of another agent, using the object choice task. ​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by capuchin monkeys](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003347295801685)’, Anderson et al. 1995; experimental design, 3 cue conditions, n = 3. [citations = 250 (GS, June 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by capuchin monkeys](https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80168-5)’, Anderson et al. 1995; experimental design, 3 cue conditions, n = 3. [citations = 250 (GS, June 2023)]. * Critiques: [Anderson et al. 1996](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0376635795000747) [n = 3, citations = 188 (GS, June 2023)]. [Emery et al. 1997](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?rapid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=17e1ccd8923068932dcb51e26ba79c7b45858bbd) [n =2, citations = 354 (GS, June 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Anderson et al.: not reported. Emery et al.: not reported. @@ -3802,8 +3802,8 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Pointing following in monkeys**. Monkeys fail to follow the point of another agent, using the object choice task. ​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: [‘Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by capuchin monkeys’](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003347295801685), Anderson et al. 1995; experimental design, 3 cue conditions: gazing at correct object, gazing plus pointing, or pointing alone, n=3. [citations=250 (GS, June 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Kumashiro et al. 2003](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167876003001260) [n=4, citations= 73(GS, June 2023)]. [Miklosi & Soproni 2005](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1) [systematic review, 24 studies on different species, citations=468 (GS, June 2023)]. +* Original paper: [‘Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by capuchin monkeys’](https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80168-5), Anderson et al. 1995; experimental design, 3 cue conditions: gazing at correct object, gazing plus pointing, or pointing alone, n=3. [citations=250 (GS, June 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Kumashiro et al. 2003](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8760(03)00126-0) [n=4, citations= 73(GS, June 2023)]. [Miklosi & Soproni 2005](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1) [systematic review, 24 studies on different species, citations=468 (GS, June 2023)]. * Original effect size: not reported. * Replication effect size: Kumashiro et al.: not reported. Miklosi & Soproni: not reported. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3821,7 +3821,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Production and comprehension of referential pointing by orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus)](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-12428-001)’, Call and Tomasello 1995; experimental design, n = 2 (same animals in both studies). [citation = 464(GS, June 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Miklosi & Soproni 2005](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1). [systematic review, 24 studies on different species, citations=468 (GS, June 2023)]. [Clark et al. 2019](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763419300831) [meta-analysis, n= 470, citations= 21 (GS, June 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Miklosi & Soproni 2005](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1). [systematic review, 24 studies on different species, citations=468 (GS, June 2023)]. [Clark et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.001) [meta-analysis, n= 470, citations= 21 (GS, June 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Miklosi & Soproni: not reported (they only included some images in their review). Clark et al.: Temporal cue properties: _r_=.30; Ipsilateral pointing cues: _r_=.28. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3839,7 +3839,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: [’Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs’](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021676#pone.0021676-Miklsi1), Miklosi et al. 1998; experimental design, Experiment 1: n=3, Experiment 2: n=6. [citations=554 (GS, June 2023)]. -* Critiques: [McKinley & Sambrook 2000 ](https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710050046)[n=16 domesticated dogs, citations= 303 (GS, June 2023)]. [Miklosi and Soproni 2005](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1) [systematic review, 24 studies on different species, citations=468 (GS, June 2023)]. [Schneider et al. 2011](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021676#pone.0021676-Miklsi100710050046.pdf) [N=48 domesticated dogs, citations= 101(GS, June 2023)]. [Clark et al. 2019](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763419300831) [meta-analysis, n= 470, citations= 21 (GS, June 2023)]. +* Critiques: [McKinley & Sambrook 2000 ](https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710050046)[n=16 domesticated dogs, citations= 303 (GS, June 2023)]. [Miklosi and Soproni 2005](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1) [systematic review, 24 studies on different species, citations=468 (GS, June 2023)]. [Schneider et al. 2011](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021676#pone.0021676-Miklsi100710050046.pdf) [N=48 domesticated dogs, citations= 101(GS, June 2023)]. [Clark et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.001) [meta-analysis, n= 470, citations= 21 (GS, June 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Miklosi & Soproni: NA. McKinley & Sambrook: NA. Clark et al.: Within dogs, those categorised as “close” (N = 174, Mdn _Z_ = 1.26) scored higher than those categorised as “seldom” (N = 14, Mdn _Z_ = -0.63) (Mann-Whitney _U_ = 13.97, _p_ <.001). For contralateral pointing cues, in contrast, within nonhuman primates and dogs, those categorised as “occasional” (N = 95, Mdn _Z_ = 1.89) outperformed those categorised as “close” (N = 6, Mdn _z_  = 0.00), Mann-Whitney _U_ = 136.5, _p_ = 0.029. Subjects categorised as “close” (N = 356, Mdn _Z_ = 0.89) scored higher than those categorised as “seldom” (N = 22, Mdn _Z_ = -0.63), Mann-Whitney _U_ = 1235.5, _p_ < 0.001. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3883,7 +3883,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Pointing following in African elephants**. African elephants follow the pointing of a human agent, using the object choice task. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[African Elephants Can Use Human Pointing Cues to Find Hidden Food](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213010439)’, Smet and Byrne 2013; experiment, n=11. [citation=70(GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[African Elephants Can Use Human Pointing Cues to Find Hidden Food](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.037)’, Smet and Byrne 2013; experiment, n=11. [citation=70(GS, January 2023)]. * Critiques: [Smet and Byrne 2014](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0772-x) [n=8, citations=21(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: not reported. * Replication effect size: Smet and Byrne: not reported. @@ -3965,7 +3965,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: [‘Mirror-induced behavior in the magpie (Pica pica): evidence of self-recognition’, ](https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060202&xid=17259,15700022,15700124,15700149,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242)Prior et al. 2008; Exposition of magpies to a mirror while marking the animals, test for self-directed behaviour, n = 5. [citations = 732, GS, January 2023]. -* Critiques: [Gallup and Anderson 2020](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fcns0000206), [review paper, citations = 52, GS, January 2023]. [Soler et al. 2020](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fcom0000223) [direct replication of Prior et al. 2008, n = 8 magpies, citations = 24, GS, April 2023]. +* Critiques: [Gallup and Anderson 2020](https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000206), [review paper, citations = 52, GS, January 2023]. [Soler et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000223) [direct replication of Prior et al. 2008, n = 8 magpies, citations = 24, GS, April 2023]. * Original effect size: 2 out of 5 animals showed self-recognition during mark test. * Replication effect size: Gallup and Anderson: no reproducible evidence that magpies can recognize themselves in the mirror. Soler et al.: no animal showed self-directed behaviour in front of the mirror during mark test (effects are descriptive only). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -4059,7 +4059,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: [‘Are cross-linguistically frequent semantic systems easier to learn? The case of evidentiality’](https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10147297), Saratsli et al. 2019; between-group study design, n1=34, n2=34, n3=33. [citation=1(GS, June 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Saratsli et al. 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027720300135?via%3Dihub) [n1=111, n2=101, n3=98; citations=13(GS, June 2022)]. [Saratsli and Papafragou 2021](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5560w80r) [n=64, citation=0(GS, June 2022)]. [Ilchovska and Culbertson 2019](https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/91253) [n=36, citations=0(GS, June 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Saratsli et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104194) [n1=111, n2=101, n3=98; citations=13(GS, June 2022)]. [Saratsli and Papafragou 2021](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5560w80r) [n=64, citation=0(GS, June 2022)]. [Ilchovska and Culbertson 2019](https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/91253) [n=36, citations=0(GS, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Saratsli et al.: NA. Saratsli and Papafragou: NA. Ilchovska and Culbertson: _d_ on the response times [[calculated from t using this formula]](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)= 5.50 (System 1 vs. 2), -4.41 (Systems 1,2 vs. 4), 14.63 (Years English)= NA. ​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -4090,7 +4090,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[An Epidemologic Study of Stuttering’](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021992494900094), Ardila et al. 1994; epidemiological, NT: n = 1842, AWS: n = 37. [citation=73(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Ajdacic-Gross et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-009-0075-4) [n=11,905, citations=62(GS, November 2022)]​. [Ajdacic-Gross et al. 2018 ](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198450)[n=4,874, citations=16(GS, November 2022)]​.​ [Elsherif et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X20300826) [AWS: n = 30, AWD: n = 50, citations=9(GS, November 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Ajdacic-Gross et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-009-0075-4) [n=11,905, citations=62(GS, November 2022)]​. [Ajdacic-Gross et al. 2018 ](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198450)[n=4,874, citations=16(GS, November 2022)]​.​ [Elsherif et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2020.105827) [AWS: n = 30, AWD: n = 50, citations=9(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: φ = 0.09 [[calculated using the conversion from Chi square to Phi coefficient]](http://www.people.vcu.edu/~pdattalo/702SuppRead/MeasAssoc/NominalAssoc.html#:~:text=Computationally%2C%20phi%20is%20the%20square,(X2%2Fn).). * Replication effect size: Ajdacic-Gross et al.: OR = 3.50 [2.59–4.70]; Ajdacic-Gross et al.: OR = 5.0 [3.1±8.2]​; Elsherif et al.: _V_ = .56 {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -4098,8 +4098,8 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Stuttering and phonological working memory impairment**. Adults who stutter show lower scores on phonological working memory, using a nonword repetition task. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: [‘Nonword repetition abilities of children who stutter: an exploratory study’](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X0400035X), Hakim and Bernstein Ratner 2004; experiment, CWS: n = 8, CWNS: n = 8. [citation=233(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Anderson et al. 2006](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X06000593) [CWS: n = 12, CWNS: n = 12, citations=170(GS, November 2022)]. [Bakhtiar et al. 2008](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohammad-Sadegh-Seifpanahi/publication/6159203_Nonword_repetition_ability_of_children_who_do_and_do_not_stutter_and_covert_repair_hypothesis/links/5490b0420cf2d1800d87c0e6/Nonword-repetition-ability-of-children-who-do-and-do-not-stutter-and-covert-repair-hypothesis.pdf) [CWS: n = 12, CWNS: n = 12, citations=78(GS, November 2022)]. [Byrd et al. 2012](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X12000204) [AWS: n = 14, AWNS: n = 14, citations=97(GS, November 2022)]. [Byrd et al. 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X15000066) [AWS: n = 20, AWNS: n = 20, citations=58(GS, November 2022)]. [Coalson and Byrd 2017](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188111) [AWS: n = 26, AWNS: n = 26, citations=16(GS, November 2022)]. [Choopanian et al. 2019](https://jmr.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jmr/article/view/255) [AWS: n = 20, AWNS: n = 30, citations=1(GS, November 2022)]. [Elsherif et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X20300826#sec0100) [AWS: n = 30, NT: n = 84, AWD: n = 50; citations=9(GS, November 2022)]. [Gerwin and Weber 2022](https://pubs.asha.org/doi/full/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00334) [CWS: n = 88, CWNS: n = 53; citations=2(GS, November 2022)]. [Sasisekaran et al. 2019](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992418300753) [CWS: n = 13, CWNS: n = 13; citations=6(GS, November 2022)]; [Sasisekaran et al. 2019](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992418300753) [CWS: n = 13, CWNS: n = 13; citations=6(GS, November 2022)]; [Smith et al. 2012](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X12000629) [CWS: n = 31, CWNS: n = 22; citations=144(GS, November 2022)]; [Pelczarski and Yaruss 2016](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992416300375) [CWS: n = 16, CWNS: n = 13; citations=54(GS, November 2022)]; [Sakhai et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X20300802) [CWS: n = 30, CWNS: n = 30; citations=4(GS, November 2022)]; [Sasisekaran 2013](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X13000594) [AWS: n = 9, AWNS: n = 9; citations=57(GS, November 2022)]; [Spencer and Weber-Fox 2014](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X14000473) [CWS: n = 40, CWNS: n = 25; citations=109(GS, November 2022)]; [Sugathan and Maruthy 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X1930124X) [CWS: n = 17, CWNS: n = 17; citations=7(GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: [‘Nonword repetition abilities of children who stutter: an exploratory study’](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2004.06.001), Hakim and Bernstein Ratner 2004; experiment, CWS: n = 8, CWNS: n = 8. [citation=233(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Anderson et al. 2006](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2006.05.001) [CWS: n = 12, CWNS: n = 12, citations=170(GS, November 2022)]. [Bakhtiar et al. 2008](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohammad-Sadegh-Seifpanahi/publication/6159203_Nonword_repetition_ability_of_children_who_do_and_do_not_stutter_and_covert_repair_hypothesis/links/5490b0420cf2d1800d87c0e6/Nonword-repetition-ability-of-children-who-do-and-do-not-stutter-and-covert-repair-hypothesis.pdf) [CWS: n = 12, CWNS: n = 12, citations=78(GS, November 2022)]. [Byrd et al. 2012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.03.003) [AWS: n = 14, AWNS: n = 14, citations=97(GS, November 2022)]. [Byrd et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2015.01.004) [AWS: n = 20, AWNS: n = 20, citations=58(GS, November 2022)]. [Coalson and Byrd 2017](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188111) [AWS: n = 26, AWNS: n = 26, citations=16(GS, November 2022)]. [Choopanian et al. 2019](https://jmr.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jmr/article/view/255) [AWS: n = 20, AWNS: n = 30, citations=1(GS, November 2022)]. [Elsherif et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2020.105827#sec0100) [AWS: n = 30, NT: n = 84, AWD: n = 50; citations=9(GS, November 2022)]. [Gerwin and Weber 2022](https://pubs.asha.org/doi/full/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00334) [CWS: n = 88, CWNS: n = 53; citations=2(GS, November 2022)]. [Sasisekaran et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.105916) [CWS: n = 13, CWNS: n = 13; citations=6(GS, November 2022)]; [Sasisekaran et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.105916) [CWS: n = 13, CWNS: n = 13; citations=6(GS, November 2022)]; [Smith et al. 2012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.06.001) [CWS: n = 31, CWNS: n = 22; citations=144(GS, November 2022)]; [Pelczarski and Yaruss 2016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2016.05.006) [CWS: n = 16, CWNS: n = 13; citations=54(GS, November 2022)]; [Sakhai et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2020.105825) [CWS: n = 30, CWNS: n = 30; citations=4(GS, November 2022)]; [Sasisekaran 2013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2013.06.001) [AWS: n = 9, AWNS: n = 9; citations=57(GS, November 2022)]; [Spencer and Weber-Fox 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2014.06.001) [CWS: n = 40, CWNS: n = 25; citations=109(GS, November 2022)]; [Sugathan and Maruthy 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2019.105745) [CWS: n = 17, CWNS: n = 17; citations=7(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = 1.417/_r_ = .578. * Replication effect size: Anderson et al. (2006): bisyllable _ηp2_ = 0.20, trisyllable _ηp2_ = 0.18, quadsyllable _ηp2_ = 0.13, pentasyllable _ηp2_ = 0.05.; Bakhtiar et al. (2008): bisyllabic: _d_ = 0.38, trisyllabic: _d_ = 0.13.; Byrd et al. (2012): partial _η2_ = .150; Byrd et al. (2015): vocal: partial _η2_ = .382 and non-vocal: partial_ η2_ < .0001; Coalson and Byrd (2017): _d_ = .32; Choopanian et al. (2019): words: _r_ = 0.01, _r_ = 0.86 [[calculated using the conversion from Mann Whitney U test to r](https://datatab.net/tutorial/mann-whitney-u-test)]; Elsherif et al. (2021): AWS vs NT: _Δ_ = 1.26, AWS vs AWD: _Δ_ = 0.26; Gerwin et al. (2022): _η2_ = 0.018 [_η2 _calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Sasisekaran et al. (2019): partial _ η2_ = 0.22; Smith et al. (2012): monosyllable: _ηp2_ = 0.06 [_η2 _calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], bisyllable: _ηp2 _= 0.10 [_η2 _calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], trisyllable: _ηp2 _= 0.10 [_η2 _calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], quadsyllable: _ηp2_ = 0.03 [_η2 _ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Pelczarski and Yaruss (2016): r = 0.52 [_r _ calculated from reported Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test, Z statistic, and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] Sakhai et al. (2021): Afshar Nonword Repetition Task: analysing correct nonword: Afshar Nonword Repetition Task: trisyllable _ηp2_ = 0.11, quadsyllable _ηp2_ = 0.06, Adapted Version of the Yazdani Nonword Repetition Task: bisyllable _ηp2_ = 0.36, trisyllable _ηp2_ = 0.47, quadsyllable _ηp2_ = 0.42, Masumi-Kashani Nonword Repetition Task: bisyllable _ηp2_ = 0.13, trisyllable _ηp2_ = 0.31, quadsyllable _ηp2_ = 0.26, pentasyllable _ηp2_ = 0.18, analysing correct phonemes: Afshar Nonword Repetition Task: trisyllable _ηp2_ = 0.12, quadsyllable _ηp2_ = 0.14, Adapted Version of the Yazdani Nonword Repetition Task: bisyllable _ηp2_ = 0.40, trisyllable _ηp2_ = 0.46, quadsyllable _ηp2_ = 0.46, Masumi-Kashani Nonword Repetition Task: bisyllable _ηp2_ = 0.17, trisyllable _ηp2_ = 0.29, quadsyllable _ηp2_ = 0.28, pentasyllable _ηp2_ = 0.35, Sasisekaran (2013): _ηp2_ = 0.008 [_η2 _calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Spencer and Weber-Fox (2014): F < 1; Sugathan and Maruthy (2020): _ηp2_ = .169 {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -4107,8 +4107,8 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Stuttering and phonological monitoring impairment**. Adults who stutter show lower scores on phonological monitoring than neurotypical adults. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: [Phonological encoding in the silent speech of persons who stutter](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X05000823), Sasisekaran et al. (2006); experiment, [AWS: n = 10, AWNS: n = 11, citation=118(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Sasisekaran and Basu (2017)](https://pubs.asha.org/doi/full/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-17-0033) [CWS: n = 12, CWNS: n = 12; citations=11(GS, November 2022)]; [Sasisekaran et al. (2014)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X12001118#bib0155)[CWS: n = 9, CWNS: n = 9; citations=23(GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: [Phonological encoding in the silent speech of persons who stutter](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2005.11.005), Sasisekaran et al. (2006); experiment, [AWS: n = 10, AWNS: n = 11, citation=118(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Sasisekaran and Basu (2017)](https://pubs.asha.org/doi/full/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-17-0033) [CWS: n = 12, CWNS: n = 12; citations=11(GS, November 2022)]; [Sasisekaran et al. (2014)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.12.003)[CWS: n = 9, CWNS: n = 9; citations=23(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: Sasisekaran et al. (2006): _ηp2_ = 0.27. * Replication effect size: Sasisekaran and Basu (2017): _ηp2_ =.12; Sasisekaran et al. (2014): _η2_ = 0.21. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -4116,8 +4116,8 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Stuttering and phonological awareness impairment (vs. neurotypicals)**. Adults who stutter show lower scores on phonological awareness than neurotypical adults. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: [Phonological encoding of young children who stutter, ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X13000892)Pelczarski and Yaruss (2014); experiment, [CWS: n = 10, CWNS: n = 10, citation=37(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Elsherif et al. (2021)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X20300826) [AWS: n = 30, NT: n = 84, AWD: n = 50; citations=9(GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: [Phonological encoding of young children who stutter, ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2013.10.003)Pelczarski and Yaruss (2014); experiment, [CWS: n = 10, CWNS: n = 10, citation=37(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Elsherif et al. (2021)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2020.105827) [AWS: n = 30, NT: n = 84, AWD: n = 50; citations=9(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: Pelczarski and Yaruss (2014): _d_ = −1.0. * Replication effect size: Elsherif et al. (2021): NT vs AWS: _Δ_ = 0.43. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -4125,7 +4125,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Stuttering and phonological awareness impairment (vs. dyslexia)**. Adults who stutter show similar scores on phonological awareness to dyslexic adults. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: [Do dyslexia and stuttering share a processing deficit?, ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X20300826)Elsherif et al. (2021); experiment, [AWS: n = 30, NT: n = 84, AWD: n = 50; citations=9(GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: [Do dyslexia and stuttering share a processing deficit?, ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2020.105827)Elsherif et al. (2021); experiment, [AWS: n = 30, NT: n = 84, AWD: n = 50; citations=9(GS, November 2022)]. * Critiques: [Choo et al. (2022)](https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221095265) [Adults struggling readers:: n = 98, Adults struggling readers who stutter: n = 22; citations=0(GS, November 2022). * Original effect size: Elsherif et al. (2021): AWD vs. AWS: _Δ_ = 0.07. * Replication effect size: Choo et al. (2022): _d_ = 0.130. @@ -4134,7 +4134,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Stuttering and reading fluency impairment (vs. dyslexia)**. Adults who stutter show similar scores on reading fluency to dyslexic adults. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status:replicated -* Original paper: [Do dyslexia and stuttering share a processing deficit](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X20300826)?,[ ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X13000892) Elsherif et al. (2021), experiment [AWS: n = 30, NT: n = 84, AWD: n = 50; citations=9(GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: [Do dyslexia and stuttering share a processing deficit](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2020.105827)?,[ ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2013.10.003) Elsherif et al. (2021), experiment [AWS: n = 30, NT: n = 84, AWD: n = 50; citations=9(GS, November 2022)]. * Critiques: [Choo et al. (2022)](https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221095265) [Adults struggling readers: n = 98, Adults struggling readers who stutter: n = 22; citations=0(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: TOWRE sight word efficiency: AWS vs AWD: _Δ_ = 0.24; TOWRE phoneme decoding: AWS vs AWD: _Δ _= -0.23 * Replication effect size: TOWRE-word: _d_= 0.024, TOWRE-phoneme decoding: _d_ = 0.013 @@ -4143,7 +4143,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Struggling readers and stuttering co-occurrence**. Dyslexic adults show higher co-occurrence with stuttering than neurotypical adults. ​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: NA -* Original paper: [Do dyslexia and stuttering share a processing deficit](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X20300826)?,[ ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X13000892) Elsherif et al. (2021), experiment [AWS: n = 30, AWD: n = 50; citations=9(GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: [Do dyslexia and stuttering share a processing deficit](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2020.105827)?,[ ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2013.10.003) Elsherif et al. (2021), experiment [AWS: n = 30, AWD: n = 50; citations=9(GS, November 2022)]. * Critiques: [Choo et al. (2022)](https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221095265) [Adults struggling readers: n = 98, Adults struggling readers who stutter: n = 22; citations=0(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: Elsherif et al. (2021): neurotypical vs. dyslexic adults: _V_ = .44, neurotypical vs dyslexic adults with low support need: _V_ =.22; neurotypical vs dyslexic adults with high support needs: _V_ = .56. * Replication effect size: NA @@ -4179,7 +4179,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: Theoretical paper by [Eysenck, 1962](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1962.tb00835.x) [citations=20(Wiley, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Gazendam et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614535914) (n=236 , citations=33, GS, January 2023); Haaker et al. 2015; [Sperl et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12677) (n=32, citations= 56, GS, February 2023); [Panitz et al. 2018](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1074742718301382) (n=87, citations=24, GS, February 2023); Pineless et al. 2017; [Sjouwerman et al. (2020](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72007-5) (n=469; citations=21(nature.com; January 2023); [Torrents-Rodas et al. (2012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.10.006)) n=126; citations=78(Elsevier, January 2023). +* Critiques: [Gazendam et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614535914) (n=236 , citations=33, GS, January 2023); Haaker et al. 2015; [Sperl et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12677) (n=32, citations= 56, GS, February 2023); [Panitz et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2018.06.001) (n=87, citations=24, GS, February 2023); Pineless et al. 2017; [Sjouwerman et al. (2020](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72007-5) (n=469; citations=21(nature.com; January 2023); [Torrents-Rodas et al. (2012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.10.006)) n=126; citations=78(Elsevier, January 2023). * Original effect size: NA * Replication effect size: * Torrents-Rodas et al. (2012): _ηp2_ reported: Acquisition: FPS: _ηp2_ =0.15 SCR: _ηp2_ =0.25. Risk rating: _ηp2_ =0.69. Generalisation: FPS: _ηp2_ =0.13, SCR: _ηp2_ =0.09, Risk ratings: _ηp2_ =0.67. Siouwerman (2020): study 1: see figure 1 for r reported. study 2: _d_=0.95, see figure 4 for r reported. @@ -4193,7 +4193,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: Theoretical paper (therefore no _n_ reported) by [Eysenck, 1962](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1962.tb00835.x) [citations=59(GS, February 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Martinez et al. (2012)](https://biolmoodanxietydisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2045-5380-2-16). [n=46, citations=24 (GS, March 2023)]. [Otto et al. (2007)](https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445506295054) [n=72, citations=93 (GS, March 2023)]. [Pineles et al. (2009)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886908003310) [n=217, citations= 64 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Martinez et al. (2012)](https://biolmoodanxietydisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2045-5380-2-16). [n=46, citations=24 (GS, March 2023)]. [Otto et al. (2007)](https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445506295054) [n=72, citations=93 (GS, March 2023)]. [Pineles et al. (2009)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.003) [n=217, citations= 64 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA * Replication effect size: Martinez et al. (2012): SCL and extraversion: _r2_= .15. Otto et al. (2007): _r_ = -.13 for general conditions, and _r_= -.16 for differential conditioning. Pineles et al. (2009): partial _r_ = .14 for warmth, partial _r_ = .17 for activity. {{< /spoiler >}} From ec362c052c12183cd2b45ecf37b4b7dfe309ede7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lukas Wallrich Date: Fri, 1 May 2026 17:33:48 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Resolve 106 more publisher URLs via Crossref alt-id + OpenAlex MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Phase 2 of the publisher → doi.org conversion. Earlier pass relied purely on regex extraction (DOI visible in URL) plus Crossref's alternative-id filter for ScienceDirect PIIs. This pass adds: - Crossref alternative-id lookup for psycnet record/buy/fulltext IDs (PsycInfo IDs are deposited as alternative identifiers for many journal articles). - Crossref alternative-id lookup for OUP article numbers. - OpenAlex bibliographic search as a fallback for JSTOR stable IDs and OUP article IDs that Crossref didn't index. - Re-runs of the ScienceDirect PIIs that hit transient rate-limits in the first pass. Resolved (all 90 unique DOIs Handle-API verified): 57 psycnet record/buy (Crossref alt-id) 22 ScienceDirect PII (Crossref alt-id, prior misses retried) 14 OUP article (mostly OpenAlex) 10 JSTOR stable (OpenAlex) 3 psycnet fulltext (Crossref alt-id) 72 publisher URLs still remain in content/ — mostly psycnet records and ScienceDirect PIIs that neither Crossref nor OpenAlex recognises, plus 7 lww URLs (their ID format isn't indexed by either). Those are likely conference papers, supplements, or content the publisher never deposited. They'd need per-URL human verification. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) --- .../004-Teaching-why-how-replication/index.md | 6 +- .../010-Neurodiversity/index.md | 2 +- .../015-academic-jobs-us-vs-uk/index.md | 2 +- .../index.md | 2 +- content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md | 2 +- .../implicit_bias/index.md | 2 +- content/reversals/reversals.md | 174 +++++++++--------- 7 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/educators-corner/004-Teaching-why-how-replication/index.md b/content/educators-corner/004-Teaching-why-how-replication/index.md index 4b266b79e7d..987eff9fe59 100644 --- a/content/educators-corner/004-Teaching-why-how-replication/index.md +++ b/content/educators-corner/004-Teaching-why-how-replication/index.md @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ This module is framed around a schematic version of how empirical psychological In the schematic, you generate a hypothesis from theory, design a study to test the hypothesis, collect data based on the study design, analyze the data to test the hypothesis, interpret the results, publish the data, and begin the cycle anew. By using this process to compare discrepancies between your hypothesis and the data, you can identify flaws in your theoretical assumptions, which allows you to revise the theories and improve them. -However, a variety of events made psychologists aware that something about this cycle wasn’t working. First was the observation that only about 8% of the results published in psychology journals are negative ([Fanelli, 2010](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010068)) – yet these negative results are necessary to identify flaws in theoretical assumptions. Second was the publication of a paper by the well-respected social psychologist Daryl Bem, who, in 2011, published a somewhat unusual paper in the world’s top journal for social psychology, the _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_ ([Bem, 2011](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-01894-001)). This paper used methods that met or exceeded the standards of rigor that were typical for the time, but advanced a claim that was patently absurd: that college students (and, by extension, everyday people) could be influenced by future events. +However, a variety of events made psychologists aware that something about this cycle wasn’t working. First was the observation that only about 8% of the results published in psychology journals are negative ([Fanelli, 2010](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010068)) – yet these negative results are necessary to identify flaws in theoretical assumptions. Second was the publication of a paper by the well-respected social psychologist Daryl Bem, who, in 2011, published a somewhat unusual paper in the world’s top journal for social psychology, the _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_ ([Bem, 2011](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021524)). This paper used methods that met or exceeded the standards of rigor that were typical for the time, but advanced a claim that was patently absurd: that college students (and, by extension, everyday people) could be influenced by future events. ![Daryl's Bem "Feeling the Future"](fig3.webp "Daryl's Bem Feeling the Future") @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ In contrast, distant replications (where you vary some aspect of the method) are I also use this exercise to highlight the importance of minimizing sampling error and fully documenting procedures; both sampling error and undocumented differences in procedure (“hidden moderators”) provide possible explanations for why replication results differ from original results. This highlights a somewhat hidden side benefit of replications: they force you to very carefully document a particular procedure. -To illustrate how to document the procedure behind a replication study, I introduce the students to the “replication recipe” ([Brandt et al., 2014](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103113001819)). The replication recipe provides a structured set of questions to guide the process of creating a method section for a replication study. As [an exercise](https://osf.io/j3pna/), I ask students to fill out the first section of the replication recipe with an article that I assign (I pre-selected two articles that are short and have a relatively simple research design). After the exercise, we discuss the process of using the replication recipe and identify issues that came up – including the poor reporting standards of most (but not all) psychology articles. +To illustrate how to document the procedure behind a replication study, I introduce the students to the “replication recipe” ([Brandt et al., 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005)). The replication recipe provides a structured set of questions to guide the process of creating a method section for a replication study. As [an exercise](https://osf.io/j3pna/), I ask students to fill out the first section of the replication recipe with an article that I assign (I pre-selected two articles that are short and have a relatively simple research design). After the exercise, we discuss the process of using the replication recipe and identify issues that came up – including the poor reporting standards of most (but not all) psychology articles. In the last part of this module, we discuss a way to choose replication targets. I teach a somewhat informal version of a framework developed by [Isager and colleagues (2020)](https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/2gurz/). As [an exercise](https://osf.io/zjwcg/), the students use the framework to rate the value, uncertainty, and cost of doing the replication study that I assigned them. @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ One last issue that comes out of the simulations is the number of assumptions th _Learning goals: To preregister something, create an OSF project & put the replication recipe in the registry. There’s evidence this helps make research more credible_ -The bulk of this module is focused around completing a pre-registration for the article assigned to the students in the previous modules. Because the workshop participants have already completed the first part of the replication recipe ([Brandt et al., 2014](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103113001819)) for this article, they are already familiar with the article’s purpose and materials. For the first part of this module, the students complete the remainder of the replication recipe (or at least, as much as they can) as part of [the last exercise](https://osf.io/w35fp/) of the workshop. +The bulk of this module is focused around completing a pre-registration for the article assigned to the students in the previous modules. Because the workshop participants have already completed the first part of the replication recipe ([Brandt et al., 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005)) for this article, they are already familiar with the article’s purpose and materials. For the first part of this module, the students complete the remainder of the replication recipe (or at least, as much as they can) as part of [the last exercise](https://osf.io/w35fp/) of the workshop. The replication recipe in hand, the students can complete a replication recipe-based preregistration on the Open Science Framework ([OSF](https://osf.io)). I walk the students through this process and introduce them to the basics of uploading materials on an OSF page. But the students already completed hard parts of preregistration as part of the previous exercises. diff --git a/content/educators-corner/010-Neurodiversity/index.md b/content/educators-corner/010-Neurodiversity/index.md index 1bf002cd7f9..158980cc277 100644 --- a/content/educators-corner/010-Neurodiversity/index.md +++ b/content/educators-corner/010-Neurodiversity/index.md @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ Grant, A., & Kara, H. (2021). Considering the Autistic advantage in qualitative Grinker R R. (2010). Commentary: On being autistic and social. Ethos, 38 (1), 172-8. -Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is" strong objectivity?". The Centennial Review, 36(3), 437-470. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23739232 +Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is" strong objectivity?". The Centennial Review, 36(3), 437-470. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175967 Jackson, M. (1998) Minima Ethnographica: Intersubjectivity and the Anthropological Project. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. diff --git a/content/educators-corner/015-academic-jobs-us-vs-uk/index.md b/content/educators-corner/015-academic-jobs-us-vs-uk/index.md index 0db6c624074..707c955168a 100644 --- a/content/educators-corner/015-academic-jobs-us-vs-uk/index.md +++ b/content/educators-corner/015-academic-jobs-us-vs-uk/index.md @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ There are echoes in this struggle of the dispute UCU has waged since before the ## Features, Not Bugs -Where do these analogous structural failings come from? The answer to this starts with deconstructing the idea that these are “failings,” rather than intentional components of a system that views degrees as commodities and people as cogs in machines. A system wherein the task of teaching is secondary to that of shoring up a university’s research reputation will not mind if teachers have to [live in their cars](https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/homeless-professor-who-lives-her-car) or [move from city to city every semester](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/casualised-staff-dehumanised-uk-universities) in search of work. Likewise, a system where [glossy building façades](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/business/colleges-debt-falls-on-students-after-construction-binges.html) matter more than what happens inside of those buildings will not mind using historically excluded groups, particularly women of color, [as PR fodder](https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701356015) while [exploiting their labor](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-37109-001) until they burn out. +Where do these analogous structural failings come from? The answer to this starts with deconstructing the idea that these are “failings,” rather than intentional components of a system that views degrees as commodities and people as cogs in machines. A system wherein the task of teaching is secondary to that of shoring up a university’s research reputation will not mind if teachers have to [live in their cars](https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/homeless-professor-who-lives-her-car) or [move from city to city every semester](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/casualised-staff-dehumanised-uk-universities) in search of work. Likewise, a system where [glossy building façades](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/business/colleges-debt-falls-on-students-after-construction-binges.html) matter more than what happens inside of those buildings will not mind using historically excluded groups, particularly women of color, [as PR fodder](https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701356015) while [exploiting their labor](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000462) until they burn out. Others have written [far more comprehensively](https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210317719792) about how these features of higher education (not bugs) [have become ever more present](https://www.boldtypebooks.com/titles/davarian-l-baldwin/in-the-shadow-of-the-ivory-tower/9781568588919/) in the past few decades. My point is simply that they are unavoidable, regardless of country of residence. Some might claim that coming to the UK will bring reduced research pressures compared to US research-intensive universities, which may be true in terms of the number of publications required but overlooks how the UK’s massive (and growing) [grant-grubbing apparatus](https://annameier.substack.com/p/grant-culture) saps staff time and discourages counterhegemonic work. Others might note that US academic salaries are generally higher than in the UK, which may be true even at poorer institutions but masks the [massive (and growing) disparities](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01183-9) across and within US institutions. Regardless, the “it’s better over there” narrative sidesteps the reality of the academic job market for many: that, if they are able, they will go wherever hires them. diff --git a/content/educators-corner/024-Meaningful_results_for_meaningful_hypotheses/index.md b/content/educators-corner/024-Meaningful_results_for_meaningful_hypotheses/index.md index 0252fe73e14..1ea1bce0692 100644 --- a/content/educators-corner/024-Meaningful_results_for_meaningful_hypotheses/index.md +++ b/content/educators-corner/024-Meaningful_results_for_meaningful_hypotheses/index.md @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Nowadays, more and more researchers move away from NHST toward Bayesian inferenc ### A computationally feasible and intuitive way -In our [new tutorial](https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/6zsx3_v2), we walk you through a lesser known form of Bayes Factor calculation using the Savage-Dickey approximation ([Dickey & Lientz 1970](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2239734)). This form of inference is not only conceptually intuitive and computationally efficient, but it also allows us to tackle another conceptual issue with traditional hypothesis testing: Researchers coming from NHST tend to test whether differences between conditions are smaller or greater than exactly zero (i.e. testing point-0 hypotheses). But not every difference that is not zero is meaningful for either theoretical or practical purposes. In our tutorial, we use a data set on pitch perception by Korean speakers in formal and informal contexts. The researchers want to know if speakers use meaningfully higher or lower pitch in these two social contexts. +In our [new tutorial](https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/6zsx3_v2), we walk you through a lesser known form of Bayes Factor calculation using the Savage-Dickey approximation ([Dickey & Lientz 1970](https://doi.org/10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2f5mhr)). This form of inference is not only conceptually intuitive and computationally efficient, but it also allows us to tackle another conceptual issue with traditional hypothesis testing: Researchers coming from NHST tend to test whether differences between conditions are smaller or greater than exactly zero (i.e. testing point-0 hypotheses). But not every difference that is not zero is meaningful for either theoretical or practical purposes. In our tutorial, we use a data set on pitch perception by Korean speakers in formal and informal contexts. The researchers want to know if speakers use meaningfully higher or lower pitch in these two social contexts. To test this hypothesis, we suggest the following workflow: diff --git a/content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md b/content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md index c1b4ba47f04..39c896a6f7c 100644 --- a/content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md +++ b/content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ Each has suitable context: (e.g., entry-level/undergraduate/postgraduate), total We hope to keep producing more Lesson Plans, so please check this space. Our community is working on this ["Table of Activities"](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LGdBFlOCFqyfV7NUx11oUjkqR-aVZpWVGCn8RTiQQuk/edit#gid=0) to which you can add your own ideas (see how to contribute below) and help us empower educators and stakeholders with high quality and accessible lesson plans (and educational materials) to accelerate institutional change towards the integration of open and reproducible science into Higher Education curricula! -Lastly, accompanying the Lesson Plans, FORRT’s team wrote a short manuscript entitled ["Embedding open and reproducible teaching into undergraduate training"](https://psyarxiv.com/fgv79) [(OA Postprint)](https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fgv79) which is now published in the APA's [Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-15361-001), where we describe and openly share a bank of teaching resources and lesson plans on the broad topics of open scholarship, open science, replication, and reproducibility that can be readily integrated into taught courses. +Lastly, accompanying the Lesson Plans, FORRT’s team wrote a short manuscript entitled ["Embedding open and reproducible teaching into undergraduate training"](https://psyarxiv.com/fgv79) [(OA Postprint)](https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fgv79) which is now published in the APA's [Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology](https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000307), where we describe and openly share a bank of teaching resources and lesson plans on the broad topics of open scholarship, open science, replication, and reproducibility that can be readily integrated into taught courses.
diff --git a/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/implicit_bias/index.md b/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/implicit_bias/index.md index c5fb774729b..800849080a0 100644 --- a/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/implicit_bias/index.md +++ b/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/implicit_bias/index.md @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ Are non-neurotypical brains presented as deficient in the article and the tweet? *Now choose one of the two articles below and skim the abstract and intro. Discuss or reflect on the questions below.* **Article 1:** -- Zwaigenbaum, L., & Penner, M. (2018). Autism spectrum disorder: advances in diagnosis and evaluation. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 361. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/26959693](https://www.jstor.org/stable/26959693) +- Zwaigenbaum, L., & Penner, M. (2018). Autism spectrum disorder: advances in diagnosis and evaluation. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 361. [https://doi.org/10.20883/jofa.36) **Article 2:** - Faras, H., Al Ateeqi, N., & Tidmarsh, L. (2010). Autism spectrum disorders. *Annals of Saudi medicine*, *30*(4), 295–300. [https://doi.org/10.4103/0256-4947.65261](https://doi.org/10.4103/0256-4947.65261) diff --git a/content/reversals/reversals.md b/content/reversals/reversals.md index ae3759ff7de..f091a2f6893 100644 --- a/content/reversals/reversals.md +++ b/content/reversals/reversals.md @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Intelligence priming (contemplation)** (professor priming). Participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (e.g. “professor”) performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence (“soccer hooligans”). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit](https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1998-01060-003)’, Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg 1998; 4 experiments with Study 1: n = 60; Study 2: n = 58; Study 3: n = 95; Study 4: n = 43. [citations = 1124 (GS November 2021)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865)’, Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg 1998; 4 experiments with Study 1: n = 60; Study 2: n = 58; Study 3: n = 95; Study 4: n = 43. [citations = 1124 (GS November 2021)]. * Critiques: [O’Donnell et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618755704) [n = 4,493 who met the inclusion criteria; n = 6,454 in supplementary materials, citations = 71(GS November 2021)]. * Original effect size: PD = 13.20%. * Replication effect size: All effect sizes are located in O’Donnell et al. 2018: Aczel: PD = -1.35%. Aveyard: PD = -3.99%. Baskin: PD = 4.08%. Bialobrzeska: PD = -.12%. Boot: PD = -4.99%. Braithwaite: PD = 4.01%. Chartier: PD = 3.23%. DiDonato: PD = 3.14%. Finnigan: PD: 2.89%. Karpinski: PD = 1.38%. Keller: PD = .17%. Klein: PD =.88%. Koppel: PD = -.20%. McLatchie: PD = -2.16%. Newell: PD = 1.66%. O’Donnell: PD = 1.58%. Phillipp: PD = 43%. Ropovik: PD = -.48%. Saunders: PD = -1.87%. Schulte-Mecklenbeck: PD = 4.24%. Shanks: PD = .11%. Steele: PD = -.58%. Steffens: PD = -.84%. Susa: PD = -.63%. Tamayo: PD = 1.41%. Meta-analytic estimate: PD = 0.02%. @@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[Anticipating divine protection? Reminders of god can increase nonmoral risk taking](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563108)’, Kupor et al. 2015; Experiment 3: n=101. [citations=76 (GS, November 2022)]. -* Critiques:[ Gruneau Brulin et al. 2018 [](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-36594-008)Experiment 1b: n = 160, Experiment 2b: n=264, citations=19 (GS, November 2022)]. +* Critiques:[ Gruneau Brulin et al. 2018 [](https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000200)Experiment 1b: n = 160, Experiment 2b: n=264, citations=19 (GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: Experiment 3: _b_=0.61. * Replication effect size: Gruneau Brulin et al: Experiment 1b: _d_=-0.11 [-0.31, 0.09]; Experiment 2b: _b_=0.14 [-0.07, 0.34]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Milgram experiment** was a study examining the influence of authority on the immoral behaviour. Participants were assigned the role of ‘teachers’ and they were instructed by the experimentator to administer electric shocks of 15-450 V voltage, whenever the ‘learner’ made a mistake. There were various variants of the study. In the most basic one, 100% of participants agree to administer a 300 V shock and 65% agreed to apply to maximum shock of 450 V. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Behavioral Study of obedience](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1964-03472-001)’, Milgram 1963; experimental study, n=40 (The full range of conditions was [n=740](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3976349/).). [citations =8502(GS, March 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Behavioral Study of obedience](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525)’, Milgram 1963; experimental study, n=40 (The full range of conditions was [n=740](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3976349/).). [citations =8502(GS, March 2023)]. * Critiques: Sources: [Burger 2011](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610397632) [n=62 transcripts from the earlier experiment, citations= 108 (GS, March 2023)]. [Perry 2012](https://thenewpress.com/books/behind-shock-machine) [book, n=NA, citations= 261 (GS, March 2023)]. [Brannigan 2013](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-013-9724-3) [n=NA, citations= 14(GS, January 2022)]. [Griggs 2016 ](https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677644)[n=NA, citations= 28(GS, March 2023)]. [Caspar 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117251) [n=NA, citations= 25(GS, March 2023)]. [Doliński et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693060) [n=80, citations= 122(GS, March 2023)]. [Blass 1999 ](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.694.7724&rep=rep1&type=pdf)[n=NA, citations= 595(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: 65% of subjects said to administer maximum, dangerous voltage. * Replication effect size: Various sources (Burger, Perry, Branningan, Griggs, Caspar): Experiment included many** **researcher degrees of freedom, going off-script, implausible agreement between very different treatments, and “only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real and of those, 66% disobeyed the experimenter.”. Doliński et al.: comparable effects to Milgram. Burger: similar levels of compliance to Milgram, but the level didn't scale with the strength of the experimenter prods. Blass: average compliance of 63%, but suffer from the usual publication bias and tiny samples. (Selection was by a student of Milgram.) The most you can say is that there's weak evidence for compliance, rather than obedience. ("Milgram's interpretation of his findings has been largely rejected."). @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: '[Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance](https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373)', Spencer et al. 1999; Experiment 2, n=30 women. [citations=5076 (GS, June 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Stoet & Geary 2012](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026617) [meta-analysis, _k_ = 23,.citations= 286(GS, March 2023)]. [Flore & Wicherts 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002) [meta-analysis, n=47 measurements, citations= 357(GS, March 2023)]. [Flore et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2018.1559647) [Registered Report n=2064 Dutch high school students, citations= 89(GS, March 2023)].; [Agnoli et al. 2021](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2021-77666-009.pdf?auth_token=28dfebe2d9950aa2d8ab814684048733c6b3f847) [conceptual replication with n_ _= 164 ninth grade and n = 164 eleventh grade Italian high school students, citations= 6(GS, March 2023)]. Other reported null results in the literature but not explicit replications, e.g. [Ganley 2013](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-02693-001) [n=931 across three studies, citations= 195(GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Stoet & Geary 2012](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026617) [meta-analysis, _k_ = 23,.citations= 286(GS, March 2023)]. [Flore & Wicherts 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002) [meta-analysis, n=47 measurements, citations= 357(GS, March 2023)]. [Flore et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2018.1559647) [Registered Report n=2064 Dutch high school students, citations= 89(GS, March 2023)].; [Agnoli et al. 2021](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2021-77666-009.pdf?auth_token=28dfebe2d9950aa2d8ab814684048733c6b3f847) [conceptual replication with n_ _= 164 ninth grade and n = 164 eleventh grade Italian high school students, citations= 6(GS, March 2023)]. Other reported null results in the literature but not explicit replications, e.g. [Ganley 2013](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031412) [n=931 across three studies, citations= 195(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: not reported; Experiment 2: Fig. 2 does not report specific values but appears to be control-group-women (M = 17, SD = 20) compared to experiment-group-women (M = 5, SD = 15), which translates to approximately _d_= −0.7 (calculated). * Replication effect size: Stoet and Geary: _d_= −0.61 for adjusted and 0.17 [−0.27, −0.07] for unadjusted scores. Together, only the group of studies with adjusted scores confirmed a statistically significant effect of stereotype threat. Flore and Wicherts: _g_= −0.22 [−0.21, 0.06) and significantly different from zero, but _g_ = −0.07 [−0.21, 0.06] and not statistically significant after accounting for publication bias. Flore et al.: _d_= −0.05 [−0.18, 0.07]. Agnoli et al.: Both estimated stereotype threat effects were nonsignificant (see also Table S22; https://osf.io/3u2jd), _Z_ = 1.53, _p_ = .25 for ninth grade female participants and _Z_ =.70, _p_ = .97 for eleventh grade female participants. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Minimal group effect** (Minimal group paradigm). An intergroup bias that manifests as ingroup favouritism (i.e., a tendency to prefer ingroup members) when participants are assigned to previously unfamiliar, experimentally created and largely meaningless social identities. In essence, the paradigm investigates the impact of social categorization on intergroup relations in the absence of realistic conflicts of interests, showing that mere social categorization is sufficient to produce ingroup favouritism. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper:[ ‘Arousal of ingroup-outgroup bias by a chance win or loss’](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-02282-001), [Rabbie and Horwitz 1969](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-02282-001); experimental study, n=112. [citations= 679 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper:[ ‘Arousal of ingroup-outgroup bias by a chance win or loss’](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028284), [Rabbie and Horwitz 1969](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028284); experimental study, n=112. [citations= 679 (GS, January 2023)]. * Critiques: [Balliet et al. 2014 ](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037737)[meta-analysis, _k_=212, citations= 930(GS, March 2023)]. [Billig and Tajfel 1973](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420030103); experimental design, n=75. [citations=2232 (GS, January 2023)]. [Falk et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492892) [Japanese: n1 = 324 Japanese and Americans: n2 = 594, Americans, citations= 58(GS, March 2023)]. [Fischer and Derham 2016](https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-015-1663-6) [meta-analysis, n = 21,266, citations=70 (GS, March 2023)]. [Lazić et al. 2021 ](https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12791)[meta-analysis, _k_ = 69, _N_ = 5268, citations=5 (GS, March 2023)]. [Kerr et al., 2018](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.05.001) [n_=_412, citations=21 (GS, January 2023)]. [Mullen et al. (1992](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220202)) [meta-analysis, _k_ = 137, citations= 1,867(GS, March 2023)]. [Tajfel 1970 [](http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Intergroup_Conflict/Tajfel_Experiments_in_Intergroup_Discrimination.PDF)n=64, citations= 4094 (GS, January 2023)]. [Tajfel et al. 1971](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202) [n1=64, n2=48, citations=8126 (GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: N/A * Replication effect size: Balliet et al.: _d_= 0.19 (for situations with no mutual interdependence between group members) and _d_= 0.42 (for situations with strong mutual interdependence between group members). Fischer and Derham: _d_= 0.369 [0.33, 0.41]. Mullen et al.: _r_ = 0.264. The ingroup bias effect was obtained from a meta-analysis on 74 hypothesis tests derived from artificial groups. Lazić, Purić & Krstić: _d_ = 0.22 [0.07, 0.38]. Kerr et al.: comparing US vs Australian sample, highlights the importance of context-dependent factors (like differences in methodological approach) and cultural variation of MGE; significant main effects of categorization (Group vs. No-group) on allocation measures, _ηp2_ = 0.031 to 0.081; the ingroup favouritism effect was present in both Context conditions, but was stronger in the public (_ηp2_= 0.072) than in the private context (_ηp2_= 0.020). Falk et al. : culture was a significant predictor of resource allocation such that Americans chose more in-group favouring strategies than did Japanese, _b_ = 1.43, _z_ = 9.52, _p_ < .00; American participants were also more likely to show an in-group bias in group identification (in-group vs. out-group comparison, _d _= .94), perceived group intelligence (_d_ = .44), and perceived group personality traits (_b_ = .15, _z_ = 17.51) then Japanese participants (_d_= .50, _d_ = -.003, _b_ = .04, _z_ = 2.75, respectively). @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Positive mood-boost helping effect**. People are more likely to do good when feeling good. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: [Isen and Levin 1972](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-22883-001); experiment, Experiment 1: n = 52 male undergraduates, Experiment 2: n = 41 adults. [citations=1,881 (GS, October 2022)]​. +* Original paper: [Isen and Levin 1972](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032317); experiment, Experiment 1: n = 52 male undergraduates, Experiment 2: n = 41 adults. [citations=1,881 (GS, October 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Batson et al. 1979](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3033698.pdf) [n = 40, citations=132 (GS, June 2022)]. [Blevins and Murphy 1974](https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1974.34.1.326) [n = 51, citations=50 (GS, October 2022)]. [Carlson et al. 1988](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3050025/); meta-analysis [_k_ = 61 from 34 papers (N not reported), citations = 862(GS, March 2023)]​. [Weyant and Clark 1977](https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727600300119) [Study 1 n = 64, Study 2 n = 106, citations=39 (GS, October 2022)]. Failed replications: [Job 1987](https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1987.9713711) [n=100 letters placed under the windshield wipers of cars, citations=38(GS, March 2023)].​ * Original effect size, calculated: Study 1: OR = 2.25, Study 2: OR = 168 [no typo, both [calculated](https://www.medcalc.org/calc/odds_ratio.php)]. * Replication effect size: Batson et al.: OR = 4.3 [calculated]. Carlson et al.: _d_= .54 [reported]. Weyant & Clark: Study 1: OR = 4.2 (calculated, between dime and no-dime, excl. 2 other conditions), Study 2: OR = 0.7 [calculated]. Blevins & Murphy: OR = 0.9 [calculated]. Job: negative mood increases helping behaviour [so that control vs neutral might be insufficient](https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1974.34.1.326). @@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Self-control relies on glucose effect**. Acts of self-control decrease blood glucose levels; low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks; initial acts of self-control impair performance on subsequent self-control tasks, but consuming a glucose drink eliminates these impairments. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: [‘Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-00654-010)’, Gailliot et al. 2007; 9 experiments with: Study 1 (self-control decreases blood glucose): n= 103; Study 2 (self-control decreases blood glucose): n= 37; Study 3 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): n= 15; Study 4 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): n= 10; Study 5 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): n= 19; Study 6 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): n= 15; Study 7 (glucose consumption): n= 61; Study 8 (glucose consumption): n= 72; Study 9 (glucose consumption): n= 17. [citations=1956(GS, June, 2022)]. +* Original paper: [‘Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.325)’, Gailliot et al. 2007; 9 experiments with: Study 1 (self-control decreases blood glucose): n= 103; Study 2 (self-control decreases blood glucose): n= 37; Study 3 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): n= 15; Study 4 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): n= 10; Study 5 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): n= 19; Study 6 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): n= 15; Study 7 (glucose consumption): n= 61; Study 8 (glucose consumption): n= 72; Study 9 (glucose consumption): n= 17. [citations=1956(GS, June, 2022)]. * Critiques: Meta-analysis: [Hagger et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019486) [citations= 2638 (GS, June, 2022)]. [Lange and Egger 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.12.020) [n= 70, citations= 114 (GS, June 2022)]. Lange and Egger also points at statistical mistakes in the meta-analysis of Hagger et al. * Original effect size: Study 1 (self-control decreases blood glucose): _ηp2 _= 0.057 [calculated from the reported _F_(1, 100) = 6.08 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Study 2- discussing a sensitive topic with a member of a different race used up a significant amount of glucose among people with low Internal Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice scale (IMS), _b _=-3.28; Study 3 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): _r_= -0.62, Study 4 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): _r_= 0.56, Study 5 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): _r_= 0.45, Study 6 (low levels of blood glucose predict poor performance on self-control tasks): _r_= 0.43. Study 7 (glucose consumption): _ηp2_ = 0.081 [calculated], Study 8 (glucose consumption): _ηp2_ = 0.073 [calculated], , Study 9 (glucose consumption): _d_= 1.518 [calculated]. * Replication effect size: Hagger et al.: for glucose consumption: _d_ = 0.75 (includes the original study); for decrease of blood glucose levels: _d_= -0.87 (includes the original study). Lange & Egger: for glucose consumption: _ηp2_ = 0.02. @@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[The substitutability of physical and social warmth in daily life’](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/#:~:text=The%20results%20of%20Study%201,compared%20to%20less%20lonely%20individuals.), Bargh and Shalev 2012; 4 experiments, n=403 across 4 experiments. [citations=414(GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Donnellan et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036079) replicated Study 1 [n=3073 across 9 studies, citations=104 (GS, October 2022)]. See also reply to Donnellan et al. 2014 by [Shalev and Bargh 2015](https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000014) [n=555 across three samples, citations=6 (GS, October 2022). [Wortman et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-34343-001.html) replicated study 2 [n=260, citations=19(GS, October 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Donnellan et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036079) replicated Study 1 [n=3073 across 9 studies, citations=104 (GS, October 2022)]. See also reply to Donnellan et al. 2014 by [Shalev and Bargh 2015](https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000014) [n=555 across three samples, citations=6 (GS, October 2022). [Wortman et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000007) replicated study 2 [n=260, citations=19(GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: _r_ = .57 (Study 1a; n=51) and _r_ = .37 (Study 1b; n =41) * Replication effect size: Donnellan et al.: _r_ = -.01 to .10 (but statistically indistinguishable from zero). Shalev and Bargh: loneliness-warmth index correlation for showering _r_ = .143 and for baths _r_ = .093 (replicated). Wortman et al.: warm vs. cold condition _d_ = 0.02 [reported, non-significant]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -780,8 +780,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Embodiment of secrets** (secrets-as-burdens). Secrets are experienced as physical burdens, influencing how people perceive and act in the world.​ People who recalled, were preoccupied with, or suppressed an important secret estimated hills to be steeper and perceived distances to be farther. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed. -* Original paper: ‘[The Physical Burdens of Secrecy](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-05413-001)’, Slepian et al. 2012; studies 1, 2 and 4 experimental mixed model design, study 3 correlational, study 1 n = 40, study 2 n = 36, study 3 n = 40, study 4 n = 30. [citations=113 (GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [LeBel and Wilbur 2014](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0549-2), direct Slepian et al. 2012 Study 1 replication [Study 1 n=240, Study 2 n = 90, citations=24(GS, November 2022)]. [Pecher et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613498516), direct Slepian et al.2012 Study 1 and Study 2 replication [Study 1 n=100, Study 2 n = 100, Study 3 n = 118, citations=11(GS, November 2022)]. [Slepian et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613498516) [Study 1 n=83, Study 2 n = 174, citations=51(GS, November 2022)]. ​[Slepian et al. 2015](https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2015-05380-001), [Study 1 n = 100, Study 2 n = 100, Study 3 n = 100, Study 4 n = 352, citations=42(GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The Physical Burdens of Secrecy](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027598)’, Slepian et al. 2012; studies 1, 2 and 4 experimental mixed model design, study 3 correlational, study 1 n = 40, study 2 n = 36, study 3 n = 40, study 4 n = 30. [citations=113 (GS, November 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [LeBel and Wilbur 2014](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0549-2), direct Slepian et al. 2012 Study 1 replication [Study 1 n=240, Study 2 n = 90, citations=24(GS, November 2022)]. [Pecher et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613498516), direct Slepian et al.2012 Study 1 and Study 2 replication [Study 1 n=100, Study 2 n = 100, Study 3 n = 118, citations=11(GS, November 2022)]. [Slepian et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613498516) [Study 1 n=83, Study 2 n = 174, citations=51(GS, November 2022)]. ​[Slepian et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000052), [Study 1 n = 100, Study 2 n = 100, Study 3 n = 100, Study 4 n = 352, citations=42(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: Study 1 – Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = 0.78 (calculated from M and SD data in the paper, also reported in[ LeBel and Wilbur 2014](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0549-2)); Study 2 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial distant perception comparisons _d_ = 0.67 (calculated from M and SD data in the paper, also reported in[ Pecher et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000090)); Study 3 – effects of the frequencies of thought of infidelity on estimated effort required by physical task _R2 _= .21 / _d_ = 1.03 [converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)]; Study 4 – more burdensome vs. less burdensome secret concealment effects on willingness to help others with physical task _r_ = .44 / _d_= 0.98 [converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)]. * Replication effect size: LeBel and Wilbur: Study 1 - ​ Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = 0.176 [-.08, .43] [reported] (not replicated); Study 2 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = -0.319 [-.73, .10] [reported] (not replicated). Pecher et al.: Study 1 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = 0.08 [-0.31, 0.47] [reported] (not replicated); Study 2 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = 0.21 [-0.18, 0.60] [reported] (not replicated); Study 3 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret perceived distance comparisons _d_ = 0.21 [-0.15, 0.57] [reported] (not replicated). Slepian et al. 2014: Study 1 - ​ Big/meaningful secret recollection condition effects on hill slant estimation in comparison to reveаling a secret, _r_ = .29 [reported] / _d_= 0.61, and control condition _r_ = .34 [reported] / _d_= 0.72 [_d_'s converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)] (replicated); Study 2 - Big/meaningful secret recollection condition effects on distance estimation in comparison to revealing a secret, _r_ = .24 [reported] / _d_= 0.49, and control condition _r_ = .30 [reported] / _d_= 0.62 [_d_s converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)] (replicated). Slepian et al. 2015: Study 1 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _d_ = 0.31 (calculated from M and SD data in the paper, non-significant) (not replicated); Study 2 - Big/meaningful vs. small/trivial secret hill steepness comparisons _r_ = .28 [reported] / _d_= 0.58 [converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)] (replicated); Study 3 – Recalling preoccupying vs. non-preoccupying secret effects on hill slant judgements _r_ = .23 [reported] / _d_= 0.47 [converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)] (replicated); Study 4 - Recalling preoccupying vs. non-preoccupying secret effects on hill slant judgements _r_ = .11 [reported] /_d_= 0.22 [converted using this[ conversion](https://www.escal.site/)] (replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -906,7 +906,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Dissenting deviant social rejection effect**. Groups reject opinion deviates from future interaction. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Deviation, rejection, and communication](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1951-08043-001)’, Schachter 1951; experiment, sample size = 198. [citations=2209 (GS, November 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Deviation, rejection, and communication](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062326)’, Schachter 1951; experiment, sample size = 198. [citations=2209 (GS, November 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Wesselmann 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-20922-004.html) [n=80, citations=37 (GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = 1.84 (source: meta-analysis by [Tata et al. 1996)](https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/1864-9335/a000180#c19) * Replication effect size: Wesselmann: replicated: Communication Pattern - effect for change over time in overall communication to the confederates _F_(5, 80) = 1.23, _p_ = 0.30, _np2_ = 0.07; effect for the groups’ differential communication between the confederates F(2, 32) = 20.83, _p_ < 0.01, _np2_ = 0.57; interaction between communication to the different confederates and the point of the conversation _F_(10, 160) = 0.99, _p_ = 0.45, _np2_ = 0.06; not replicated: Committee Nomination Measure χ2(4) = 0.79, _p_ = 0.94; replicated: Sociometric Test χ2(2) = 14.74, _p_ < .01. @@ -924,7 +924,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Low versus high category scale effect on behaviour self-report**. Response scales serve informative functions. The response categories suggest a range of "usual" or "expected" behaviours, and this information affects respondents' behavioural reports as well as related judgments. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Response Scales: Effects of Category Range on Reported Behavior and Comparative Judgments](https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/49/3/388/1879582?redirectedFrom=fulltext)’, Schwarz 1985; between-subjects design, sample size = 211. [citations=450(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Response Scales: Effects of Category Range on Reported Behavior and Comparative Judgments](https://doi.org/10.3390/su172411310)’, Schwarz 1985; between-subjects design, sample size = 211. [citations=450(GS, November 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Klein et al. 2014](https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178) [n=5899, citations=1129 (GS, November 2022)] * Original effect size: _d_=0.50[0.15, 0.84]. * Replication effect size: Klein et al.: _d_=0.51[0.42, 0.61]. @@ -978,7 +978,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Personal cognitive dissonance - free-choice paradigm**. Personal cognitive dissonance, from the cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), suggests that an inconsistency between two cognitions (e.g., an attitude and a past behaviour) creates an unpleasant psychological state (i.e., personal dissonance) that the individual is motivated to reduce (e.g., by changing one of the elements to fit the other). This personal cognitive dissonance has been studied in the literature through different paradigms, including the following three main ones: free-choice, induced-compliance and induced-hypocrisy paradigm. The mere act of choosing equally desirable options can arouse dissonance in the individual, because choosing option A implies the rejection of option B (in other words, choosing option A means accepting its advantages but also its disadvantages, but also accepting to deprive oneself of the advantages of option B). In order to reduce dissonance, subjects will increase the perceived gap between options (i.e., spreading of alternatives) by overestimating the chosen option and/or underestimating the rejected option. ​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: NA -* Original paper: ‘[Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1957-04251-001?doi=1)’, Brehm, 1956); experimental design, _n_ =225.[citations= 1987 (GS, February 2023)]​​. +* Original paper: ‘[Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041006)’, Brehm, 1956); experimental design, _n_ =225.[citations= 1987 (GS, February 2023)]​​. * Critiques: [Enisman et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000263) [meta-analyse; _n_= 43 studies, citations = 11 (GS, February 2023)]​.​ [Izuma and Murayama 2013](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00041) [meta-analysis, _k_= 3 studies, citations = 109(GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Enisman et al: Effect of free-choice paradigm on spreading of alternatives: _d_= 0.40 [0.32, 0.49]​.​ ​ @@ -1265,7 +1265,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: reversed * Original paper: ‘[Age-of-acquisition effects in picture naming: Are they structural and/or semantic in nature?](https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000084), Chalard and Bonin 2006; experiment, n = 27. [citations=36(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691820302158) [Experiment 1a: n = 48, Experiment 2a: n = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)]. [Catling and Johnston 2006](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X53515) [Experiment 1: n = 15, citations = 17(GS, December 2022)]. [Catling and Johnston 2009 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701814352)[Experiment 1: n = 24, citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)]. [Holmes and Ellis 2006 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000093)[Experiment 4: n = 20, Experiment 7: n = 30, citations = 87 (GS, December 2022)]. [Räling et al. 2015](https://id.elsevier.com/as/authorization.oauth2?platSite=SD%2Fscience&scope=openid%20email%20profile%20els_auth_info%20els_idp_info%20els_idp_analytics_attrs%20urn%3Acom%3Aelsevier%3Aidp%3Apolicy%3Aproduct%3Ainst_assoc&response_type=code&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fuser%2Fidentity%2Flanding&authType=SINGLE_SIGN_IN&prompt=none&client_id=SDFE-v3&state=retryCounter%3D0%26csrfToken%3D330d4c08-d9ee-4446-89c3-97cb2befb97a%26idpPolicy%3Durn%253Acom%253Aelsevier%253Aidp%253Apolicy%253Aproduct%253Ainst_assoc%26returnUrl%3D%252Fscience%252Farticle%252Fpii%252FS0028393215300464%26prompt%3Dnone%26cid%3Darp-88cf3d96-7497-41e6-8772-f6dc7deda875) [n = 36, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)]. [Stadthagen-Gonzalez et al. 2009 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802511139)[n = 100, citations = 51 (GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103138) [Experiment 1a: n = 48, Experiment 2a: n = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)]. [Catling and Johnston 2006](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X53515) [Experiment 1: n = 15, citations = 17(GS, December 2022)]. [Catling and Johnston 2009 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701814352)[Experiment 1: n = 24, citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)]. [Holmes and Ellis 2006 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000093)[Experiment 4: n = 20, Experiment 7: n = 30, citations = 87 (GS, December 2022)]. [Räling et al. 2015](https://id.elsevier.com/as/authorization.oauth2?platSite=SD%2Fscience&scope=openid%20email%20profile%20els_auth_info%20els_idp_info%20els_idp_analytics_attrs%20urn%3Acom%3Aelsevier%3Aidp%3Apolicy%3Aproduct%3Ainst_assoc&response_type=code&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fuser%2Fidentity%2Flanding&authType=SINGLE_SIGN_IN&prompt=none&client_id=SDFE-v3&state=retryCounter%3D0%26csrfToken%3D330d4c08-d9ee-4446-89c3-97cb2befb97a%26idpPolicy%3Durn%253Acom%253Aelsevier%253Aidp%253Apolicy%253Aproduct%253Ainst_assoc%26returnUrl%3D%252Fscience%252Farticle%252Fpii%252FS0028393215300464%26prompt%3Dnone%26cid%3Darp-88cf3d96-7497-41e6-8772-f6dc7deda875) [n = 36, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)]. [Stadthagen-Gonzalez et al. 2009 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802511139)[n = 100, citations = 51 (GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Catling and Elsherif: Experiment 1a: _d_ = 0.23, Experiment 2a: _d_ = 0.25. Catling and Johnston: _ηp2_ = 0.46. Catling and Johnston: _ηp2_ = 0.19[_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Holmes and Ellis: Experiment 4: _d_ = 1.62 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic in category verification and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Experiment 8: _t_ < 1. Räling et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.45[_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Stadthagen-Gonzalez et al.: Beta = 2.43. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1274,7 +1274,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Age of acquisition and typicality effects in three object processing tasks](https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000093)’, Holmes and Ellis 2006; experiment, n = 20. [citations=87(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691820302158) [Experiment 1a: n = 48, Experiment 2a: n = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)]. [Catling and Johnston 2006](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X53515) [Experiment 1: n = 15, citations = 17(GS, December 2022)]. [Stadthagen-Gonzalez et al. 2009 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802511139)[n = 100, citations = 51 (GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103138) [Experiment 1a: n = 48, Experiment 2a: n = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)]. [Catling and Johnston 2006](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X53515) [Experiment 1: n = 15, citations = 17(GS, December 2022)]. [Stadthagen-Gonzalez et al. 2009 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802511139)[n = 100, citations = 51 (GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _t_ < 1. * Replication effect size: Catling and Elsherif: Experiment 1a: _d_ = 0.14, Experiment 2a: _d_ = 0.16. Catling and Johnston: _ηp2 _= 0.297. Stadthagen-Gonzalez et al.: Beta = 0.43. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Age-of-acquisition norms for 220 picturable nouns](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(73)80036-2)’, Carroll and White 1973; experiment, n = 62. [citations=339(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques:[ Alario et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195559) [n = 46, citations = 372 (GS, January 2023)]. [Bonin et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.1080/713755968) [n = 30, citations=166(GS, December 2022)]​. [Bonin et al. 2003](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195507) [n = 30, citations = 381(GS, January 2023)].[ Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691820302158) [Experiment 1b: n = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Catling and Johnston 2009](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701814352) [Experiment 4: n = 24, citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)].[ Johnston et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.461) [n = 25, citations = 35(GS, January 2023)]. [Karimi and Diaz 2020 [](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01042-4)n = 212, citations = 9(GS, January 2023)].[ Perret et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.04.006) [n = 21, citations = 42(GS, December 2022)].[ Schwitter et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195603) [n = 31, citations = 52(GS, January 2023)].[ Snodgrass and Yuditsky 1996](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200540) [ n = 84, citations = 403(GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques:[ Alario et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195559) [n = 46, citations = 372 (GS, January 2023)]. [Bonin et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.1080/713755968) [n = 30, citations=166(GS, December 2022)]​. [Bonin et al. 2003](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195507) [n = 30, citations = 381(GS, January 2023)].[ Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103138) [Experiment 1b: n = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Catling and Johnston 2009](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701814352) [Experiment 4: n = 24, citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)].[ Johnston et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.461) [n = 25, citations = 35(GS, January 2023)]. [Karimi and Diaz 2020 [](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01042-4)n = 212, citations = 9(GS, January 2023)].[ Perret et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.04.006) [n = 21, citations = 42(GS, December 2022)].[ Schwitter et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195603) [n = 31, citations = 52(GS, January 2023)].[ Snodgrass and Yuditsky 1996](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200540) [ n = 84, citations = 403(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: ratings: _r_ = -771, objective: _r_ = .773. * Replication effect size: Alario et al.: beta = 69.4. Bonin et al.: beta = .194. Bonin et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.81[_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Catling and Elsherif: Experiment 2b: _d_ = 1.15 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Catling and Johnston: Experiment 4: _d_ =0.45. Johnston et al.: beta = .341. Karimi and Diaz: beta = .072. Perret et al. : _d_ = 0.82 [_d _calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Schwitter et al.: beta = .222. Snodgrass and Yuditsky: beta = .30. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1347,7 +1347,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Age of Acquisition and Word Frequency in Written Picture Naming](https://doi.org/10.1080/713755968)’, Bonin et al. 2001; experiment, n = 30. [citations=166(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Bonin et al. 2002](https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1348/000712602162463) [n = 72, citations = 257(GS, December 2022)]. [Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691820302158) [Experiment 2b: _n_ = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Perret et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.04.006) [n = 20, citations = 42(GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Bonin et al. 2002](https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1348/000712602162463) [n = 72, citations = 257(GS, December 2022)]. [Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103138) [Experiment 2b: _n_ = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Perret et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.04.006) [n = 20, citations = 42(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _ηp2_ = 0.68 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Bonin et al.: Beta = 0.341. Catling and Elsherif: Experiment 2b: _d_ = 0.80 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Perret et al.: _d_ = 0.79 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1356,7 +1356,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ['Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures’](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200540), Snodgrass and Yuditsky 1996; experiment, experiment 2, n = 96. [citations=403(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Scaltritti et al. 2016 ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027716301755)[n = 86, citations = 26(GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Scaltritti et al. 2016 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.07.006)[n = 86, citations = 26(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: RT: beta = 0.19; accuracy: beta = -0.31. * Replication effect size: Scaltritti et al.: onset latency: _d_ = 0.66 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; interkeystroke interval: not reported. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1373,7 +1373,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on the post-lexical stages of lexical/sublexical retrieval** (delayed spoken word naming). Early-acquired words should not differ from late-acquired words, when using delayed word naming. This enables researchers to assess if the lexical/sublexical effects result at an articulatory level. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Roles of Word Frequency and Age of Acquisition in Word Naming and Lexical Decision](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-20072-001)’, Morrison and Ellis 1995; experiment, n = 16. [citations = 599(GS, December 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Roles of Word Frequency and Age of Acquisition in Word Naming and Lexical Decision](https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.116)’, Morrison and Ellis 1995; experiment, n = 16. [citations = 599(GS, December 2022)]. * Critiques: [Brysbaert et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1080/095414400382208) [n = 20, citations = 227 (GS, December 2022)].[ Gerhand and Barry 1998 ](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-00017-001)[n = 32, citations = 258(GS, December 2022)].[ Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.002) [n = 17, citations = 192 (GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _F_ < 1. * Replication effect size: Brysbaert et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.06 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Gerhand and Barry : _F_ < 1.5. Ghyselinck et al.: not reported. @@ -1383,7 +1383,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Effects of consistency and age of acquisition on reading and spelling among developing readers](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-2032-6)’, Weekes et al. 2006; experiment, Experiment 2: n = 40. [citations=57(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691820302158) [Experiment 4b: n = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Su et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01928-y) [Experiment: n = 20, citations = 0(GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103138) [Experiment 4b: n = 48, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Su et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01928-y) [Experiment: n = 20, citations = 0(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = 0.50 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Catling and Elsherif: Experiment 4b: _d_ = 0.38 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Su et al.: accuracy: beta = -0.776. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1392,7 +1392,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[First in, first out: Word learning age and spoken word frequency as predictors of word familiarity and word naming latency](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197718)’, Brown and Watson 1987; experiment, n = 28. [citations=468(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [ Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001691820302158) [n = 48, citations = 12(GS, January 2023)].[ Cortese et al. 2018](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Cortese/publication/322193550_Examining_word_processing_via_a_megastudy_of_conditional_reading_aloud/links/5ab2a703a6fdcc1bc0c1e68d/Examining-word-processing-via-a-megastudy-of-conditional-reading-aloud.pdf) [n = 25, citations = 24(GS, January 2023)].[ Dewhurst and Barry 2006](https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/858/2/DewhurstBarry.pdf) [Experiment 1: n = 30, Experiment 2: n = 30, citations = 13(GS, January 2023)].[ Elsherif et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00986-6) [n = 48, citations = 10(GS, January 2023)].[ Izura and Playfoot 2012](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0175-8) [n = 120, citations = 35(GS, January 2023)].[ Morrison and Ellis 2000](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161763) [n = 27, citations = 293(GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [ Catling and Elsherif 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103138) [n = 48, citations = 12(GS, January 2023)].[ Cortese et al. 2018](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Cortese/publication/322193550_Examining_word_processing_via_a_megastudy_of_conditional_reading_aloud/links/5ab2a703a6fdcc1bc0c1e68d/Examining-word-processing-via-a-megastudy-of-conditional-reading-aloud.pdf) [n = 25, citations = 24(GS, January 2023)].[ Dewhurst and Barry 2006](https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/858/2/DewhurstBarry.pdf) [Experiment 1: n = 30, Experiment 2: n = 30, citations = 13(GS, January 2023)].[ Elsherif et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00986-6) [n = 48, citations = 10(GS, January 2023)].[ Izura and Playfoot 2012](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0175-8) [n = 120, citations = 35(GS, January 2023)].[ Morrison and Ellis 2000](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161763) [n = 27, citations = 293(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: _r_ = .30. * Replication effect size: Catling and Elsherif: Experiment 3b: beta = −0.01. Cortese et al.: beta = .132. Dewhurst and Barry: Experiment 1: _ηp2_ = 0.61 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Experiment 2: _d_= 1.22 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Elsherif et al.: beta = 0.141. Izura and Playfoot: _r_ = .249. Morrison and Ellis: _r_ = .244. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1420,7 +1420,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Age-of-acquisition and frequency effects in speeded word naming](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00052-9)’, Gerhand and Barry 1999; experiment, n = 30. [citations=118(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.002) [n = 23, citations = 192 (GS, December 2022)].[ Wilson et al. 2013](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-19668-001) [Experiment 2: n = 35, citations = 37(GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Ghyselinck et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.002) [n = 23, citations = 192 (GS, December 2022)].[ Wilson et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033090) [Experiment 2: n = 35, citations = 37(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _ηp2_ = 0.61[_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Ghyselinck et al.: _ηp2_= 0.25 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Wilson et al.: _ηp2_= 0.09 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1438,7 +1438,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper:[ ‘Word-nonword classification time'](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(78)90110-x), Whaley 1978; experiment, n = 32. [citations= 579(GS, December 2022)]. -* Critiques:[ Boulenger et al. 2007](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027706000618) [n = 20, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)]​.[ Cortese et al. 2018](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Cortese/publication/322193550_Examining_word_processing_via_a_megastudy_of_conditional_reading_aloud/links/5ab2a703a6fdcc1bc0c1e68d/Examining-word-processing-via-a-megastudy-of-conditional-reading-aloud.pdf) [n = 25, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)].[ Gerhand and Barry 1999](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211553) [Experiment 1: n = 30, Experiment 2: n = 30, Experiment 3: n = 30, Experiment 4: n = 30, Experiment 5: n = 30, citations = 185(GS, December 2022)]. [Morrison and Ellis 1995](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-20072-001) [n = 16, citations = 599(GS, December 2022)].[ Morrison and Ellis 2000](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161763) [n = 24, citations = 293(GS, December 2022)].[ Schwanenflugel et al. 1989](https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(88)90022-8) [experiment 2: n = 44, citations = 536(GS, December 2022)].[ Sereno and O’Donnell 2009](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9649-x) [n = 97, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Turner et al. 1998](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201200)[n = 25, citations = 161(GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques:[ Boulenger et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.03.001) [n = 20, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)]​.[ Cortese et al. 2018](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Cortese/publication/322193550_Examining_word_processing_via_a_megastudy_of_conditional_reading_aloud/links/5ab2a703a6fdcc1bc0c1e68d/Examining-word-processing-via-a-megastudy-of-conditional-reading-aloud.pdf) [n = 25, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)].[ Gerhand and Barry 1999](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211553) [Experiment 1: n = 30, Experiment 2: n = 30, Experiment 3: n = 30, Experiment 4: n = 30, Experiment 5: n = 30, citations = 185(GS, December 2022)]. [Morrison and Ellis 1995](https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.116) [n = 16, citations = 599(GS, December 2022)].[ Morrison and Ellis 2000](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161763) [n = 24, citations = 293(GS, December 2022)].[ Schwanenflugel et al. 1989](https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(88)90022-8) [experiment 2: n = 44, citations = 536(GS, December 2022)].[ Sereno and O’Donnell 2009](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9649-x) [n = 97, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Turner et al. 1998](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201200)[n = 25, citations = 161(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _r_ = 0.63. * Replication effect size: Boulenger et al.: slope for nouns = 24.17, slope for verbs = 15.39. Cortese et al.: beta = .340. Gerhand and Barry: Experiment 1: _ηp2_ = 0.40 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Experiment 2-5 (collapsed together): _ηp2_ = 0.33 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Morrison and Ellis : _d_ = 3.00 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Morrison and Ellis: beta = 0.67. Schwanenflugel et al.: _r_ = .15. Sereno and O’Donnell: _ηp2_ = 0.53 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Turner et al.: _d_ = 0.58 [_d_ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion]](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1519,7 +1519,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on learning (procedural)**. The order of learning new actions of a procedures influences the speed and accuracy of recalling the correct position. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: [‘Acquisition and long-term retention of a simple serial perceptual-motor skill](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1958-02615-001)’, Neumann and Amons 1956; experiment, n = 20. [citations=56(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Original paper: [‘Acquisition and long-term retention of a simple serial perceptual-motor skill](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041719)’, Neumann and Amons 1956; experiment, n = 20. [citations=56(GS, December 2022)]​. * Critiques: [ Magil 1976](https://doi.org/10.1080/10671315.1976.10615350) [n = 105, citations = 13 (GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _ηp2_= 0.23[_ηp2sup>_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Magil: _ηp2_= 0.06 for position 1 and 2 in block number 3 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], _ηp2_= 0.06 for position 1 and 3 in block number 3 [_ηp2 _ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], _F_ < 1 for position 2 and 3 in block number 3, _ηp2_= 0.05 for position 1 and 2 in block number 4 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], _ηp2_= 0.11 for position 1 and 3 in block number 3 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], _ηp2_= 0.01 for position 2 and 3 in block number 4. @@ -1538,7 +1538,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: '[Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments](https://sci-hub.se/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121)', Dunning & Kruger 1999. This contains claims (1), (2), and (5) but no hint of (3) or (4) [n=334 undergrads, citations = 8376 (GS, September, 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Gignac 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300271), [n=929,citations = 53 (GS, September, 2022)]; [Nuhfer 2016](https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=numeracy) and [Nuhfer 2017](https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1215&context=numeracy), [n=1154, citations = 34 (GS, September, 2022)]; [Luu 2015](https://danluu.com/dunning-kruger); [Greenberg 2018](https://www.facebook.com/spencer.greenberg/posts/10104093568422862), n=534; [Yarkoni 2010](https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/), [Jansen 2021](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01057-0) [2 studies, n=2000 each study, citations= 26 (GS, October2022)], [Muller 2020](https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14935) [n= 56, citations= 20 (GS, October 2022)] +* Critiques: [Gignac 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101449), [n=929,citations = 53 (GS, September, 2022)]; [Nuhfer 2016](https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=numeracy) and [Nuhfer 2017](https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1215&context=numeracy), [n=1154, citations = 34 (GS, September, 2022)]; [Luu 2015](https://danluu.com/dunning-kruger); [Greenberg 2018](https://www.facebook.com/spencer.greenberg/posts/10104093568422862), n=534; [Yarkoni 2010](https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/), [Jansen 2021](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01057-0) [2 studies, n=2000 each study, citations= 26 (GS, October2022)], [Muller 2020](https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14935) [n= 56, citations= 20 (GS, October 2022)] * Original effect size: not reported. Study 1 on humor (n= 15): difference between the actual and estimated performance of “incompetent” (bottom quartile) participants _d_= 2.58 [calculated], while for “competent” (top quartile) participants _d_= -0.55 [calculated]. Study 2 on logical reasoning ( n= 45): difference between the actual and estimated performance of “incompetent” (bottom quartile) participants _d_= 5.44 (perceived logical reasoning ability) [calculated], _d_= 3.48 (test performance) [calculated], while for “competent” (top quartile) participants _d_= -1.12 [calculated], _d_= -0.79 (perceived test performance) [calculated]. Study 3 on grammar (n= 84): difference between the actual and estimated performance of “incompetent” (perceived bottom quartile) participants _d_= 3.42 (perceived ability) [calculated], _d_= 3.94 (perceived test performance) [calculated], while for “competent” (top quartile) participants _d_= -1.18 (perceived ability) [calculated], _d_= -1.27 (perceived test performance) [calculated]. * Replication effect size: Gignac 2020 (for IQ): when using statistical analysis as in Dunning & Kruger 1999 _η2_ = 0.20, but running two less-confounded tests, _r_= −0.05/d= -0.1 [[calculated](https://www.escal.site/)] between P and errors , and _r_= 0.02/_d_= 0.04 [[calculated](https://www.escal.site/)] for a quadratic relationship between self-described performance and actual performance. [Jansen 2021](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01057-0) (for grammar and logical reasoning): not reported (Bayesian models support the existence of the effect in the data and replicate claim 1). [Muller 2020](https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14935) (for recognition memory): the difference between the actual and estimated performance of “incompetent” (bottom quartile) participants _d_= 4.73 [calculated], while for “competent” (top quartile) participants _d_= -0.88 [calculated]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1592,7 +1592,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[How does bilingualism improve executive control? A comparison of active and reactive inhibition mechanisms’, ](https://content.apa.org/record/2008-02158-003)Colzato et al. 2008; 3 experiments, Study 1: n1 = 16 monolingual and n2 = 16 bilingual; Study 2: n1 = 12 bilinguals and n2 = 18 monolinguals; Study 3: n1 = 18 monolinguals and n2 = 18 bilinguals for experiment 3. [citation = 421(GS, October 2021)]. -* Critique: [De Bruin et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614557866) (meta-analysis, n=128, citations=547(GS, May 2022)]. [Gunnerud et al. 2020](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2020-67422-001.html) [meta-analysis, n=143 independent group comparisons comprising 583 EF effect sizes, citations=102 (GS, December 2021)]. [Kappes 2015](https://osf.io/a5ukz/) (Experiment 3: 38 bilingual, 40 monolingual, citations: 0 (Unpublished)]. [Paap et al. 2013 ](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.12.002)[n=286, citations=1007 citations (GS, December 2021)]. [Sanchez-Azanza et al. 2017](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176151) [systematic review, n=189, citations=38(GS, May 2022)]. [Bialystok et al. 2004](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-14948-005) [n=40 in study 1, n=94 in study 2, n=20 in study 3, citations=2350(GS, January 2023)]. +* Critique: [De Bruin et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614557866) (meta-analysis, n=128, citations=547(GS, May 2022)]. [Gunnerud et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000301) [meta-analysis, n=143 independent group comparisons comprising 583 EF effect sizes, citations=102 (GS, December 2021)]. [Kappes 2015](https://osf.io/a5ukz/) (Experiment 3: 38 bilingual, 40 monolingual, citations: 0 (Unpublished)]. [Paap et al. 2013 ](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.12.002)[n=286, citations=1007 citations (GS, December 2021)]. [Sanchez-Azanza et al. 2017](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176151) [systematic review, n=189, citations=38(GS, May 2022)]. [Bialystok et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.2.290) [n=40 in study 1, n=94 in study 2, n=20 in study 3, citations=2350(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: _r_ = .22 ± .48. * Replication effect size: De Bruin et al.: _ηp2_ = .073 (challenge vs. support), _ηp2_ = .089 (all 4 result outcomes). Gunnerud et al.: The bilingual advantage in overall EF was significant, albeit marginal (_g_ = 0.06), and there were indications of publication bias. Kappes: _r_ = .06 ± .36. Paap et al.: Inhibitory control (Simon task) _ηp2_=.69, Mixing cost _η2_=.52, Switching cost _η2_=.67. Sanchez-Azanza et al.: _ηp2_ = .363 (paper category), _ηp2_ = .281 (year), _ηp2_ = .155 (paper category and year interaction). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1601,7 +1601,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection](https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2602)’, Meuter and Allport 1999 (conceptual original article); within-group design, sample size = 16. [citations = 1557(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [de Bruin et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.07.001) [n1 = 28, n2 = 24, n3 = 24, citations = 110(GS, January 2023)]. [Paap and Greenberg 2013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.12.002) [study 1: n1 = 30, n2 = 44; Study 2: n1 = 31; n2 = 49; study 3: n1 = 48; n2 = 51, citations = 1135(GS, January 2023)]. [Prior and Macwhinney 2009](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition/article/bilingual-advantage-in-task-switching/CC68F518019E8D5471D0B0381AC945E7) [n1 = 32, n2 = 47, citations = 782(GS, January 2023)]. [Stasenko et al. 2017](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-30925-001) [n1 = 80, n2 = 80, citations = 55(GS, January 2023)]. [Timmermeister et al. 2020](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01832/full) [n1 = 27, n2 = 27, citations = 8(GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [de Bruin et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.07.001) [n1 = 28, n2 = 24, n3 = 24, citations = 110(GS, January 2023)]. [Paap and Greenberg 2013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.12.002) [study 1: n1 = 30, n2 = 44; Study 2: n1 = 31; n2 = 49; study 3: n1 = 48; n2 = 51, citations = 1135(GS, January 2023)]. [Prior and Macwhinney 2009](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition/article/bilingual-advantage-in-task-switching/CC68F518019E8D5471D0B0381AC945E7) [n1 = 32, n2 = 47, citations = 782(GS, January 2023)]. [Stasenko et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000340) [n1 = 80, n2 = 80, citations = 55(GS, January 2023)]. [Timmermeister et al. 2020](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01832/full) [n1 = 27, n2 = 27, citations = 8(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: de Bruin et al.: ηp2 (language group X trial type) = .74; ηp2 (raw switching costs) = .09; ηp2 (proportional switching) = ns; ηp2 (language group X trial type) = ns; (mixed). Paap and Greenberg: _ηp2 _(study 1)=.001; _ηp2 _(study 2)= .014; _ηp2 _(study 3)= .000; _ηp2 _(all bilingual vs. monolingual)= .004; (not replicated). .Stasenko et al.: _ηp2_ (CTI)=.892, _ηp2_ (trial type) = 488; _ηp2_ (half) = .339; _ηp2 _(CTI X language group)=.037; _ηp2 _(CTI X half) = .259; _ηp2 _(CTI X trial type) = .079; _ηp2 _(CTI X trial type X half) = .025; _ηp2 _(trial type X half X group) = .044; _d_ (language group in trials half 1) = .34; _d_ (language group in trials half 2) = ns; _ηp2 _(CTI X group, on only switch trials) = .55; _ηp2 _(CTI X group, on only switch trials) = ns; _ηp2 _(CTI X half, on error rates for bilinguals only) = .059; (mixed). Timmermeister et al.: _ηp2_ (accuracy and switching costs)= 0.10; _ηp2_ (MANCOVA with the previous factors, and SES and knowledge of Dutch as covariates) = 0.03; _ηp2_ (RTs and mixing costs) = 0.13; _ηp2_ (MANCOVA with the previous factors, and SES and knowledge of Dutch as covariates) = 0.06; (not replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1637,7 +1637,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[An Intercultural Study of Non-Verbal Ideational Fluency](https://doi.org/10.1177/001698626500900103)’, Gowan and Torrance 1965; experiment, monolingual children: n = 853, bilingual children: n = 555. [citations=35(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Kharkhurin 2008 ](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition/article/effect-of-linguistic-proficiency-age-of-second-language-acquisition-and-length-of-exposure-to-a-new-cultural-environment-on-bilinguals-divergent-thinking/9F1A467E8529B715885EB9D155107BA5)[bilingual adults: n =103, monolingual adults: n = 47, citations=163(GS, January 2023)]. [Kharkhurin 2017 ](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01067/full)[bilingual adults: n =58, monolingual adults: n = 28, citations=27(GS, January 2023)]. [Torrance et al. 1970](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-06532-001) [monolingual children: n = 527, bilingual children: n = 536, citations=241(GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Kharkhurin 2008 ](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition/article/effect-of-linguistic-proficiency-age-of-second-language-acquisition-and-length-of-exposure-to-a-new-cultural-environment-on-bilinguals-divergent-thinking/9F1A467E8529B715885EB9D155107BA5)[bilingual adults: n =103, monolingual adults: n = 47, citations=163(GS, January 2023)]. [Kharkhurin 2017 ](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01067/full)[bilingual adults: n =58, monolingual adults: n = 28, citations=27(GS, January 2023)]. [Torrance et al. 1970](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028767) [monolingual children: n = 527, bilingual children: n = 536, citations=241(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: not reported. * Replication effect size: Kharkhurin: _ηp2 _= 0.07 [_ηp2 _calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Kharkhurin: not reported. Torrance et al.: _d_ = 0.27 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. ​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1645,7 +1645,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Monolingual advantages in creativity - Flexibility.** Monolinguals are more likely to consider a variety of approaches to a problem simultaneously than bilinguals, using the Torrance Test. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: reversed -* Original paper: ‘[Creative functioning of monolingual and bilingual children in Singapore’,](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-06532-001) Torrance et al. 1970; experiment study design, monolingual children: n = 527, bilingual children: n = 536. [citations=241(GS, January 2023)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Creative functioning of monolingual and bilingual children in Singapore’,](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028767) Torrance et al. 1970; experiment study design, monolingual children: n = 527, bilingual children: n = 536. [citations=241(GS, January 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Kharkhurin 2008 ](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition/article/effect-of-linguistic-proficiency-age-of-second-language-acquisition-and-length-of-exposure-to-a-new-cultural-environment-on-bilinguals-divergent-thinking/9F1A467E8529B715885EB9D155107BA5)[bilingual adults: n =103, monolingual adults: n = 47, citations=163(GS, January 2023)]. [Kharkhurin 2017 ](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01067/full)[bilingual adults: n =58, monolingual adults: n = 28, citations=27(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: Torrance et al.: _d_ = 0.20 [_d _calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Kharkhurin _ηp2 _ = 0.04 [_ηp2 _ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Kharkhurin: _ηp2 _ = 0.07. @@ -1653,7 +1653,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Null Bilingual advantages in creativity - Originality.** There should be no difference between bilinguals and monolinguals in the tendency to produce ideas different from those of most other people, using the Torrance Test. ​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} -* Status: replicated Original paper: ‘[Creative functioning of monolingual and bilingual children in Singapore’,](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-06532-001) Torrance et al. 1970; experiment study design, monolingual children: n = 527, bilingual children: n = 536. [citations=241(GS, January 2023)]​. +* Status: replicated Original paper: ‘[Creative functioning of monolingual and bilingual children in Singapore’,](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028767) Torrance et al. 1970; experiment study design, monolingual children: n = 527, bilingual children: n = 536. [citations=241(GS, January 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Kharkhurin 2008 ](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition/article/effect-of-linguistic-proficiency-age-of-second-language-acquisition-and-length-of-exposure-to-a-new-cultural-environment-on-bilinguals-divergent-thinking/9F1A467E8529B715885EB9D155107BA5)[bilingual adults: n =103, monolingual adults: n = 47, citations=163(GS, January 2023)]. [Kharkhurin 2017 ](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01067/full)[bilingual adults: n =58, monolingual adults: n = 28, citations=27(GS, January 2023)]. ​ * Original effect size: Torrance et al.: _d_ = 0.03 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Kharkhurin: not reported. Kharkhurin : not reported. @@ -1661,7 +1661,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Null bilingual advantages in creativity - Elaboration.** There should be no difference between bilinguals and monolinguals in the tendency to think through the details of an idea, using the Torrance Test. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} -* Status: mixed Original paper: ‘[Creative functioning of monolingual and bilingual children in Singapore’, ](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-06532-001)Torrance et al. 1970; experiment study design, monolingual children: n = 527, bilingual children: n = 536. [citations=241(GS, January 2023)]​. +* Status: mixed Original paper: ‘[Creative functioning of monolingual and bilingual children in Singapore’, ](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028767)Torrance et al. 1970; experiment study design, monolingual children: n = 527, bilingual children: n = 536. [citations=241(GS, January 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Kharkhurin 2008 ](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition/article/effect-of-linguistic-proficiency-age-of-second-language-acquisition-and-length-of-exposure-to-a-new-cultural-environment-on-bilinguals-divergent-thinking/9F1A467E8529B715885EB9D155107BA5)[bilingual adults: n =103, monolingual adults: n = 47, citations=163(GS, January 2023)]. [Kharkhurin 2017 ](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01067/full)[bilingual adults: n =58, monolingual adults: n = 28, citations=27(GS, January 2023)]. ​ * Original effect size: Torrance et al.: _d_ = 0.06 [_d _ calculated from reported t statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Kharkhurin: _ηp2 _= 0.01[_ηp2 _ calculated from reported F statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Kharkhurin: not reported. @@ -1679,7 +1679,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Education enhances intelligence**. Education has a consistent positive effect on intelligence. A meta-analysis suggests that one additional year of education corresponds to a gain of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points (contingent on study design, inclusion of moderators, and publication-bias correction). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment of the evidence](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-12228-001)’, Ceci 1991; review, n=not reported. [citations = 1,322 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment of the evidence](https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.703)’, Ceci 1991; review, n=not reported. [citations = 1,322 (GS, January 2023)]. * Critiques: [Ritchie and Tucker-Drob 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774253) [meta-analysis: n = ​​615,812, citations = 439 (GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Ritchie and Tucker-Drob: _d_ = 0.23 [0.16, 0.29] for the overall model [converted from IQ points]. @@ -1697,8 +1697,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Congruency sequence effect** (conflict adaptation or Gratton effect). A cognitive phenomenon in which the processing of stimuli is affected by the stimuli that preceded it e.g. congruency effects are smaller following incongruent trials rather than congruent trials. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1978-20309-001)’, Neely 1977; speeded word–nonword classification task, n = 120. [citation = 3963 (PSYCNET.APA, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Aczel et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191353) [Kan et al. 2013 replication, n=103, 70 and 38 participants for Experiments 1, 2 and 3, citations=4(GS, Feb 2022)]. [Gratton et al. 1992](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-12151-001) [n1=6, n2=5, n3a=6, n3b= 8, citation = 2004 (GS, April 2023)].[ Gyurkovics et al. 2020 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.001)[n=489 over four tasks, citations=3(GS, April 2023)]. [Kan et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.001) [n = 41 in Experiment 1; n = 28 in Experiment 2; n = 15 in Experiment 3, citation=81(GS, February 2022)] +* Original paper: ‘[Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.106.3.226)’, Neely 1977; speeded word–nonword classification task, n = 120. [citation = 3963 (PSYCNET.APA, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Aczel et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191353) [Kan et al. 2013 replication, n=103, 70 and 38 participants for Experiments 1, 2 and 3, citations=4(GS, Feb 2022)]. [Gratton et al. 1992](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480) [n1=6, n2=5, n3a=6, n3b= 8, citation = 2004 (GS, April 2023)].[ Gyurkovics et al. 2020 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.001)[n=489 over four tasks, citations=3(GS, April 2023)]. [Kan et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.001) [n = 41 in Experiment 1; n = 28 in Experiment 2; n = 15 in Experiment 3, citation=81(GS, February 2022)] * Original effect size: Greatest facilitation in Non-shift-Expected-Related word X target condition and greatest inhibition effects in Shift-Unexpected-Unrelated and Nonshift-Unexpected-Unrelated conditions; _η2 _= 0.689 (calculated from the reported _F_(4, 84) = 46.85, using this conversion). * Replication effect size: Aczel et al.: The congruency sequence effect for the RT analysis was inconclusive in all three experiments, _ηp2 _=0.00 to 0.02 (calculated from the reported _F _statistic), and for the accuracy in two out of three experiments, _ηp2 _=0.00 to 0.04 (calculated from the reported _F _statistic). Gratton et al.: compatible vs. incompatible trials, Reaction time _ηp2 _=0.88 to 0.94 (calculated from the reported _F _statistic), Error rate - _ηp2 _=0.59 to 0.98 (calculated from the reported _F _statistic). Gyurkovics et al.: _ηp2_=.40-.96. Kan et al.: congruent vs. incongruent trials, Stroop accuracy _ηp2 _=0.14 to 0.57 (calculated from the reported _F_ statistic), Stroop reaction time _ηp2 _=0.19 to 0.46 (calculated from the reported _F_ statistic). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1824,7 +1824,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Choice reaction time as a function of angular stimulus-response correspondence and age](https://doi.org/10.1080/00140136308930679)’, Simon and Wolf 1963; experimental design, n1 = 20, n2 = 20. [citation=289(GS, June 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Ehrenstein 1994](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419703) [n1=12, n2=14, citations=27(GS, June 2022)]. ​ [Marble and Proctor 2000](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.26.5.1515) [n1=48, n2=20, n3=32, n4=80, citations=89(GS, June 2022)]. [Proctor et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260000041) [n1=64, n2=64, citations=74(GS, June 2022)]. [Theeuwes et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-22383-001) [n1=30, n2=30, n3=30, n4=30, citations=30(GS, June 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Ehrenstein 1994](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419703) [n1=12, n2=14, citations=27(GS, June 2022)]. ​ [Marble and Proctor 2000](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.26.5.1515) [n1=48, n2=20, n3=32, n4=80, citations=89(GS, June 2022)]. [Proctor et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260000041) [n1=64, n2=64, citations=74(GS, June 2022)]. [Theeuwes et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036913) [n1=30, n2=30, n3=30, n4=30, citations=30(GS, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: not reported but could be calculated. * Replication effect size: Ehrenstein: not reported but could be calculated. Marble and Proctor: not reported but could be calculated. Proctor et al.: not reported but could be calculated. Theeuwes et al.: _ηp_ ² (the compatible S-R instructions condition vs. the incompatible S-R instructions condition)=.12; _ηp_ ²(the compatible S-R instructions condition vs. the incompatible practised S-R instructions condition)=.07; _ηp_ ²(the incompatible S-R instructions condition vs. the compatible S-R instructions condition)=.21; _ηp_ ² (e incompatible practised S-R instructions condition vs. the compatible S-R instructions condition)=.11. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1851,7 +1851,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: [‘Memory in a monolingual mode: When are bilinguals at a disadvantage?’](https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(87)90098-2), Ransdell and Fischler, 1987; between-group multi-experiment study, with monolingual and bilingual young adults, n1 = 28, n2 = 28. [citations=216(GS, May 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Bialystok et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2007.07.001) [study 1: n1=24, n2 = 24; study 2: n1 = 50, n2 = 16, citations=338(GS, May 2022)]. [Gollan et al. 2002](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-18399-011) [n1=30, n2=30, citations=584(GS, May 2022)]. [Gollan et al. 2005](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193224) [study 1: n1=31, n2=31; study 2: n1=36, n2=36, citations=665(GS, May 2022)]. [Rosselli et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324826AN0701_3) [n1=45, n2=18, n3=19, citations=341(GS, May 2022)]. [Rosselli et al. 2002](https://doi.org/10.1080/00207450290025752) [n= 45, n2=18, n3=19, citations=151(GS, May 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Bialystok et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2007.07.001) [study 1: n1=24, n2 = 24; study 2: n1 = 50, n2 = 16, citations=338(GS, May 2022)]. [Gollan et al. 2002](https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.16.4.562) [n1=30, n2=30, citations=584(GS, May 2022)]. [Gollan et al. 2005](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193224) [study 1: n1=31, n2=31; study 2: n1=36, n2=36, citations=665(GS, May 2022)]. [Rosselli et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324826AN0701_3) [n1=45, n2=18, n3=19, citations=341(GS, May 2022)]. [Rosselli et al. 2002](https://doi.org/10.1080/00207450290025752) [n= 45, n2=18, n3=19, citations=151(GS, May 2022)]. * Original effect size: not reported but could be calculated. * Replication effect size: Bialystok et al.: not reported but could be calculated. Rosselli et al.: not reported but could be calculated. Rosselli et al.: not reported but could be calculated. Gollan et al.: not reported but could be calculated. ​Gollan et al.: not reported but could be calculated. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1869,7 +1869,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology](https://archive.org/details/memorycontributi00ebbiuoft/page/80/mode/2up?view=theater)’, Ebbinghaus 1964; series of single-case studies, n=1. [citations=6103 (GS, September, 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Cepeda et al. 2006](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354), meta-analysis [n= 184 articles, citations=1894 (GS, September 2022)]. [Janiszewski et al. 2003](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/30/1/138/1801740?login=false), meta-analysis [n= 97 verbal learning studies, citations= 373 (GS, September 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Cepeda et al. 2006](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354), meta-analysis [n= 184 articles, citations=1894 (GS, September 2022)]. [Janiszewski et al. 2003](https://doi.org/10.58052/neon0dkjs), meta-analysis [n= 97 verbal learning studies, citations= 373 (GS, September 2022)]. * Original effect size: N/A. * Replication effect size: Cepeda et al.: Cohen’s _d_ for the difference in the accuracy between massed and spaced learning trials in verbal recall tasks= 0.567 (calculated). Janiszewski et al.: _ηp2_= 0.093 (calculated from the reported _F_(1, 478)=49.23,_p_<.01 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)) for a linear relationship between the number of lags between learning events and the accuracy of recall; _ηp2_= 0.051 for the log relationship (calculated from the reported _F_(1, 478)=25.69, _p_<.01 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1913,8 +1913,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Mere Exposure Effect**. Participants who are repeatedly exposed to the same stimuli rate them more positively than stimuli that have not been presented before. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1968-12019-001)’, Zajonc, 1968; correlational and experimental evidence, n=NA. [citation=9458(GS, February 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Bornstein 1989](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-00422-001) [Meta-analysis, total N = 33047, citation=2944(GS, February 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848)’, Zajonc, 1968; correlational and experimental evidence, n=NA. [citation=9458(GS, February 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Bornstein 1989](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265) [Meta-analysis, total N = 33047, citation=2944(GS, February 2022)]. * Original effect size: Experiment 1, Nonsense words, _ηp2_ = 0.078 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported _F_(5,355) = 5.64, _p_ < .001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] ; Experiment 2, Chinese characters _ηp2_ = 0.066 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported _F_(5, 335) = 4.72, _p_ < .001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Experiment 3, Photographs _ηp2_ = 0.129 [_ηp2_ calculated from reported _F_(5, 355) = 9.96, _p_ < .001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Combined effect size _r_ = .260. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1923,7 +1923,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: [‘Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215908416289)’, Moray 1959; experimental design, n1=1, n2=12, n3=28. [citation=1972 (GS, February 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Conway et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196169) [n=40, citation=1195 (GS, February 2022)]. [Röer and Cowan 2021](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-62831-001) [n=80, citation=3 (GS, February 2022)]. [Wood and Cowan 1995](https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.255) [Replication, n=34, citation=467 (GS, February 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Conway et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196169) [n=40, citation=1195 (GS, February 2022)]. [Röer and Cowan 2021](https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000874) [n=80, citation=3 (GS, February 2022)]. [Wood and Cowan 1995](https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.255) [Replication, n=34, citation=467 (GS, February 2022)]. * Original effect size: Detection rate = 33%. * Replication effect size: Conway et al.: Detection rate = 43%. Röer and Cowan: Detection rate = 29%. Wood and Cowan: Detection rate = 35%. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1995,7 +1995,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[You that read wrong again! A transposed-word effect in grammaticality judgments](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618806296)’, Mirault et al. 2018; two experiments, laboratory: n = 57, online: n = 94. [citation=47(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Huang and Staub 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02150-9) [Experiment 1: n = 49, Experiment 2: n = 51, citations=0(GS, November 2022)]. [Liu et al. 2020 ](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02114-y)[Experiment 1: n = 63, Experiment 2: n = 69, Experiment 3: n = 63, citations=5(GS, November 2022)]. [Liu et al. 2021 ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691821000226)[Experiment 1: n = 60, Experiment 2: n = 32, citations=4(GS, November 2022)].[ Liu et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104922) [n = 112, citations=2(GS, November 2022)]. [Mirault et al. 2020 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2020.100029)[n = 112, citations=13(GS, November 2022)]. [Mirault et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02421-y) [Experiment 1: n = 60, Experiment 2: n = 32, citations=4(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado and Grainger 2019a ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691819303117)[n = 28, citations=11(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado and Grainger 2019b](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2019-68134-001.pdf) [Experiment 1: n = 28, Experiment 2: n = 28, citations=13(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado and Grainger 2021](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01819-3) [n = 28, citations=6(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado et al. 2021](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346130946_On_the_noisy_spatiotopic_encoding_of_word_positions_during_reading_Evidence_from_the_change-detection_task) [n = 31, citations=2(GS, November 2022)]. [Snell and Grainger 2019](https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02448204/document) [n = 24, citations=21(GS, November 2022)]. [Wen et al. 2021a ](https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1880608)[n = 40, citations=3(GS, November 2022)]. [Wen et al. 2021b ](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338782241_Fast_Syntax_in_the_Brain_Electrophysiological_Evidence_from_the_Rapid_Parallel_Visual_Presentation_Paradigm_RPVP)[experiment 2: n = 26, citations=10(GS, November 2022)][. Wen et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1880608) [n = 124, citations=0(GS, November 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Huang and Staub 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02150-9) [Experiment 1: n = 49, Experiment 2: n = 51, citations=0(GS, November 2022)]. [Liu et al. 2020 ](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02114-y)[Experiment 1: n = 63, Experiment 2: n = 69, Experiment 3: n = 63, citations=5(GS, November 2022)]. [Liu et al. 2021 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103272)[Experiment 1: n = 60, Experiment 2: n = 32, citations=4(GS, November 2022)].[ Liu et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104922) [n = 112, citations=2(GS, November 2022)]. [Mirault et al. 2020 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2020.100029)[n = 112, citations=13(GS, November 2022)]. [Mirault et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02421-y) [Experiment 1: n = 60, Experiment 2: n = 32, citations=4(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado and Grainger 2019a ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102943)[n = 28, citations=11(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado and Grainger 2019b](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2019-68134-001.pdf) [Experiment 1: n = 28, Experiment 2: n = 28, citations=13(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado and Grainger 2021](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01819-3) [n = 28, citations=6(GS, November 2022)]. [Pegado et al. 2021](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346130946_On_the_noisy_spatiotopic_encoding_of_word_positions_during_reading_Evidence_from_the_change-detection_task) [n = 31, citations=2(GS, November 2022)]. [Snell and Grainger 2019](https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02448204/document) [n = 24, citations=21(GS, November 2022)]. [Wen et al. 2021a ](https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1880608)[n = 40, citations=3(GS, November 2022)]. [Wen et al. 2021b ](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338782241_Fast_Syntax_in_the_Brain_Electrophysiological_Evidence_from_the_Rapid_Parallel_Visual_Presentation_Paradigm_RPVP)[experiment 2: n = 26, citations=10(GS, November 2022)][. Wen et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1880608) [n = 124, citations=0(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: laboratory: _d_ = 1.86, online: _d_ = 1.58. * Replication effect size: Huang and Staub: Experiment 1: _d_ = 1.27 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared), Experiment 2: _d_ = 0.97 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Liu et al.: Experiment 1: _d_ = 1.37 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared), Experiment 2: _d_ = 1.37 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d,](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared) Experiment 3: _d_ = 1.26 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Liu et al.: Experiment 1: _d_= 2.40 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared), Experiment 2: _d_ = 1.69 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Liu et al.: serial visual presentation: _d_ = 1.02 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d,](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)parallel visual presentation: _d_ = ​2.00 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Mirault et al.: _d_ = 0.52 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Mirault et al.: Experiment 1: _d_ = 0.40 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d; ](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)Experiment 2: _d_ = 0.88. Pegado and Grainger: _d_ = 0.73 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Pegado and Grainger: Experiment 1: _d_ = 2.97 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared), Experiment 2: _d_ = 0.78 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Pegado and Grainger: _d_ =1.40. Pegado et al.: _d_ = 2.08 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Snell and Grainger: _d_ = 1.58 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Wen et al.: _d_ = 0.64 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). Wen et al.: Experiment 2: _d_ = 1.62 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d. ](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)Wen et al.: _d_ = 0.32 [calculated using this conversion from t to Cohen’s d](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2049,7 +2049,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Handedness differences - depression.** Being left-handed is associated with a higher likelihood of being depressed. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Cerebral laterality and depression: Differences in perceptual asymmetry among diagnostic subtypes](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-29506-001)’, Bruder et al. 1989; analysis of different patterns of brain lateralization between depressed individuals and controls, n = 70. [citations=202 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Cerebral laterality and depression: Differences in perceptual asymmetry among diagnostic subtypes](https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.98.2.177)’, Bruder et al. 1989; analysis of different patterns of brain lateralization between depressed individuals and controls, n = 70. [citations=202 (GS, January 2023)]. * Critiques: [Denny 2009 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500802362869)[n= 27,482, citations = 49 (Tandfonline, June 2022)]. [Elias et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-2626(01)80048-8) [n=541, citations = 37 (ScienceDirect, June 2022)]. [Packheiser et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.07.052) [meta-analysis, _k_=87, n = 35501, citations = 1 (ScienceDirect, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_= 0.57. * Replication effect size: Elias et al.: No main effect but a significant interaction with sex; left-handed men show higher depression scores (no effect size). Denny: being left-handed is associated with a higher level of depressive symptoms, no significant interaction with sex (no effect size). Packheiser et al.: No link between handedness and depression (OR = 1.04 [0.95 - 1.15]). @@ -2130,7 +2130,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Heterogeneity reduces perceived quantity**. Sets of multiple colourful or different objects (e.g., stars, squares, triangles) seem less with respect to their quantity than the same sets that consist of only one type of object (e.g., only red triangles). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The presence of variety reduces perceived quantity](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/36/3/406/1846977?redirectedFrom=fulltext)’, Redden and Hoch, 2009; within-subjects design, Study 1: n = 80, Study 2: n = 57, Study 3: n = 105, Study 4: n = 64. [citations=90(GS, October 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[The presence of variety reduces perceived quantity](https://doi.org/10.25505/fiz.icsd.cc1zzxxs)’, Redden and Hoch, 2009; within-subjects design, Study 1: n = 80, Study 2: n = 57, Study 3: n = 105, Study 4: n = 64. [citations=90(GS, October 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Röseler et al. , in press](https://psyarxiv.com/v643q/) [Study 1: n = 104, Study 2: n = 199, Study 3: n = 144, Study 4: n = 82, Study 5: n = 45, Study 6: n = 84, citations=2(GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = 0.394 to _d_ = 2.377. * Replication effect size: Röseler et al.: _d_ = -0.302 to _d_ = 0.108​. @@ -2240,7 +2240,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions](http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Stroop)’, Stroop 1935; list of colour words (e.g. "red", "blue", "green") that were printed in different ink colours, and asked them to name the ink colour as quickly as possible, n = 70. [citations = 24125 (PSYCNET, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Damen 2021](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.688048/full) [n=66, citations= 1 (GS, April 2023)]. [Epp et al. 2012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.02.005) [meta-analysis, _k_=47, citations= 235 (GS, April 2023)]. [Homack and Riccio 2004](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088761770300146X) [meta-analysis, _k_=33, citations= 520 (gs, April 2023)]. [MacLeod 1991](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-14380-001)[n = NA, citations = 7389(PsycNet, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Damen 2021](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.688048/full) [n=66, citations= 1 (GS, April 2023)]. [Epp et al. 2012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.02.005) [meta-analysis, _k_=47, citations= 235 (GS, April 2023)]. [Homack and Riccio 2004](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088761770300146X) [meta-analysis, _k_=33, citations= 520 (gs, April 2023)]. [MacLeod 1991](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163)[n = NA, citations = 7389(PsycNet, January 2023)]. * [MacKenna and Sharma 2004](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14979812/) [n=176, citations= 376 (PUBMED, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Damen: _ηp2_ = 0.541 [0.369, 0.652]. Epp et al.: Emotional Stroop task in depression (replicated): on negative stimuli, _g_=.98, and on positive stimuli, _g_=.87. Homack and Riccio: individuals with ADHD fairly consistently exhibit poorer performance as compared to normal controls on the Stroop (mean weighted effect size of 0.50 or greater). MacKenna and Sharma: doubt on the fast and non-conscious nature of emotional Stroop. @@ -2249,9 +2249,9 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Disfluency effect**. Disfluency, the subjective experience of difficulty associated with cognitive operations, leads to deeper cognitive processing. If information is processed with difficulty or disfluently (e.g. when written in hard-to-read fonts), this experience serve as a cue that the task is difficult or that one’s intuitive (System 1) response is likely to be wrong, thereby activating more elaborate (System 2) processing, resulting in more positive cognitive outcomes.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning](https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2007-16657-003)’, Alter et al. 2007; four between-subject experiments, Study 1 n=40, Study 2 n=42, Study 3 n=150, Study 4 n=41. [citations=1196(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Kühl and Eitel 2016](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9154-x) [n=1,079 across 13 studies, citations=64 (GS, January 2023)]. [Meyer et al. 2015](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-13746-007) [n=7,177 across 13 studies, citations=114(GS, January 2023)].​ [Thompson et al. 2013](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027712002120) [n=579 across three studies (2c, 3a and 3b), citations=261 (GS, January 2023)].[ ](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-13746-007) -* Original effect size: Study 1 – participants answered more items on the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) correctly in the disfluent font condition than in the fluent font condition, _η2 _= 0.056 / _d _= 0.71 [reported in[ Meyer et al.](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-13746-007)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569)’, Alter et al. 2007; four between-subject experiments, Study 1 n=40, Study 2 n=42, Study 3 n=150, Study 4 n=41. [citations=1196(GS, January 2023)]​. +* Critiques: [Kühl and Eitel 2016](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9154-x) [n=1,079 across 13 studies, citations=64 (GS, January 2023)]. [Meyer et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000049) [n=7,177 across 13 studies, citations=114(GS, January 2023)].​ [Thompson et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.012) [n=579 across three studies (2c, 3a and 3b), citations=261 (GS, January 2023)].[ ](https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000049) +* Original effect size: Study 1 – participants answered more items on the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) correctly in the disfluent font condition than in the fluent font condition, _η2 _= 0.056 / _d _= 0.71 [reported in[ Meyer et al.](https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000049)]​. * Replication effect size: Kühl and Eitel: no disfluency effect on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes in any of the thirteen studies reviewed; effect size estimates not reported (not replicated). Meyer et al.: the effect of disfluent font on cognitive reflection test scores in 13 studies from _d_= -0.25 to _d_= 0.12 (reported, all non-significant) [not replicated]. Pooled effect of the 17 studies (including Thompson et al. and original Alter et al. study) _d_ = -0.01 (non-significant). Thompson et al.: the effects of disfluent font on cognitive reflection test scores in three studies from _d_= -0.19 to _d_= 0.25 (_d_'s reported in Meyer et al., all non-significant) [not replicated]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2259,7 +2259,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory’](https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1063), Anderson et al. 1994; tested retrieval-induced forgetting, three experiments, n = 148. [citations=2065 (GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Jonker et al. 2013](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-37634-005) [n=30 across two experiments, citations=175 (GS, December 2022)]. [Rowland et al. 2014](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01343/full) [n=72 (experiment 1); n=140 (experiment 2); n=70 (experiment 3), citations=18 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Jonker et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034246) [n=30 across two experiments, citations=175 (GS, December 2022)]. [Rowland et al. 2014](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01343/full) [n=72 (experiment 1); n=140 (experiment 2); n=70 (experiment 3), citations=18 (GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Jonker et al.: reported _ηp2_ - experiment 1: 0.25; Experiment 2a: 0.29; Experiment 2b=0.19; Experiment 3: Standard condition: 0.43, study reinstatement condition: 0.31. Rowland et al.: reported Cohen’s _d_. Experiment 1: 0.31; Experiment 2: 0.38. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2276,7 +2276,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Perky effect**. Mental imagery interferes with perception. If persons were asked to describe their images of common objects while dim facsimiles of the objects were presented before them, they reported only an "imagery," not a "perceptual," experience; imagery and stimuli are indistinguishable.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated. -* Original paper: ‘[An experimental study of imagination](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1413350)’, Perky 1910; experimental design, Experiment 1 n=3 children, Experiment 2 n=24, Experiment 3 n=5. [citations=933(GS, March 2023)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[An experimental study of imagination](https://doi.org/10.5517/cc1jfpyl)’, Perky 1910; experimental design, Experiment 1 n=3 children, Experiment 2 n=24, Experiment 3 n=5. [citations=933(GS, March 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Craver-Lemley and Reeves 1987](https://doi.org/10.1068/p160599) [n=125, citations=109(GS, March 2023)]. [Okada and Matsuoka 1992](https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1992.74.2.443) [n=14, citations=26(GS, March 2023)].​[ Reeves et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2019.12.004) [n=111, citations=4(GS, March 2023)].​ [Segal and Fusella 1970](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028840) [n1=8, n2=6, citations=579(GS, March 2023)]. [Segal and Gordon 1969](https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1969.28.3.791) [n1=24, n2=24, citations=52(GS, March 2023)].[ ](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028840) * Original effect size: ES not reported but the data in all three experiments showed that respondents mistook the perceptual for the imaginative consciousness; they did not report a perception, but the image described resembled the unreported stimulus. * Replication effect size: Craver-Lemley and Reeves: Mean accuracy for reporting the offset of vertical line targets declined from 80% to 65% when subjects were requested to imagine vertical lines near fixation (replicated). Okada and Matsuoka: the Perky effect described in the auditory modality. The auditory imagery of a pure tone affected the detection only when the frequency of the imaged tone was the same as that of the detected tone (_ηp2 _=0.346, calculated from the reported _F_(4,52) = 6.90, _p_ < .01 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)) (replicated). Reeves et al.: Visual imagery interferes with acuity when performance is good but facilitates it when performance is poor. The mean Perky effect for the 47 subjects which scored over 80% in No Imagery condition was 21%; average correlation between Perky effects with baseline accuracy level across 111 subjects _r_ = 0.63 (replicated). Segal and Fusella: Mental imagery was found to block detection of both visual and auditory signals; Experiment 1 - sensitivity _(d')_ was lower during visual (1.70) and auditory imaging (2.13) than in either the preceding (1.93) or following discrimination tasks (1.72) (all _p_s <.001) (replicated); Experiment 2 - sensitivity _(d')_ was lower during visual (1.48) and auditory imaging (1.68) than in either the preceding (2.64) or following discrimination tasks (2.84) (all _p_s <.001) (replicated). Segal and Gordon: Experiment 1: The significant differences in the perceptual sensitivity, _d'_ measures, in the Perky condition (0.74) and in the informed task (2.03) (replicated); Experiment 2: greater sensitivity in the discrimination task (_d'_= 2.39), compared to the imaging procedures, Experimenter-projection (_d'_=1.54) and self-projection (_d'_=1.19) (replicated). @@ -2309,7 +2309,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[When approach motivation and behavioral inhibition collide: Behavior regulation through stimulus devaluation’](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.004), Veling et al. 2008; within-subjects design, Exp 1: n=33, Exp 2: n=47, Study 3: n=40. [citations=189 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Chen et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000236) [Exp 1: n=45, Exp 2: n=48, Study 3: n=40, citations=122 (GS, March 2023)]. [Wessel et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-43468-001) [Exp 1: n=36, Exp 2: n=27, citations=64 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Chen et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000236) [Exp 1: n=45, Exp 2: n=48, Study 3: n=40, citations=122 (GS, March 2023)]. [Wessel et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000022) [Exp 1: n=36, Exp 2: n=27, citations=64 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: Exp 1: nogo vs go: _d_= -0.49, nogo vs new: _d_= 0.48, Exp 2: nogo vs go: _d_= -0.33, nogo vs new: _d_= -0.53. * Replication effect size: Wessel et al.: Exp 1: _η2_= 0.25, Exp 2: _η2_= 0.24. Chen et al.: Exp 1: nogo vs go: _d_= -0.39 [-0.71, -0.08], nogo vs untrained: _d_= -0.57 [-0.71, -0.08], Exp 2: nogo vs go: _d_= -0.91 [-1.31, -0.55], nogo vs untrained: _d_ = -0.60 [-0.97, -0.27]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2393,7 +2393,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Expertise attained after 10,000 hours practice**. The notion that it takes around 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert in a particular field or domain. Specifically, that deliberate practice explains from most to all of the variance in (expert) performance in sports. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance](https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1993-40718-001)’, Ericsson et al. 1993; quasi-experimental and correlational study, Study 1: N=30, Study 2: N=24. [citations=14039 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363)’, Ericsson et al. 1993; quasi-experimental and correlational study, Study 1: N=30, Study 2: N=24. [citations=14039 (GS, February 2023)]. * Critiques: [Macnamara et al. 2016 ](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635591)[n=2,765, citations=274(GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: =>50% to 100%​. * Replication effect size: Macnamara et al.: ES=.43 [.35, .50], DP explains 18% of variance. @@ -2421,7 +2421,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: [‘Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models’](https://media.thuze.com/MediaService/MediaService.svc/constellation/book/AUPSY330.12.2/%7Bpdfs%7Dch_1_transmission_of_aggression_bandura.pdf), Bandura et al. 1961; experimental design, n = 72. [citations = 4151 (GS, March, 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Anderson and& Bushman 2001](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00366) [meta-analysis, n= 4,262, citations = 3908(GS, April 2023)]. [Bushman 2016](https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21655) [meta-analysis, _k_=37, n=10,410, citations = 92 (GS, April 2023)]. [Drummond et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200373); [_gaming_, n ≈ 21000, citations = 35 (GS, June 2022)]. [Elson and Ferguson 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2013-43946-001) [_gaming_, review paper, n=NA, citations = 266 (GS, June 2022)]. [Ferguson and Kilburn 2009](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022347608010378) [meta-analysis, _k_=25, n=12,436, citations = 497(GS, April 2023)]. [Greitemeyer and Mügge 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213520459) [meta-analysis, _k_=98, n= 36,965, citations = 984(GS, April 2023)]. [Hilgard et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000074) [_gaming_, meta-analysis, _k_=7 to _k_=40 for various gaming effects, citations = 161 (GS, June 2022)]. [Savage and Yancey 2008](https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808316487) [_media_, n= 26 independent samples of subjects, citations = 255 (GS, June 2022)]. [Strasburger and Wilson 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-46439-005) [review paper, n= NA, citations = 23(GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Anderson and& Bushman 2001](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00366) [meta-analysis, n= 4,262, citations = 3908(GS, April 2023)]. [Bushman 2016](https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21655) [meta-analysis, _k_=37, n=10,410, citations = 92 (GS, April 2023)]. [Drummond et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200373); [_gaming_, n ≈ 21000, citations = 35 (GS, June 2022)]. [Elson and Ferguson 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2013-43946-001) [_gaming_, review paper, n=NA, citations = 266 (GS, June 2022)]. [Ferguson and Kilburn 2009](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.11.033) [meta-analysis, _k_=25, n=12,436, citations = 497(GS, April 2023)]. [Greitemeyer and Mügge 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213520459) [meta-analysis, _k_=98, n= 36,965, citations = 984(GS, April 2023)]. [Hilgard et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000074) [_gaming_, meta-analysis, _k_=7 to _k_=40 for various gaming effects, citations = 161 (GS, June 2022)]. [Savage and Yancey 2008](https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808316487) [_media_, n= 26 independent samples of subjects, citations = 255 (GS, June 2022)]. [Strasburger and Wilson 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-46439-005) [review paper, n= NA, citations = 23(GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: Bandura et al.: r2 = 8.96, _p_ < .02. * Replication effect size: Anderson and Bushman: _r_ = 0.27. Bushman: _r_ = 0.20. Drummond et al.: _r_ = 0.059. Elson and Ferguson: evidence regarding the impact of violent digital games on player aggression is, at best, mixed and cannot support unambiguous claims that such games are harmful or represent a public health crisis. Ferguson and Kilburn: _r_ = 0.08. Greitemeyer and Mügge: _r_ = 0.19. Hilgard et al.: substantial publication bias in experimental research on the effects of violent games on aggressive affect and aggressive behavior detected; after adjustment for bias, the effects of violent games on aggressive behavior in experimental research are estimated as being very small, and estimates of effects on aggressive affect are much reduced. Martins & Weaver: _r_ = 0.15. Savage & Yancey: _r_ = 0.07 (nonsignificant). Strasburger & Wilson: _r_ = 0.3 (review outcome, not meta-analysis). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2430,7 +2430,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: [‘Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words’](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90017-5), Markman and Wachtel 1988; two-alternative forced choice task, Study 1: n=20. [Citations=1524 (GS, February 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Lewis et al. 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002772030010X) [meta-analysis, n=2505, citations=35 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Lewis et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104191) [meta-analysis, n=2505, citations=35 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: _g_=1.688 [0.655, 2.720]. * Replication effect size: Lewis et al.: _d_=1.27 [0.99, 1.55]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2439,7 +2439,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: [‘Monolingual and bilingual children’s use of the mutual exclusivity constraint’](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-child-language/article/monolingual-and-bilingual-childrens-use-of-the-mutual-exclusivity-constraint/75534246BDD513B6C44FB47A6D8F30BD), Davidson et al. 1997; two-alternative forced choice task, n=96. [Citations=130 (GS, February 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Lewis et al. 2020](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002772030010X) [meta-analysis, n=2505, citations=35 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Lewis et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104191) [meta-analysis, n=2505, citations=35 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA (not enough information; mean difference in proportion=0.065). * Replication effect size: Lewis et al.: _β_=0.61. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2589,7 +2589,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Temporal action-inaction effect.** The proposed phenomenon that people associate or experience stronger regret with action compared to inaction in the short-term, but stronger regret with inaction compared to action in the long-term. ​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[The temporal pattern to the experience of regret](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-05382-001)’, Gilovich and Medvec 1994; hypothetical scenario experiments and real-life experience studies, Study 1: n =60, Study 2: n=77, Study 3: n= 80, Study 4: n=34, Study 5: n=32. [citations=564(GS, June 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[The temporal pattern to the experience of regret](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.357)’, Gilovich and Medvec 1994; hypothetical scenario experiments and real-life experience studies, Study 1: n =60, Study 2: n=77, Study 3: n= 80, Study 4: n=34, Study 5: n=32. [citations=564(GS, June 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Bonnefon and Zhang 2008](https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1386) [n=957, citations = 23 (GS, April 2023)]. [Feldman et al. 1999](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597899928339) [n1=157, n2=622, citations = 97 (GS, April 2023)]. [Towers et al. 2016](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01941/full) [n=500, citations = 31 (GS, April 2023)]. [Yeung and Feldman 2022](https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/8/1/37122/190272/Revisiting-the-Temporal-Pattern-of-Regret-in) [n=988, citations = 0 (GS, April 2023)]. [Zeelenberg et al. 1998](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.314) [n1=165, n2=75, n3=100, n4=150, citations = 455(GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect sizes: Study 1: _V_ = 0.50, Study 3: _V_ = 0.28 to _V_ = 0.53, Study 4: _V_ = 0.24 to _V_ = 0.53, Study 5: _V_ = 0.06 to _V_ = 0.56​ (reported in Yeung and Feldman 2022). * Replication effect sizes: Bonnefon and Zhang: The intensity of recent regrets is predicted by the consequences of the behaviour, and especially so for actions. The intensity of distant regrets is predicted by the consequences of the behaviour and by its justification, the effect of justification being stronger for actions than for inactions; failed to find support for temporal pattern. Feldman et al.: Participants reported more inaction than action regrets, and, contrary to prior research findings, regrets produced by actions and inactions were equally intense; failed to find support for temporal pattern. Towers et al.: Although regrets of inaction were more frequent than regrets of action, regrets relating to actions were slightly more intense; failed to find support for temporal pattern. Yeung and Feldman: Study 1: _V_ = 0.25, Study 3: _V_ = 0.15 to _V_ = 0.23, Study 4: _V_ = 0.10 to _V_ = 0.24, Study 5: _V_ = 0.04 to _V_ = 0.05. Zeelenberg et al.: found support for temporal pattern of regret with real-life experience studies; when prior outcomes were positive or absent, people attributed more regret to action than to inaction; however, following negative prior outcomes, more regret was attributed to inaction, a finding that the authors label the _inaction effect_. @@ -2617,7 +2617,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[A Wrinkle in Time: Asymmetric Valuation of Past and Future Events](https://www.dropbox.com/s/1jjzoapd3mv71uw/Caruso%2C%20Gilbert%2C%20%26%20Wilson%2C%202008%20PsycSci%20Asymmetric%20valuation%20of%20past%20and%20future%20events.pdf?dl=0)’, Caruso et al. 2008; 2x2 between-subject design, Study 1 n=121, Study 4 n=182. [citations=252 (GS, July 2022)]. -* Critiques: ‘[Caruso 2010](https://www.dropbox.com/s/ri90r9vezq00rhj/Caruso%202010%20JEPG%20temporal%20inconsistency%20in%20moral%20judgment.pdf?dl=0)Study 1: n=116. [citations=112 (GS, July 2022)]. [Kvam et al. 2022](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-50273-001) [n=70, citations = 2(GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: ‘[Caruso 2010](https://www.dropbox.com/s/ri90r9vezq00rhj/Caruso%202010%20JEPG%20temporal%20inconsistency%20in%20moral%20judgment.pdf?dl=0)Study 1: n=116. [citations=112 (GS, July 2022)]. [Kvam et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000181) [n=70, citations = 2(GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect sizes: Between-subjects analysis - Study 1 : Monetary Valuation: _d_ = 0.41 [0.04, 0.76]; Difficulty: _d_ = 0.08 [-0.27, 0.44]; Qualification: _d_ = 0.19 [-0.17, 0.55]. Study 4 (DV = Monetary Value): Relevance: _ηp2_ = 0.03 [0.00, 0.10]; Temporal Location: _ηp2_ = 0.05 [0.01, 0.13]; Relevance*Temporal Location: _ηp2_ = 0.02 [0.00, 0.08]; Study 4 (DV = Stress): Relevance: N/A, Temporal Location: N/A; Relevance*Temporal Location: _ηp2_ = 0.02 [0.01, 0.12]. Study 1: Fairness: _d_ = 0.43 [0.06, 0.80]; Negative Emotions: _d_ = 0.37 [0.003, 0.74]; Brand’s Intentions: _d_ = 0.33 [-0.03, 0.70]. * Replication effect sizes: Caruso et al. (within-subject analysis): Study 1: Monetary Valuation: _d_ = 0.03 [-0.24, 0.30]; Difficulty: _d_ = 0.01 [-0.27, 0.26]; Qualification: _d_ = 0.18 [-0.09, 0.45]; Study 4 (DV = Monetary Value): Relevance: _ηp2_ = 0.00 [0.00, 0.02]; Temporal Location: _ηp2_ = 0.00 [0.00, 0.02]; Relevance*Temporal Location: _ηp2_ = 0.00 [0.00, 0.01]; Study 4 (DV = Stress): Relevance: _ηp2_ = 0.01 [0.00, 0.04]; Temporal Location: _ηp2_ = <0.001 [0.00, 0.01]; Relevance*Temporal Location: _ηp2_ = 0.001 [0.00, 0.02]. Caruso (within-subject analysis): Study 1: Fairness: _d_ = 0.13 [-0.06, 0.32]; Negative Emotions: _d_ = 0.01 [-0-19, 0.20]; Brand’s Intentions: _d_ = -0.09 [-0.28, 0.10]. Kvam et al.: Our work provides a direct counterpoint to both the empirical phenomenon and this theoretical explanation for the temporal value asymmetry. First, we show systematic reversals of the temporal value asymmetry where participants sometimes preferred past outcomes. There were multiple instances where participants indicated that they preferred payoffs that could have occurred in the past to ones that could occur in the future in perfectly matched pairs – where the same dollar amount could be received in either the past or future at the same temporal distance (X days ago vs X days from now). Second, these reversals occurred as both the magnitude of and distance to the past / future payoffs were manipulated. Participants favoured past events when payoffs were small and temporal distance was large ($11, 2 years ago / from now), and favoured future events when payoffs were large or temporal distance was small ($10k, 7 days ago / from now). This may explain apparent replication failures related to the temporal value asymmetry (El Halabi et al., 2021) – not because the phenomenon is not real, but because different stimuli can cause it to reverse, and thus on average, fail to appear. Third and finally, a model comparison showed that framing the temporal value asymmetry in terms of hyperbolic (or even the more general hyperboloid) discounting is insufficient to account for the patterns of behaviour we observed. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2797,7 +2797,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Self-interest is overestimated**. How much personal benefits affect policy preferences and behaviours. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The Disparity Between the Actual and Assumed Power of Self-Interest](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-38342-004)**’, **Miller and Ratner 1998; _n_s around 50 for 2- and 4-cell experiments across multiple studies (very underpowered). [citations = 552(GS, April 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The Disparity Between the Actual and Assumed Power of Self-Interest](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.53)**’, **Miller and Ratner 1998; _n_s around 50 for 2- and 4-cell experiments across multiple studies (very underpowered). [citations = 552(GS, April 2023)]. * Critiques: Studies 1 and 4 were run and successfully replicated in [Brick et al. 2021](https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/7/1/23443/117009/Self-interest-Is-Overestimated-Two-Successful-Pre) [two samples, UK and US, n = 800 each, citations = 4(GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: Effect sizes cannot be calculated as no variance was provided, but the effects looked large. * Replication effect size: Brick et al.: Overestimation of the importance of payment for blood donation in Study 1, _d_ = 0.59 [0.51, 0.66], 0.57 [0.49, 0.64]; and of smoking status for smoking policy preferences in Study 4, _d_ = 0.75 [0.59, 0.90], 0.84 [0.73, 0.96]. @@ -2843,7 +2843,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Extinction bursts**. Extinction is an intervention procedure to reduce tantrum behaviours, by removing enforcement (eg. ignoring a child crying), and an extinction burst is a temporary increase in the frequency or intensity of that behavior. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[The elimination of tantrum behavior by extinction procedures](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1960-03143-001)’, Williams 1959; single-case experimental design, specifically a multiple-baseline design across behaviours (case report), n=1. [citation=519(GS, March 2023)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[The elimination of tantrum behavior by extinction procedures](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046688)’, Williams 1959; single-case experimental design, specifically a multiple-baseline design across behaviours (case report), n=1. [citation=519(GS, March 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Arin et. al. 1966](https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1966.9-191) [n=16, citation =778(GS, March 2023)]. [Katz and Lattal 2020](https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.616) [n1=9, n2=20, n3=20, citation=13(GS, March 2023)]. [Lerman and Iwata 199](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16795857/)6 [meta-analysis of 113 sets of extinction data, citation=266(GS, March 2023)]. [Lerman et. al. 1999](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12902050_Effects_of_reinforcement_magnitude_on_spontaneous_recovery) [case report: n=1, citation=49(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA, case report. * Replication effect size: Arin et al.: Pigeons exhibited aggression towards nearby pigeons or models after being conditioned to peck a response key. This aggression was caused by the transition from food reinforcement to extinction. Various factors influenced the duration and frequency of attack. Katz and Lattal: Response increases relative to baseline during the first 20 min of a 324.75-min extinction session (Experiment 1) or during the first 30-min extinction session (Experiments 2 and 3) were rare and unsystematic. The results reinforce earlier meta-analyses concluding that extinction bursts may be a less ubiquitous early effect of extinction than has been suggested. Lerman and Iwata: Reported an initial increase in the frequency of the target response in 24% of the cases when extinction was implemented. Lerman et al.: Pattern of behaviour is consistent with what has been observed in studies of extinction bursts, where an initial increase in the targeted behaviour is often observed following the introduction of an extinction procedure. @@ -2916,7 +2916,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Single-exposure musical conditioning**. An important study, which employed classical conditioning theory, proposed that a person's preference for a product can be influenced by the type of music they hear while being exposed to it. A follow-up experiment differentiated between scenarios to see whether classical conditioning or information processing might be a better explanation for product preference. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[The Effects of Music in Advertising on Choice Behavior: A Classical Conditioning Approach](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1251163)’, Gorn 1982; Experiment 1, n = 195, Experiment 2 = 122. [citations = 1592 (GS, January 2023)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[The Effects of Music in Advertising on Choice Behavior: A Classical Conditioning Approach](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12574-6)’, Gorn 1982; Experiment 1, n = 195, Experiment 2 = 122. [citations = 1592 (GS, January 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Vermeulen and Beukeboom 2015](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284217240_Effects_of_Music_in_Advertising_Three_Experiments_Replicating_Single-Exposure_Musical_Conditioning_of_Consumer_Choice_Gorn_1982_in_an_Individual_Setting) [Experiment 1: n = 182, Experiment 2 = 224, Experiment 3: n = 127, citations = 42 (GS, January 2023)]. Reported here without considering participants that were excluded due to deviant musical taste. * Original Effect Size: Considering participants that were excluded due to deviant musical taste, the log OR was 2.67 from Gorn’s original analysis. * Replication Effect Size: Vermeulen and Beukeboom: Both experiment results reported are based on the exclusion of participants due to their deviant musical taste. For experiment 1, a chi-square test showed a significant effect of music on choice (χ2(N = 132; 1) = 4.93, _p_ = .026, 𝜙 = .19, log OR = .79 [.09, 1.48]. In the same line as the effect for the full sample, the effect is reliably smaller than the 𝜙 = .49, log OR = 2.67 from Gorn’s original paper. Concerning experiment 2, a significant effect of music on choice was found (χ2 (1) = 4.57, _p_ = .033, 𝜙 = .17, log OR = .70 [.06, 1.35]. However, the obtained ES was also reliably smaller than the ES stated by Gorn (log OR D 2.67). @@ -3033,7 +3033,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Last place aversion**. A phenomenon where individuals are averse to being in last place and choose gambles with the potential to move them out of last place that they reject when randomly placed in other parts of the distribution. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Last-Place Aversion”: Evidence and Redistributive Implications](https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/129/1/105/1900157)’, Kuziemko et. al. 2014; laboratory experiment, N=84. [citations=358(GS, March 2023)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Last-Place Aversion”: Evidence and Redistributive Implications](https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201970054)’, Kuziemko et. al. 2014; laboratory experiment, N=84. [citations=358(GS, March 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Bull 2020](https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3619) [Study 1: n=1144, Study 2-4: n=1203, citations= 30 (GS, March 2023)] * Original effect size: Paper does not provide enough information to convert to effect size. Lottery experiment (Appendix Table 2): Relevant coefficient: "Last or fifth place", Coefficient value: 0.448, P-value: < 0.01. * Replication effect size: Bull: Study 1: Observational analysis of customers queuing at a grocery store, where the author recorded the queue positions, wait times, and switching and abandonment behaviours of 1,144 customers. The results showed that being last in line doubled the probability of switching queues and quadrupled the chances of leaving the line altogether. The last-place indicator has a coefficient of 1.255 with a p-value < 0.05. This suggests that, holding all else constant, customers were 3.5 times more likely to switch queues when they were in the last place compared to having a single person waiting in line behind them. Studies 2-4: All were online experiments participants waited in a virtual queue for a chance to win a gift card. Show that being in last place increased 1)reduced wait satisfaction, increased abandonment rates 2) increased perceived value of the service, reduced 3) queue transparency moderated effects. @@ -3043,7 +3043,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated. * Original paper: ‘[The “IKEA Effect”: When Labor Leads to Love](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740811000829)’, Norton et al. 2012; four between-subject experiments, N1a=52, N1b= 106, N2=118, N=39. [citations=1,358(GS, February 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Mochon et al. 2012](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811612000584) [four experiments N1=79, N2=135, N3a=75, N3b=41, citations=262(GS, February 2023)].[ Sarstedt et al. 2016](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marko-Sarstedt/publication/310491448_The_IKEA_Effect_A_Conceptual_Replication/links/58fe16c94585159c2b2bcaf8/The-IKEA-Effect-A-Conceptual-Replication.pdf) conceptual replication [N=103, citations=26(GS, February 2023)].​ +* Critiques: [Mochon et al. 2012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.05.001) [four experiments N1=79, N2=135, N3a=75, N3b=41, citations=262(GS, February 2023)].[ Sarstedt et al. 2016](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marko-Sarstedt/publication/310491448_The_IKEA_Effect_A_Conceptual_Replication/links/58fe16c94585159c2b2bcaf8/The-IKEA-Effect-A-Conceptual-Replication.pdf) conceptual replication [N=103, citations=26(GS, February 2023)].​ * Original effect size: Experiment 1a: builders bid significantly more for their boxes (M=$0.78, SD=0.63) than non-builders (M=$0.48, SD=0.40), _d=_ 0.59 (calculated from reported _t_ statistic, _t_(50)=2.12, _p_<.05); Experiment 1b: builders' valuation of their origami (M=$0.23, SD= 0.25) was nearly five times higher than what nonbuilders were willing to pay for these creations M=$0.05, SD= 0.07), _ηp2_ = 0.096 / _d=_ 0.32 (calculated from reported _F_ statistic, _F_(2, 100)=5.34, _p_<.01 and converted to _d_ using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)); Experiment 2 –bids overall were highest in the build condition than in the unbuild and prebuilt conditions, _ηp2_=0.126 / _d=_ 0.38 (calculated from _F_(2, 106)=7.68, _p_<.01 and converted to _d_ using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)); Experiment 3 – builders bid significantly more for their boxes (M= $1.46, SD= 1.46) than incomplete builders (M= $0.59, SD=0.70), _d_ =0.75 (calculated from reported _t_ statistic, _t_(37)=2.35, _p_<.05). * Replication effect size: Mochon et al.: Study 1 – builders were willing to pay significantly more for their cars (M=$1.20, SD=1.35) than non-builders (M=$0.57, SD=.76), _d=_ 0.56 (calculated from reported _t_ statistic, t(73)=2.44, p<.05) [replicated]; Study 2 – builders (M = $0.72, SD = .45) were willing to pay significantly more than non-builders (M=$0.46, SD=.50) in no-affirmation condition, _d_ =0.54 (calculated from reported _t_ statistic, _t_(52)=1.99, _p_=.05) [replicated]. Sarstedt et al.: Participants in the experimental group (assembly group) offered significantly more money for the loom bands than the control participants, mean difference = 1.36, _p <_ 0.01, _d_ =1.68 (calculated from the M, SD and n data given in Table 5 in the Supplementary material) [replicated]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3052,7 +3052,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/261737)’, Kahneman et al. 1990; experimental design, Experiment 1: n=42, Experiment 2: n=38, Experiment 3: n=26, Experiment 4: n=74 [citations=6392 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Carmon and Ariely 2000](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/27/3/360/1796841?login=true) [study 1: n=91, study 2: n=472, study 3: n=75, study 4: n=250, citations=776 (GS, March 2023)]. [Shogren et al. 1994](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2117981.pdf) [n=142, citations=776 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Carmon and Ariely 2000](https://doi.org/10.17780/ksujes.1224587) [study 1: n=91, study 2: n=472, study 3: n=75, study 4: n=250, citations=776 (GS, March 2023)]. [Shogren et al. 1994](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2117981.pdf) [n=142, citations=776 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: 5 (selling price divided by buying price). * Replication effect size: Carmon and Ariely: study 1: _d_= 0.03 (calculated from converting Pearson’s _r_ to Cohen’s _d_ through[ this calculator](https://www.escal.site/)); study 2: NA; study 3: NA, study 4: NA. Shogren et al.: 1.05 over trial 5 (selling price divided by buying price); _d_=-0.069 (calculated from M and SD reported in Table 2) . {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3064,8 +3064,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Choice overload**. The idea that giving people too many choices can lead to certain undesirable consequences such as reduced purchasing intentions. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed (duelling meta-analyses, mix of successful and failed replications). -* Original study: ‘[When choice is demotivating](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-16701-012)’, Iyengar and Lepper, 2000; field experiment, 3 experiments, Study 1: n=502, Study 2: n=197, Study 3: 134. [citations = 2460(GS, April 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Chernev et al. 2010](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/37/3/426/1828761) [commentary, n=NA, citations=98 (GS, April 2023)]. [Chernev et al. 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740814000916) [meta-analysis of 99 observations, N = 7202, citations=717 (GS, April 2023)]. [Scheibehenne 2008](https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/handle/18452/16392) [three replications in the field and in the lab with a total of n= 850 participants and six laboratory experiments with n=595, citations=50 (GS, April 2023)]. Greifeneder 2008 [unpublished manuscript (link not available), n=NA, citations=4 (GS, April 2023)]. [Scheibehenne et al. 2010 ](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/37/3/409/1827647)[meta-analysis of 63 conditions from 50 published and unpublished experiments, N = 5,036, citations=1241 (GS, April 2023)]. [Simonsohn et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614553988) [n=NA, citations=681 (GS, April 2023)]. +* Original study: ‘[When choice is demotivating](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995)’, Iyengar and Lepper, 2000; field experiment, 3 experiments, Study 1: n=502, Study 2: n=197, Study 3: 134. [citations = 2460(GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Chernev et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.58052/neon0dz5s) [commentary, n=NA, citations=98 (GS, April 2023)]. [Chernev et al. 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740814000916) [meta-analysis of 99 observations, N = 7202, citations=717 (GS, April 2023)]. [Scheibehenne 2008](https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/handle/18452/16392) [three replications in the field and in the lab with a total of n= 850 participants and six laboratory experiments with n=595, citations=50 (GS, April 2023)]. Greifeneder 2008 [unpublished manuscript (link not available), n=NA, citations=4 (GS, April 2023)]. [Scheibehenne et al. 2010 ](https://doi.org/10.58052/neon0e00a)[meta-analysis of 63 conditions from 50 published and unpublished experiments, N = 5,036, citations=1241 (GS, April 2023)]. [Simonsohn et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614553988) [n=NA, citations=681 (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: _d_=0.77 (study1) and _d_=0.29 (study2), and _d_=0.88 (study3) (as calculated from the χ2 values in the text with [this](https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/calculator/) online calculator). * Replication effect sizes: Scheibehenne: failed to directly replicate Iyengar and Lepper (2000) jam study. Greifeneder: a lab experiment with chocolates and also failed to conceptually replicate. Scheibehenne et al. 2010: “We found a mean effect size of virtually zero” (_d_=.02). Chernev et al. 2010: That’s because many of the studies were designed to show instances when there is no effect. You need to split the data into “choice is good” vs. “choice is bad.” Simonsohn et al.: We agree with Chernev et al.: When we split it up, we found that the choice is bad studies (choice overload) lack collective evidential value (uniform _p_-curve). Chernev et al.: <ignoring Simonsohn et al. 2014> Choice overload is a reliable effect under certain conditions (moderators). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3073,7 +3073,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Mate guarding**, Women use conspicuous luxurious goods to deter female rivals by signalling to other women they have a devoted partner. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: reversed -* Original paper: ‘[Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women's Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/40/5/834/2907491?login=true)’, Wang & Griskevicius 2014; 5 experimental studies, Study 1: N=69, Study 2: N=137, Study 3: N=115, Study 4: N=75, Study 5: N=175. [citation=450 (GS, January 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women's Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.09.008)’, Wang & Griskevicius 2014; 5 experimental studies, Study 1: N=69, Study 2: N=137, Study 3: N=115, Study 4: N=75, Study 5: N=175. [citation=450 (GS, January 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Tunka & Yanar 2020](https://lucris.lub.lu.se/ws/portalfiles/portal/97968923/Tunca_Yanar2020_authors_version.pdf) [conceptual Study 1, N= 250, and direct replications Study 2, N=255, of study 1 of Wang & Griskevicius, citations=2 (GS, January 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_=0.24. * Replication effect size: Tunka & Yanar: Study 1: did not replicate the original findings that women with luxurious goods are perceived by other women as having devoted partners (_d_ =0.13); Study 2: a reversal is observed, such that women with non-designer possessions were perceived to have a more devoted partner than women with designer possessions (_d_=-0.27). @@ -3172,7 +3172,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Product size and status**. People who are low in power choose supersized foods and drinks to signal status. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated. -* Original paper: ‘[Super size me: product size as a signal of status](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/38/6/1047/1790951)’, Dubois et al. 2012; 6 experimental studies with n’s = Study 1: n = 183, Study 2: n = 142, Study 3: n = 89, Study 4: n = 269, Study 5: n = 134, Study 6: n = 104. [citation=384(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Super size me: product size as a signal of status](https://doi.org/10.21518/ms2023-294)’, Dubois et al. 2012; 6 experimental studies with n’s = Study 1: n = 183, Study 2: n = 142, Study 3: n = 89, Study 4: n = 269, Study 5: n = 134, Study 6: n = 104. [citation=384(GS, November 2022)]​. * Critique: [Tunca et al 2022](https://open.lnu.se/index.php/metapsychology/article/view/2538) [direct replication of study 1 of Dubois et al. 2012; n=415, citations=0(GS, November 2012)]. * Original effect size: Study 1: small vs. large product size: _d_=1.49 [1.09, 1.89]; medium vs. large product size: _d_=0.89 [0.52, 1.26]; small vs. medium product size: _d_=0.62 [0.26, 0.98]. * Replication effect size: Tunca et al.: small vs. large product size: _d_ = 0.09 [-0.15, 0.33]; medium vs. large product size: _d_ = 0.11 [-0.13, 0.34]; small vs. medium: _d_=-0.01 [-0.25, 0.23]. @@ -3190,8 +3190,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Left digit bias**. The leftmost digit of a number disproportionately influences decision making. Consumers judge the difference between $4.00 and $2.99 to be larger than that between $4.01 and $3.00, even though the numeric differences are identical; it is this change in the left digit, rather than the one cent drop, that affects the magnitude perception. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated. -* Original paper: ‘[Penny Wise and Pound Foolish: The Left-Digit Effect in Price Cognition](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/32/1/54/1796360)’, Thomas and Morwitz 2005; five experiments with various designs, Study 1a: n= 52, Study 1b: n=63, Study 2: n = 154, Study 3: n = 53, Study 4: n= 27. [citations=474(GS, February 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Bhattacharya et al. 2012](https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1364) [n≈100 million stock transactions, citations=109(GS, February 2023)]. [Lacetera et al. 2012](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.102.5.2206) [n=22 million wholesale used-car transactions, citations=386(GS, February 2023)].​[ ](https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1364) [Manning and Sprott 2009](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/36/2/328/1942926) [Study 1: n=442, Study 2a: n=409, Study 2b: n = 329, citations=149(GS, February 2023)].[ Sokolova et al. 2020](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.102.5.2206) [Study 1: n=145, Study 2: n=120, Study 3: n=99, Study 4: n=150, Study 5: n=201, Study 6: n=15,236 choices across 3 product categories, citations=30(GS, February 2023)].​ +* Original paper: ‘[Penny Wise and Pound Foolish: The Left-Digit Effect in Price Cognition](https://doi.org/10.3390/s23094221)’, Thomas and Morwitz 2005; five experiments with various designs, Study 1a: n= 52, Study 1b: n=63, Study 2: n = 154, Study 3: n = 53, Study 4: n= 27. [citations=474(GS, February 2023)]​. +* Critiques: [Bhattacharya et al. 2012](https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1364) [n≈100 million stock transactions, citations=109(GS, February 2023)]. [Lacetera et al. 2012](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.102.5.2206) [n=22 million wholesale used-car transactions, citations=386(GS, February 2023)].​[ ](https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1364) [Manning and Sprott 2009](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103613) [Study 1: n=442, Study 2a: n=409, Study 2b: n = 329, citations=149(GS, February 2023)].[ Sokolova et al. 2020](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.102.5.2206) [Study 1: n=145, Study 2: n=120, Study 3: n=99, Study 4: n=150, Study 5: n=201, Study 6: n=15,236 choices across 3 product categories, citations=30(GS, February 2023)].​ * Original effect size: Study 1a – Significant effect of price ending (nine vs zero ending) on price magnitude perception when left digits differed, _η_ ²=.16; Study 1b – Significant left-digit change caused by a nine-ending price effects on the price’s magnitude perception, when the comparison standard is perceived to be close, _η_ ²=.15; Study 2 – For all levels of comparison standard, nine-ending target prices were perceived to have lower magnitude than zero-ending ones, _η_ ²=.15; Study 3 – the significant effects of nine-ending numbers on response times when the distance between the target number and the comparison standard is small, _η_ ²=.08; Study 4 – Significant effect of nine-ending in the target on the perceived quality ratings differences, when the psychological distance was low, _η²_=.41. * Replication effect size: Bhattacharya et al.: Buys outnumber sells at trade prices immediately below a round number, regression coefficients from _b_=0,270 to _b_=1.493, and sells outnumber buys at trade prices immediately above a round number, regression coefficients from _b_=-0,177 to _b_=-0.367; the highest ratio of buys to sells by liquidity demanders occurs at trade prices ending in .99, and the lowest ratio of buys to sells by liquidity demanders occurs at trade prices ending in .01 (replicated). Lacetera et al.: significant discontinuous drops in car value/auction price for car sale at mileage thresholds where left digits change (e.g., 10,000-mile marks) in two regression models (average -$157 and -$173, respectively) (replicated). Manning and Sprott: Study 1 – ES not reported but the significant effects of price endings on the choice of products (replicated); Study 2a - perceived price difference between the two products was affected by the price endings manipulation, β= -.32 (replicated); Study 2b - perceived price differences were affected by the price endings manipulation, β = -.32 (replicated). Sokolova et al.: Study 1 – Left-digit effect size in private label price evaluation is stronger in stimulus-based, _ηp2_ =0.054, than in memory-based evaluations, _ηp2 _=0.001; Study 2 – Left-digit effect size in discount evaluation is stronger in stimulus-based, _ηp2 _ =0.209, than in memory-based evaluations, _ηp2_ =0.057; Study 3 – Left-digit effect size in discount evaluation is stronger in stimulus-based, _ηp2 _ = 0.455, than in memory-based evaluations,_ ηp2 _ =0.296; Study 4 – Left-digit affect response times more in stimulus-based, _ηp2 _ =0.001, than in memory-based evaluations,_ηp2_ =0.00004; left-digit effect size in precise memory-based evaluations similar to stimulus-based, _ηp2_ =0.004; Study 5 – Left-digit effect size in price evaluations is stronger in stimulus-based, _ηp2 _ =0.033, than in memory-based evaluations, _ηp2 _ =0.001; Study 6 – Left-digit bias is stronger among light category users, _b_ =-0.15 to _b_ =-0.55, than in heavy category users, _b_=0.00 to _b_ =-0.40 (replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3376,9 +3376,9 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper:[ ‘Disease state prediction from resting state functional connectivity’, ](https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.22159)Craddock et al. 2009; quasi-experimental design, ncontrols = 20, nclinical = 20. [citations=464(GS, April 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Bhaumik et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.02.018) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 38, Citations=58 (GS, April 2023)]. [Cao et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12106) [ncontrols = 37, nclinical = 39, Citations= 51 (GS, April 2023)].[Guo et al. 2014](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4146162/) [ncontrols = 27, nclinical = 36, Citations= 73 (GS, April 2023)]. [Lord et al. 2012](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041282) [ncontrols = 22, nclinical = 21, Citations=177 (GS, April 2023)].[Ma et al. 2013](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006899312018483)[ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=89 (GS, April 2023)]. [Qin et al. 2015](https://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abstract/2015/08020/Predicting_clinical_responses_in_major_depression.3.aspx) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=38 (GS, April 2023)]. [Ramasubbu et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.07.012) [ncontrols = 19, nclinical = 45, Citations= 51 (GS, April 2023)]. [Sundermann et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-016-1673-8) [ncontrols = 180/60 (whole sample/severe symptoms only), nclinical = 180/60, Citations= 17 (GS, April 2023)]. [Yu et al. 2013](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068250) [ncontrols = 38, nclinical = 19, Citations= 69 (GS, April 2023)]. [Zeng et al. 2012](https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/135/5/1498/306674#89121201) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=753 (GS, April 2023)]. [Zeng et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22278) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=169 (GS, April 2023)] +* Critiques: [Bhaumik et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.02.018) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 38, Citations=58 (GS, April 2023)]. [Cao et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12106) [ncontrols = 37, nclinical = 39, Citations= 51 (GS, April 2023)].[Guo et al. 2014](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4146162/) [ncontrols = 27, nclinical = 36, Citations= 73 (GS, April 2023)]. [Lord et al. 2012](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041282) [ncontrols = 22, nclinical = 21, Citations=177 (GS, April 2023)].[Ma et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.12.002)[ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=89 (GS, April 2023)]. [Qin et al. 2015](https://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abstract/2015/08020/Predicting_clinical_responses_in_major_depression.3.aspx) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=38 (GS, April 2023)]. [Ramasubbu et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.07.012) [ncontrols = 19, nclinical = 45, Citations= 51 (GS, April 2023)]. [Sundermann et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-016-1673-8) [ncontrols = 180/60 (whole sample/severe symptoms only), nclinical = 180/60, Citations= 17 (GS, April 2023)]. [Yu et al. 2013](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068250) [ncontrols = 38, nclinical = 19, Citations= 69 (GS, April 2023)]. [Zeng et al. 2012](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016071027177) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=753 (GS, April 2023)]. [Zeng et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22278) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=169 (GS, April 2023)] * Original effect size: 62.5% - 95% Classification Accuracy (cross-validation; CV); 16.7–83.3% (Hold-out validation). -* Replication effect size: Bhaumik et al.: 76.1% (CV); 77.8%. (Hold-out validation). Lord et al.: 99.3% (CV). Zeng et al. /[ Zeng et al.](https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22278)/ [Ma et al.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006899312018483)/[ Qin et al.](https://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abstract/2015/08020/Predicting_clinical_responses_in_major_depression.3.aspx): 69.8–96.2% (CV). Yu et al.: 80.9% (CV). Guo et al.: 90.5% (CV). Cao et al.: 84.2% (CV). Ramasubbu et al.: 49–66% (CV) – mixed, only significant in group with most severe symptoms. Sundermann et al.: no significant results in main analysis on whole sample (ES not reported); only significant in group with most severe symptoms 40.8 to 65.0% (CV), 54.2-61.7 (hold-out validation). +* Replication effect size: Bhaumik et al.: 76.1% (CV); 77.8%. (Hold-out validation). Lord et al.: 99.3% (CV). Zeng et al. /[ Zeng et al.](https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22278)/ [Ma et al.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.12.002)/[ Qin et al.](https://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abstract/2015/08020/Predicting_clinical_responses_in_major_depression.3.aspx): 69.8–96.2% (CV). Yu et al.: 80.9% (CV). Guo et al.: 90.5% (CV). Cao et al.: 84.2% (CV). Ramasubbu et al.: 49–66% (CV) – mixed, only significant in group with most severe symptoms. Sundermann et al.: no significant results in main analysis on whole sample (ES not reported); only significant in group with most severe symptoms 40.8 to 65.0% (CV), 54.2-61.7 (hold-out validation). {{< /spoiler >}}
@@ -3398,7 +3398,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: NA * Original paper: ’[Psychodiagnostik](https://www.hogrefe.com/us/shop/hermann-rorschach-s-psychodiagnostics-94442.html)’ (Psychodiagnostics), Rorschach 1921; book, n=NA [Citations=536 (GS, April 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Garb 1998](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-07601-000) [book, n=NA, citations=1059 (GS, April 2023)]. [Lilienfeld et al. 2006](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Why-questionable-psychological-tests-remain-popular-Lilienfeld-Wood/fedcdcac7efcc42b25160004c5c07bf4174f51c6) [n=NA, citations=36 (GS, April 2023)]. [Mihura et al. 2013](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-23139-001) [systematically reviewed the validity over 53 meta-analyses examining variables against externally assessed criteria (e.g., observer ratings, psychiatric diagnosis), _k_ = 770, and 42 meta-analyses examining variables against introspectively assessed criteria (e.g., self-report), _k_ = 386, citations=499 (GS, April 2023)]. [Wood et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200003)56:3%3C395::AID-JCLP15%3E3.0.CO;2-O) [review paper, n=NA, citations=180 (GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Garb 1998](https://doi.org/10.1037/10299-000) [book, n=NA, citations=1059 (GS, April 2023)]. [Lilienfeld et al. 2006](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Why-questionable-psychological-tests-remain-popular-Lilienfeld-Wood/fedcdcac7efcc42b25160004c5c07bf4174f51c6) [n=NA, citations=36 (GS, April 2023)]. [Mihura et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029406) [systematically reviewed the validity over 53 meta-analyses examining variables against externally assessed criteria (e.g., observer ratings, psychiatric diagnosis), _k_ = 770, and 42 meta-analyses examining variables against introspectively assessed criteria (e.g., self-report), _k_ = 386, citations=499 (GS, April 2023)]. [Wood et al. 2000](https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200003)56:3%3C395::AID-JCLP15%3E3.0.CO;2-O) [review paper, n=NA, citations=180 (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Garb/Lilienfeld et al.: These indicate that clinicians with access to questionnaire data or life histories of patients use data from the Rorschach test, their predictive accuracy actually decreases, possibly because they place more weight on the Rorschach results which are lower quality than data from other sources. Mihura:the mean validity _r_ = .27 (for externally assessed criteria) as compared to _r_ = .08 (for introspectively assessed criteria, e.g., self-report). Wood et al.: Test has some merit in detecting thinking disorders (although this is thought to be non-projective rather than projective which is meant to be the intention of the test; Dawes 1994) but is not related to other conditions such as depression, anxiety, antisocial personality disorder. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3416,7 +3416,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[Mechanical, behavioural and Intentional understanding of picture stories in autistic children](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-27265-001)’, Baron-Cohen et al. 1986; quasi-experimental design, n = 21 autistic children, 5 Down's syndrome children, 27 neurotypical preschoolers, total n = 53. [citation=1163 (GS, April 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Gernsbacher and Yergeau 2019](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2019-75285-001.html) [Review, n=NA, citations=65 (GS, April 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Gernsbacher and Yergeau 2019](https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000067) [Review, n=NA, citations=65 (GS, April 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_= −1.714. * Replication effect size: Gernsbacher and Yergeau: pooled _d_= −0.039. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3541,7 +3541,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated. * Original paper: ‘[The Incidental Orgasm: The Presence of Clitoral Knowledge and the Absence of Orgasm for Women](https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v42n01_07)’, Wade et al. 2005; correlational study, n=833 [citations=135(GS, May 2023)]​. -* Critiques:[ Garcia et al. 2014](https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article-abstract/11/11/2645/6958368) [n=2,850 single individuals, citations=134(GS, May 2023)]. ​[Mahar et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-020-00237-9) [systematic review, n=NA, citations=74(GS, May 2023)]. +* Critiques:[ Garcia et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.35919/rbsh.v36.1286) [n=2,850 single individuals, citations=134(GS, May 2023)]. ​[Mahar et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-020-00237-9) [systematic review, n=NA, citations=74(GS, May 2023)]. * Original effect size: The orgasm gap was 52 percent: 39 percent of women, compared to 91 percent of men, usually or always experienced orgasm in partnered sex; _d_= -1.26 [-1.44, -1.07] (estimated from the data in Table 6 and using this[ conversion](https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/calculator/)). * Replication effect size: Garcia et al.: Compared with women, men reported a significantly higher mean occurrence rate of orgasm frequency, _η2_ = 0.12. Mahar et al.: ES not reported; six covered studies all showed that males report more frequent orgasm than females. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3580,7 +3580,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Critical period** **hypothesis**. How grammar-learning ability changes with age, finding that it is intact to the crux of adulthood (17.4 years) and then declines steadily. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027718300994)**’, **Hartshorne et al. 2018; cross-sectional and quasi-longitudinal design, n = 669,498 [citations = 313 (GS, February 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007)**’, **Hartshorne et al. 2018; cross-sectional and quasi-longitudinal design, n = 669,498 [citations = 313 (GS, February 2022)]. * Critique: [van der Silk et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12470) [n = 547,250, citations = 1 (GS, February 2022)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: NA. @@ -3630,7 +3630,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Word-blindness’ in school children](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/archneurpsyc/article-abstract/643441)’, Orton 1928; experimental clinic observational, n=15. [citation=535(GS, March 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Lavers 1981](https://www.jstor.org/stable/376900)[anecdotal account ~1-2/year, citations=3(GS, March 2023)]. [Rosen 1955](https://doi.org/10.1080/00797308.1955.11822551) [n=1, citations=61(GS, March 2023)]. Original effect size: NA. +* Critiques: [Lavers 1981](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015492015263)[anecdotal account ~1-2/year, citations=3(GS, March 2023)]. [Rosen 1955](https://doi.org/10.1080/00797308.1955.11822551) [n=1, citations=61(GS, March 2023)]. Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: NA. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3647,7 +3647,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: Various sources but the one of the earliest published studies ‘[The breaking of a habit by suggestion during sleep](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1943-00131-001)’, Leshan 1942; between-subject experimental design, n=40 boys. [Citations=36(GS, March 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Aarons 1976](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-08859-001) review paper [n = 11 studies, citations=120(GS, March 2023)]. [Arzi et al. 2012](https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3193) [n = 69 - 14 exclusions = 55 total, citations=261(GS, March 2023)]. [Simon and Emmons 1955](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1956-04143-001) review paper [n=10 studies, citations=80(GS, March 2023)].[ Wood et al. 1992](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-08859-001) [n = 31, citations=261(GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Aarons 1976](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-08859-001) review paper [n = 11 studies, citations=120(GS, March 2023)]. [Arzi et al. 2012](https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3193) [n = 69 - 14 exclusions = 55 total, citations=261(GS, March 2023)]. [Simon and Emmons 1955](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043733) review paper [n=10 studies, citations=80(GS, March 2023)].[ Wood et al. 1992](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-08859-001) [n = 31, citations=261(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: ES not reported, but 40% of boys broke their fingernail-biting habit after listening to "My fingernails taste terribly bitter” message during 54 nights, as compared to 0% in two control groups. * Replication effect size: Aarons: _ES_ not reported; unclear if sleep-assisted learning works, preliminary results indicate that age, sex, health, wake learning capacity, suggestibility, and motivation to learn are important factors. ​[Arzi et al.](https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3193): sleeping subjects learned novel associations between tones and odours: Odour pleasantness is processed during sleep in a pattern resembling that during wake – Sniff volume during sleep was greater following pleasant odorants than unpleasant odorants (_d=_ 1.39, estimated from the reported _t(27)_ = 3.7, _p_< 0.001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)); Participants learned a novel association and acted on this learning, all during sleep – the sniff volume during sleep was larger after a tone that was previously paired during sleep with a pleasant odour than after a tone that was previously paired during sleep with an unpleasant odour (_d=_ 1.29 , estimated from the _t_(19) = 2.9, _p_< 0.01 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)). Simon and Emmons: ES not reported, but the critical analysis of ten sleep-learning studies concludes that it is highly speculative whether or not the studies reviewed in this paper have presented any acceptable evidence that learning during _sleep _is possible; even when the results is found they cannot be construed as _sleep-learning. _Wood et al.: Homophone test - presentation of items affected the implicit memory scores of waking controls but not sleeping subjects, indicating the absence of implicit learning during sleep (_ηp_ ²= 0.85, estimated from the reported _F_(l, 20) = 118.41. _p_ < .001); Category-instance task - waking controls but not sleeping subjects reporting the paired instance more frequently for presented than non-presented items (_ηp_ ²= 0.77, estimated from the reported _F_(l, 20)= 67.8, _p_ <.001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)); Recognition tests – Waking subjects were significantly more likely to recognize the presented homophones (_ηp_ ²= 0.84, estimated from the reported _F_(1, 22) = 106.46, _p_ < .001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)), and the presented categories of the category-instance pairs (_ηp_ ²= 0.77, estimated from the reported _F_(l, 23) = 70.1, _p_ < .001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3679,7 +3679,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Cigarette graphic warning labels and smoking prevalence in Canada: a critical examination and reformulation of the FDA regulatory impact analysis](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24218057/)’, Huang et al. 2014; quasi-experimental study, n= adult smoking prevalence data from the USA and Canada for 1991–2009. [citations=122(GS, February 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Harris et al. 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629615000508) [n= 31,230 from nationwide registry of all pregnancies in Uruguay during 2007–2013, citations=61(GS, February 2023)].[ Shang et al. 2017](https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/1/98) [n= 21,683 across 18 countries, citations=18(GS, February 2023)]. [Beleche et al. 2018](https://econjwatch.org/articles/are-graphic-warning-labels-stopping-millions-of-smokers-a-comment-on-huang-chaloupka-and-fong) [n=data on smoking rates in Canada and USA for the population 15 years and older in the years 1994 to 2009, citations=2(GS, February 2023)].​ +* Critiques: [Harris et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2015.04.002) [n= 31,230 from nationwide registry of all pregnancies in Uruguay during 2007–2013, citations=61(GS, February 2023)].[ Shang et al. 2017](https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/1/98) [n= 21,683 across 18 countries, citations=18(GS, February 2023)]. [Beleche et al. 2018](https://econjwatch.org/articles/are-graphic-warning-labels-stopping-millions-of-smokers-a-comment-on-huang-chaloupka-and-fong) [n=data on smoking rates in Canada and USA for the population 15 years and older in the years 1994 to 2009, citations=2(GS, February 2023)].​ * Original effect size: estimates of graphic warning labels (GWL) effects are statistically significant in all regression models and range from β=−0.13 to β=−0.22 corresponding to reduced smoking prevalence between 12.1% and 19.6%. * Replication effect size: Harris et al.: estimated effects of graphic image warning in different regression models on probability of quitting smoking during pregnancy significant and range from β=0.028 (non-significant) to β=0.038 [replicated]. Shang et al.: graphic warnings were associated with a 10.0% (OR = 0.89 [0.81, 0.97], p ≤ 0.01) lower cigarette smoking prevalence among adults with less than a secondary education or no formal education [replicated]. Beleche et al.: estimates of graphic warning labels effects in different regression models range from β=−0.03 (non-significant) to β=−0.22 (significant) [partly replicated]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3710,7 +3710,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated. * Original paper: ‘[Sex, age, and equity behavior](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-20861-001)’, Leventhal & Lane 1970; between-subjects experiment, N = 61. [citation=269(GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques:[ Callahan-Levy and Messe 1979](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-06680-001) [Study 1 n=126, Study 2 n = 80, citation=222(GS, October 2022)].​.​[ Jost 1997](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00120.x) [N=132, citation=192(GS, October 2022)]​. [ Hogue and Yoder 2003](https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00113) [N=180, citation=78(GS, October 2022)] [Lane and Messe 1971](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-06680-001) [N=128, citation=174(GS, October 2022)]..[ Major et al. 1984](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-12025-001) [Experiment 1 n=76, Experiment 2 n=80, citation=408(GS, October 2022)]​ +* Critiques:[ Callahan-Levy and Messe 1979](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031684) [Study 1 n=126, Study 2 n = 80, citation=222(GS, October 2022)].​.​[ Jost 1997](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00120.x) [N=132, citation=192(GS, October 2022)]​. [ Hogue and Yoder 2003](https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00113) [N=180, citation=78(GS, October 2022)] [Lane and Messe 1971](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031684) [N=128, citation=174(GS, October 2022)]..[ Major et al. 1984](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1399) [Experiment 1 n=76, Experiment 2 n=80, citation=408(GS, October 2022)]​ * Original effect size: main effects of sex on rewards taking_ ηp2 _= 0.22 / _d_ = 0.53 [_ηp2_ calculated from F statistic values and Table 1 data and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Callahan-Levy and Messe: Study 1 – Target X Sex of Target interaction effects on actual pay _ηp2 _= 0.16 / _d_ = 0.43 [_ηp2_ calculated from F statistic values and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Target X Sex of Target interaction effects on fair pay estimates_ ηp2 _ = 0.16 / _d_ = 0.41 [_ηp2_ calculated from F statistic values and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated); Study 2 – main effect of sex on pay allocation _ηp2 _= 0.18 / _d_ = 0.47 [_ηp2_ calculated from F statistic values and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], main effect of sex on fair pay estimates _ηp2 _= 0.11 / _d_ = 0.35 [_ηp2_ calculated from F statistic values and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated). Jost: _ηp2 _= 0.044 / _d_ = 0.21 [_ηp2_ calculated from F statistic values in Table 1 and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated). Hogue and Yoder: _ηp2_ = 0.165 [reported] / _d_ = 0.87 [calculated from M, SD and (sub)sample size data for two independent samples in control condition] (replicated). Lane and Messe: main effects of sex on self-interest responses _ηp2 _= 0.099 / _d_ = 0.33 [_ηp2_ calculated from F statistic values and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated). Major et al.: ​ Study 1 –_ηp2 _= 0.13 / _d_ = 0.38 [Sex X Social Comparison Condition interaction effects, _ηp2_ calculated from F statistic values and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Study 2 –_ηp2 _= 0.18 / _d_ = 0.47 [main effects of Sex amount of work for the same/fixed amount of money, _ηp2_ calculated from F statistic values and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3718,7 +3718,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Gender effects of political candidates**. Voters evaluate political candidates based on their gender or sex. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Sexism, Racism, and Ageism in Voting Behavior: An Experimental Analysis’, Siegelmann and Siegelmann 1982; experiment, n = 227. [citations = 209 (GS, February 2023)].](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3033922) +* Original paper: ‘[Sexism, Racism, and Ageism in Voting Behavior: An Experimental Analysis’, Siegelmann and Siegelmann 1982; experiment, n = 227. [citations = 209 (GS, February 2023)].](https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18083988) * Critiques: [Schwarz et al. 2022 [meta analysis, n = 774971, citations = 111 (GS, February 2023)].](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/716290) * Original effect size: When holding age and race constant, the study found that voters don't have a significant preference for either men or women. (-0.8 pp for women, SE: 6.6). * Replication effect size: Schwarz et al.: Across 67 studies (the first of which being Siegelmann and Siegelmann), the meta analysis finds that on average, voters have a significant preference for women (+1.8pp for women, SE: 0.4, 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.5pp). @@ -3727,7 +3727,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Race/ethnicity effects of political candidates**. Voters evaluate political candidates based on their race or ethnicity. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[When White Voters Evaluate Black Candidates: The Processing Implications of Candidate Skin Color, Prejudice, and Self-Monitoring](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111542?origin=crossref)’, Terkildsen 1993; experiment, n = 348. [citations = 567 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[When White Voters Evaluate Black Candidates: The Processing Implications of Candidate Skin Color, Prejudice, and Self-Monitoring](https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-022-00279-y)’, Terkildsen 1993; experiment, n = 348. [citations = 567 (GS, February 2023)]. * Critiques: [van Oosten et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-022-00279-y) [meta-analysis, n = 253627, citations = 0 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: Light-skinned black candidates were rated 0.7 points lower on an 11 point scale than white candidates (_p_<0.05). Dark-skinned black candidates were rated 0.6 points lower than white candidates (_p_<0.05). * Replication effect size: van Oosten et al.: Coefficient for Ethnic minority candidate: 0.002 (not significant at the 5% level); Coefficient for Black candidate: 0.007 (not significant at the 5% level); Coefficient for Latinx candidate: -0.002 (not significant at the 5% level); Coefficient for Asian candidate: 0.008 (_p_<0.05). The reference in all analyses are white candidates. In sum, the meta analysis found no support for the hypothesis that voters discriminate against ethnic minority political candidates, and in the case of Asian candidates, even favour them over white candidates. One caveat when comparing this replication to the original is that the replication considers voters of all races, while the original specifically singles out white voters. The meta analysis on the other hand singles out minority voters in a separate analysis and finds that they prefer political candidates of the same race/ethnicity (_b_ = 0.079, _p_<0.05). @@ -3736,8 +3736,8 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **The democratic peace**. Citizens of democratic states are significantly more likely to approve of war against non-democratic states than war against other democracies.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Why Don´t Democracies Fight Each Other? An Experimental Assessment of the ”Political Incentive" Explanation.](https://www.jstor.org/stable/174265)‘, Mintz and Geva 1993; experiment, n = 44/34/39. [citations = 268 (GS, February 2023)] -* Critiques: [Tomz and Weeks 2013](https://www.jstor.org/stable/43654037) [n = 762/1273/1944, citations = 426 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Why Don´t Democracies Fight Each Other? An Experimental Assessment of the ”Political Incentive" Explanation.](https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms/174265)‘, Mintz and Geva 1993; experiment, n = 44/34/39. [citations = 268 (GS, February 2023)] +* Critiques: [Tomz and Weeks 2013](https://doi.org/10.21900/j.jams.v5.1566) [n = 762/1273/1944, citations = 426 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: First experiment: -1.73 approval (on a scale from 0 to 10) to use force against democracies (_p_<0.05), compared to autocracies; Second experiment: -3.06 approval (_p_<0.01); Third experiment: -2.68 approval (_p_<0.01). * Replication effect size: Tomz and Weeks: First experiment: -13.3% approval to use force against democracies [-19.6, -6.9], compared to autocracies; Second experiment: -11.4% approval [-17, -5.9]; Third experiment: -11.5% approval [14.7, 5.3]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3745,7 +3745,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Moral foundations across the political spectrum**. Moral Foundations Theory is a framework that claims that humans have five innate and universal moral values: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. While extremely influential, it has failed to replicate, with studies critiquing its factor structure (Harper and Rhodes 2020) and universality (Davis et. al. 2016) .​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: Not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-05192-002).’, Graham et. al. 2009; Web-based survey (n=2,212), web-based survey (n=3,303), web-based survey (n=2,030), text analysis (n=88) [citation=4858(GS, March 2023)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141).’, Graham et. al. 2009; Web-based survey (n=2,212), web-based survey (n=3,303), web-based survey (n=2,030), text analysis (n=88) [citation=4858(GS, March 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Curry 2019](https://behavioralscientist.org/whats-wrong-with-moral-foundations-theory-and-how-to-get-moral-psychology-right/) [n=NA, citations=8(GS, May 2023)]. [Davis et al. 2019](https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gsu.edu/dist/b/2237/files/2015/09/The-moral-foundations-hypothesis-does-not-replicate-well-in-black-samples-2057b98.pdf) [n=1183, citations=80(GS, March 2023)]. Harper and Rhodes 2021 [n=750, citations=31(GS, March 2023)]. Original effect size: Study 1 - 𝛽 = 0.16-0.34​. Average 𝛽 = 0.25; Study 2 - 𝛽 = 0.16-0.52; Study 3 - 𝛽 = 0.14 (for the difference in average willingness to violate Harm foundation between liberals and conservatives), 𝛽 = 0.58-0.91 (for the difference in average willingness to violate the three binding foundations between liberals and conservatives), 𝛽 = 0.36 (for the difference in aggregated moral sacredness ratings between individualising and binding foundations), 𝛽 = 0.18 (for the moderation of the above effect by politics), 𝛽 = 0.43 (for the difference in average willingness to violate the foundations between libertarians and conservatives), 𝛽 = 0.09 (for the difference in average willingness to violate the foundations between libertarians and liberals); Study 4 - 𝛽 = 0.56 (for Harm foundation), 𝛽 = 0.65 (for Fairness foundation), 𝛽 = 1.27 (for Ingroup foundation), 𝛽 = 0.81 (for Authority foundation), 𝛽 = 0.99 (for Purity foundation). * Replication effect size: Curry: (1) an ad hoc approach that cherry-picks moral values, (2) failure to include four types of cooperation relevant to morality, and (3) a lack of clear definitions and operationalizations, as well as a flawed questionnaire that measures preferences rather than values and confounds moral relevance with agreement. Americans, and the researchers suggested incorporating more dimensions of oppression and resistance. Davis et al.: White participants: 𝛽 = 0.47, Black participants: 𝛽 = 0.19; Researchers examined the applicability of MFT to Black Americans and found that it did not replicate well in Black samples, suggesting a bias toward White American morality. The six foundations of MFT did not capture the moral concerns of Black. Harper and Rhodes: 𝛽 = 0.14-0.50. They found that only three meaningful clusters emerged in their analysis: traditionalism, compassion, and liberty. They suggested that the MFQ may not be a valid measure of MFT and that the theory may need to be revised, fail to replicate (low effect size). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3771,7 +3771,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Voters elect rather than affect policies.** Elected politicians do not change their policies (measured through roll call votes) in response to changes in the median voters policy preferences. This means that voters merely elect politicians with policies that they support, but that they do not affect these politicians policies afterward. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Do Voters Affect or Elect Policies? Evidence from the U.S. House](https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/119/3/807/1938834?login=false)’, Lee et al. 2004; quasi-experiment, N = 915. [citations = 983 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Do Voters Affect or Elect Policies? Evidence from the U.S. House](https://doi.org/10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc232j1s)’, Lee et al. 2004; quasi-experiment, N = 915. [citations = 983 (GS, February 2023)]. * Critiques: [Button 2017](https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142117721739) [N = 915, citations = 3 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: “Elect” Component: 22.84 (SE: 2.2); “Affect” Component: -1.64 (SE: 2.0). I.e., The “Elect” component is statistically significant from zero, but the “Affect” component is not. * Replication effect size: Button: Replication with same method: Elect: 23.11 (SE: 2.02), Affect: -1.82 (SE:1.47); Replication with local linear regression and triangular kernel: Elect: 20.12 (SE: 1.93), Affect: -1.66 (SE: 1.57); Replication with local linear regression and rectangular kernel: Elect: 18.98 (SE: 2.28), Affect: -1.31 (SE: 1.92); Replication with conventional nonparametric regression discontinuity design: Elect: 19.72 (SE: 4.3), Affect: -1.08 (SE: 3.56); Replication with bias-corrected regression discontinuity design: Elect: 19.33 (SE: 4.29), Affect: -0.97 (SE:3.97). i.e., The original results are replicated in every single model specification. @@ -3820,7 +3820,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Pointing following in nonhuman primates**. Nonhuman primates fail to follow the point of another agent, using the object choice task. ​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Production and comprehension of referential pointing by orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus)](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-12428-001)’, Call and Tomasello 1995; experimental design, n = 2 (same animals in both studies). [citation = 464(GS, June 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Production and comprehension of referential pointing by orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus)](https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.108.4.307)’, Call and Tomasello 1995; experimental design, n = 2 (same animals in both studies). [citation = 464(GS, June 2023)]. * Critiques: [Miklosi & Soproni 2005](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1). [systematic review, 24 studies on different species, citations=468 (GS, June 2023)]. [Clark et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.001) [meta-analysis, n= 470, citations= 21 (GS, June 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Miklosi & Soproni: not reported (they only included some images in their review). Clark et al.: Temporal cue properties: _r_=.30; Ipsilateral pointing cues: _r_=.28. @@ -3955,7 +3955,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Pointing following in felines**. Felines do not follow the pointing of another agent, using the object choice task. ​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper:[ ‘A Comparative Study of the Use of Visual Communicative Signals in Interactions Between Dogs (Canis familiaris) and Humans and Cats (Felis catus) and Humans’,](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-06515-006) Miklosi et al. 2005; experiment, experiment 1: cats alone: n = 7, dogs alone: n = 7, cats living with dogs: n = 7, dogs living with cats: n = 7. [citation=293(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Original paper:[ ‘A Comparative Study of the Use of Visual Communicative Signals in Interactions Between Dogs (Canis familiaris) and Humans and Cats (Felis catus) and Humans’,](https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.179) Miklosi et al. 2005; experiment, experiment 1: cats alone: n = 7, dogs alone: n = 7, cats living with dogs: n = 7, dogs living with cats: n = 7. [citation=293(GS, November 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Mäses and Wascher 2022 [preprint, n = ](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2022/10/08/2022.03.12.484069.full.pdf)10, citations = 0(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: Cats: _W_ = 0.37 [_W_ calculated from Chi square, degrees of freedom and sample size and converted using this [conversion](https://www.datanovia.com/en/lessons/friedman-test-in-r/#effect-size)]. * Replication effect size: Mases and Wascher: ipsilateral pointing: _h_ = 1.287, cross-body pointing: _h_ = 0.823. @@ -3992,7 +3992,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Evidence suggesting that desire-state attribution may govern food sharing in Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius)](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1209926110)’, Ostojic et al. 2013; experiment, n = 7 pairs. [citations = 104 (GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques (successful replications): [Ostojic et al. 2014](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0042#d1e316) [n = 9 pairs, citations = 41 (GS, January 2023)]. [Ostojic et al. 2016](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-47721-001) [n = 8 pairs, [citations = 12 (GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques (successful replications): [Ostojic et al. 2014](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0042#d1e316) [n = 9 pairs, citations = 41 (GS, January 2023)]. [Ostojic et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000043) [n = 8 pairs, [citations = 12 (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: not reported. * Replication effect size: Ostojic et al.: not reported. Ostojic et al.: not reported.​ {{< /spoiler >}} From 7511e46c02d2a157327e61d7403dd527989816db Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lukas Wallrich Date: Fri, 1 May 2026 17:37:17 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Fix doiLanding URL whose DOI was hidden behind a # anchor One psycnet doiLanding URL had a #:~:text= scroll-anchor appended, which my Phase 1 regex didn't strip. Tighten the stop set to include # and resolve the underlying DOI cleanly. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) --- content/reversals/reversals.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/content/reversals/reversals.md b/content/reversals/reversals.md index f091a2f6893..1a7cbe386d7 100644 --- a/content/reversals/reversals.md +++ b/content/reversals/reversals.md @@ -2095,7 +2095,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Cerebral Lateralization Biological Mechanisms, Associations, and Pathology: II. A Hypothesis and a Program for Research](https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1985.04060060019009)’, Greschwind and Galaburda 1985; theory paper meaning no sample size present. [citations = 780 (GS, October 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Becker et al. 1992](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0028393292900024#:~:text=https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/0028%2D3932(92)90002%2D4) [n = 1,612, citations = 43 (GS, October 2022)]. [Lalumière et al. 2001](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.126.4.575#:~:text=https%3A//doi.org/10.1037/0033%2D2909.126.4.575) [n = 23,410 (meta-analysis), citations = 301 (GS, October 2022)]. [Lindesay 1987](https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(87)90100-x)90100%2DX) [n = 194, citations = 101 (GS, October 2022)].[Lippa and Blanchard 2007](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9159-7) [n = 159,779, citations = 159 (GS, October 2022)]. [Marchant-Haycox et al. 1991](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-9452(13)80268-7)80268%2D7) [n = 774, citations = 53 (GS, October 2022)]. [Rosenstein and Bigler 1987](https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1987.60.3.704) [n = 89, citations = 31 (GS, October 2022)]. [Satz et al. 1991](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-9452(13)80134-7)80134%2D7) [n = 993, citations = 62 (GS, October 2022)]. [Tran et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1346-9) [n = 3,870, citations = 7 (GS, October 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Becker et al. 1992](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0028393292900024#:~:text=https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/0028%2D3932(92)90002%2D4) [n = 1,612, citations = 43 (GS, October 2022)]. [Lalumière et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.575) [n = 23,410 (meta-analysis), citations = 301 (GS, October 2022)]. [Lindesay 1987](https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(87)90100-x)90100%2DX) [n = 194, citations = 101 (GS, October 2022)].[Lippa and Blanchard 2007](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9159-7) [n = 159,779, citations = 159 (GS, October 2022)]. [Marchant-Haycox et al. 1991](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-9452(13)80268-7)80268%2D7) [n = 774, citations = 53 (GS, October 2022)]. [Rosenstein and Bigler 1987](https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1987.60.3.704) [n = 89, citations = 31 (GS, October 2022)]. [Satz et al. 1991](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-9452(13)80134-7)80134%2D7) [n = 993, citations = 62 (GS, October 2022)]. [Tran et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1346-9) [n = 3,870, citations = 7 (GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: NA (based on anecdotal correspondence between Greschwind and Galaburda and the homosexual community). * Replication effect size: Lindesay: Significantly more homosexual men were left-handed than heterosexual men (_χ2_(1) = 6.2, _p_ = .013) (replicated). Rosenstein and Bigler: _r_ = .06 (not replicated). Marchant-Haycox et al.: No ES available, but non-significant relationship found between handedness and homosexuality (_χ2_(1) = 2.6, _p_ = .107) (not replicated). Satz et al.: No ES available, but non-significant effect found between handedness and sexuality (not replicated). Becker et al.: _φ _= .08 to .11 (replicated). Lalumière et al.: OR = 1.39 (replicated). Lippa and Blanchard: _φ(Males)_ = .02, _φ(Females)_ = .05. Tran et al.: OR(Men) = 0.98 (_p_ > .050), OR(Women) = 1.96 (_p _< .010). Homosexual women found to be more likely to be “mixed handed” (ambidextrous) (not replicated). {{< /spoiler >}}