diff --git a/.github/workflows/link-check.yaml b/.github/workflows/link-check.yaml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..381a4ba9f54 --- /dev/null +++ b/.github/workflows/link-check.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,171 @@ +name: Link Checker + +# ======================= +# Website Link Validation +# ======================= +# Purpose: Downloads the latest built site and checks all links (internal + external) +# Triggers: Weekly on Mondays at 01:30 UTC or manual dispatch +# Reports: Creates a GitHub issue with label "link-check" when broken links are found +# Config: See .lychee.toml for exclusion patterns and request settings + +on: + schedule: + # Runs at 01:30 UTC every Monday + - cron: '30 1 * * 1' + workflow_dispatch: + +permissions: + contents: read + issues: write + actions: read + +concurrency: + group: link-check-${{ github.ref }} + cancel-in-progress: true + +jobs: + link-check: + name: Check Links + runs-on: ubuntu-latest + steps: + - name: Checkout repository + uses: actions/checkout@v4 + + - name: Download latest build artifact + uses: dawidd6/action-download-artifact@07ab29fd4a977ae4d2b275087cf67563dfdf0295 + with: + workflow: deploy.yaml + name: forrt-website-.* + name_is_regexp: true + path: /tmp/site + github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} + search_artifacts: true + if_no_artifact_found: fail + + - name: Run lychee link checker + id: lychee + uses: lycheeverse/lychee-action@v2 + with: + args: "--config .lychee.toml --base-url https://forrt.org /tmp/site" + output: /tmp/lychee/out.md + fail: false + env: + GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} + + - name: Process lychee output + if: steps.lychee.outputs.exit_code != 0 + run: | + python3 << 'PYEOF' + import re + + with open("/tmp/lychee/out.md") as f: + content = f.read() + + lines = content.split("\n") + + # Keep the summary table (everything before "## Errors per input") + summary_lines = [] + error_lines = [] + in_errors = False + for line in lines: + if line.startswith("## Errors per input"): + in_errors = True + continue + if in_errors: + error_lines.append(line) + else: + summary_lines.append(line) + + # Parse errors, tracking which pages each URL appears on + # url -> {"status": str, "pages": [str]} + url_info = {} + main_errors = {} # non-403 + forbidden_errors = {} # 403 + current_page = "" + + for line in error_lines: + # Track section headers (### Errors in /tmp/site/.../index.html) + page_match = re.match(r"^### Errors in /tmp/site/[^/]+/(.+)", line) + if page_match: + # Convert file path to URL path + path = page_match.group(1) + path = re.sub(r"/index\.html$", "/", path) + current_page = f"/{path}" + continue + + m = re.match(r"^\* \[(\w+)\] <([^>]+)>", line) + if not m: + continue + status, url = m.group(1), m.group(2) + + target = forbidden_errors if status == "403" else main_errors + if url not in target: + target[url] = {"status": status, "pages": []} + if current_page and current_page not in target[url]["pages"]: + target[url]["pages"].append(current_page) + + # Build output + output = "\n".join(summary_lines).rstrip() + output += "\n\n## Broken links\n\n" + + if main_errors: + for url, info in main_errors.items(): + pages = info["pages"] + page_str = f" (in {pages[0]})" if len(pages) == 1 else f" (in {len(pages)} pages)" + output += f"* [{info['status']}] <{url}>{page_str}\n" + else: + output += "No broken links found (excluding 403s).\n" + + if forbidden_errors: + output += f"\n
\n403 Forbidden ({len(forbidden_errors)} URLs — likely bot-blocking, not broken)\n\n" + output += "These sites block automated requests. The links may still be valid.\n" + output += "Showing first 100 — see workflow logs for full list.\n\n" + for i, (url, info) in enumerate(forbidden_errors.items()): + if i >= 100: + output += f"\n*... and {len(forbidden_errors) - 100} more*" + break + output += f"* <{url}>\n" + output += "\n
\n" + + with open("/tmp/lychee/out.md", "w") as f: + f.write(output) + PYEOF + + - name: Find publisher URLs that should use doi.org + id: doi-check + run: | + # Search source markdown files (excluding glossary, which is auto-generated) + # for direct publisher URLs that should use https://doi.org/ instead. + PUBLISHERS='(journals\.sagepub|tandfonline|psycnet\.apa|onlinelibrary\.wiley|link\.springer|academic\.oup|sciencedirect|jstor\.org|journals\.lww|royalsocietypublishing)\.(com|org)' + # Extract just file:line and the URL itself (not full line content) + MATCHES=$(grep -rno --include='*.md' -E \ + "https?://[^ )\"']*(${PUBLISHERS})/[^ )\"']*(doi/|article|fulltext)[^ )\"']*" \ + content/ --exclude-dir=content/glossary | sort -u || true) + if [ -n "$MATCHES" ]; then + COUNT=$(echo "$MATCHES" | wc -l) + { + echo "" + echo "## Publisher URLs that should use doi.org ($COUNT found)" + echo "" + echo "The following links point directly to publisher websites instead of using" + echo "\`https://doi.org/{DOI}\` format. Publishers often block automated requests," + echo "making these URLs uncheckable. Please replace them with doi.org links." + echo "If the DOI is not visible in the URL, look it up on https://search.crossref.org" + echo "" + echo '```' + echo "$MATCHES" + echo '```' + } >> /tmp/lychee/out.md + echo "found=true" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT" + else + echo "found=false" >> "$GITHUB_OUTPUT" + fi + + - name: Create issue from lychee output + if: steps.lychee.outputs.exit_code != 0 || steps.doi-check.outputs.found == 'true' + uses: peter-evans/create-issue-from-file@v5 + with: + title: "Link Checker Report" + content-filepath: /tmp/lychee/out.md + labels: link-check + token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} diff --git a/.lychee.toml b/.lychee.toml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..c9ee28b3fe8 --- /dev/null +++ b/.lychee.toml @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +# Lychee link checker configuration +# https://lychee.cli.rs/usage/config/ +# +# Used by the link-check GitHub Actions workflow. +# Checks all links (internal + external) in the built HTML files. + +# --------------------- +# Exclusions +# --------------------- +# Patterns to exclude from link checking (common false positives) +exclude = [ + # Internal links — already verified as local files in the build artifact + "forrt\\.org", + + # Placeholder / example domains + "example\\.com", + "localhost", + "127\\.0\\.0\\.1", + + # Social media sites that block automated requests + "linkedin\\.com", + "twitter\\.com", + "x\\.com", + + # Web Archive — often slow or flaky + "web\\.archive\\.org", + + # GitHub edit links with templated paths + "github\\.com/.*/edit/", +] + +# --------------------- +# Request settings +# --------------------- +# Accept 2xx/3xx and 429 (rate limiting) +# Note: 403 is NOT accepted — those are separated into a collapsed section +# by the workflow's post-processing step, since many publishers block bots. +accept = ["100..=399", "429"] + +# Timeout per request in seconds +timeout = 30 + +# Maximum number of retries per link +max_retries = 3 + +# Maximum concurrent requests +max_concurrency = 16 + +# Do not show progress bar (cleaner CI output) +no_progress = true diff --git a/content/authors/berit-t-barthelmes-msc/_index.md b/content/authors/berit-t-barthelmes-msc/_index.md index 478174568f8..b84de6d9bfb 100644 --- a/content/authors/berit-t-barthelmes-msc/_index.md +++ b/content/authors/berit-t-barthelmes-msc/_index.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ name: "Berit T. Barthelmes, M.Sc." # Username (this should match the folder name) authors: -- Name "Berit T. Barthelmes, M.Sc." +- "Berit T. Barthelmes, M.Sc." # Is this the primary user of the site? superuser: false diff --git a/content/clusters/cluster3.md b/content/clusters/cluster3.md index da1fd8c6ff8..fb6cb9a5c86 100644 --- a/content/clusters/cluster3.md +++ b/content/clusters/cluster3.md @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ PsuTeachR's [Data Skills for Reproducible Science](https://psyteachr.github.io/m ***Includes tools such as statcheck.io, GRIM, and SPRITE*** -* Brown, N. J., & Heathers, J. A. (2016). The GRIM test: A simple technique detects numerous anomalies in the reporting of results in psychology. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1948550616673876. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1948550616673876 +* Brown, N. J., & Heathers, J. A. (2016). The GRIM test: A simple technique detects numerous anomalies in the reporting of results in psychology. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1948550616673876. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616673876 * Nuijten, M. B., Van Assen, M. A. L. M., Hartgerink, C. H. J., Epskamp, S., & Wicherts, J. M. (2017). The validity of the tool “statcheck” in discovering statistical reporting inconsistencies. Preprint retrieved from https://psyarxiv.com/tcxaj/. 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 fadd5d8ba88..b1bc3e172f9 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?casa_token=OETt_Sm5VFEAAAAA:-9rK8QScds9e0A1siznusvdtvl0-yC2WpBVWe7ztdGkZ8eVILbyqWMC5WmcsAxHWp6X7X7voPeA)); 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://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. ![Workflow 2](fig10.webp "Workflow 2") diff --git a/content/educators-corner/006-qualitative-OS-practices/index.md b/content/educators-corner/006-qualitative-OS-practices/index.md index 8269587ae7b..42594a9638f 100644 --- a/content/educators-corner/006-qualitative-OS-practices/index.md +++ b/content/educators-corner/006-qualitative-OS-practices/index.md @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ We thus gathered people interested in qualitative open science research in educa ![Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies](Fig1.webp "Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies") -3. **Open Materials.** Thanks to the internet, researchers have websites and repositories where they can upload the tools for others to access. In qualitative research, this might mean interview protocols, memos, coding notebooks, tools (such as Nvivo or R packages), or even the data itself. This provides a sort of audit trail so others can verify the results of the research. There is no all or nothing here; open materials, much like the rest of these open science practices, exist along a spectrum. Not only what researchers share is on a spectrum; researchers can also dictate who may access the open materials. Perhaps it’s the entire public, but it could just be people who want to verify findings (i.e., dissertation committees, participants, reviewers). Below you can see how [Bowman and Keene (2018)](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273) described open science practices as a layered onion with the innermost layer being the most transparent. However, no matter what or to whom materials are shared, researchers must include their plan within their consent procedures and IRB protocols to not violate any ethical boundaries. +3. **Open Materials.** Thanks to the internet, researchers have websites and repositories where they can upload the tools for others to access. In qualitative research, this might mean interview protocols, memos, coding notebooks, tools (such as Nvivo or R packages), or even the data itself. This provides a sort of audit trail so others can verify the results of the research. There is no all or nothing here; open materials, much like the rest of these open science practices, exist along a spectrum. Not only what researchers share is on a spectrum; researchers can also dictate who may access the open materials. Perhaps it’s the entire public, but it could just be people who want to verify findings (i.e., dissertation committees, participants, reviewers). Below you can see how [Bowman and Keene (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273) described open science practices as a layered onion with the innermost layer being the most transparent. However, no matter what or to whom materials are shared, researchers must include their plan within their consent procedures and IRB protocols to not violate any ethical boundaries. ![Conceptual Onion of Open Science Practices](Fig2.webp "Conceptual Onion of Open Science Practices") diff --git a/content/educators-corner/010-Neurodiversity/index.md b/content/educators-corner/010-Neurodiversity/index.md index df13faabe4e..1bf002cd7f9 100644 --- a/content/educators-corner/010-Neurodiversity/index.md +++ b/content/educators-corner/010-Neurodiversity/index.md @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ People with disabilities are more likely to be excluded from the academic workfo Many gatekeepers determine whether an individual is neurodivergent and these processes are driven by individuals who are neurotypical. As a result, referral time for these services vary widely, from 4 weeks to 201 weeks within the UK (Lloyd, 2019) and if a person does not fit the criteria, the individual can be ignored and may not receive the much-needed help that they require. This can lead to poor self-esteem, unemployment (e.g. around 22% in autistic people are in any type of employment; see Figure 2 in [fact sheet](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/disability/articles/outcomesfordisabledpeopleintheuk/2020)). As a result, neurodivergent individuals may blame themselves for the difficulties they encounter, as opposed to the barriers that society has placed on them. -Despite this, people of different neurodivergent conditions or families of the people with the conditions have begun meeting and talking to each other about their experiences and one common shared experience is a history of misinterpretation and mistreatment by the dominant neurotypical cultures and its institutions such as academia. As a result of centuries of oppression of disabled people worldwide and a hyper-normalised environment, in addition to seeing the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus pandemic on disabled students (see this amazing [paper ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-021-10559-3)by Dr Joanna Zawadka), many neurodivergent and disabled staff feel discouraged in an environment that should aim to support them. They do not feel like they belong, their differences are seen as an impairment and their voice does not seem to matter. They do not see themselves represented in psychological science, academia, business, teaching or elsewhere. +Despite this, people of different neurodivergent conditions or families of the people with the conditions have begun meeting and talking to each other about their experiences and one common shared experience is a history of misinterpretation and mistreatment by the dominant neurotypical cultures and its institutions such as academia. As a result of centuries of oppression of disabled people worldwide and a hyper-normalised environment, in addition to seeing the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus pandemic on disabled students (see this amazing [paper ](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10559-3)by Dr Joanna Zawadka), many neurodivergent and disabled staff feel discouraged in an environment that should aim to support them. They do not feel like they belong, their differences are seen as an impairment and their voice does not seem to matter. They do not see themselves represented in psychological science, academia, business, teaching or elsewhere. We are a group of early-career neurotypical and neurodivergent researchers that are a part of the Framework of Open Reproducible Research and Training (FORRT) community, aiming to make academia and the open scholarship community more open to neurodiversity. Everyone, no matter what they identify with, is welcome in this group. We aim to discuss how open scholarship can be intersected with the neurodiversity movement, and emphasise how differences should be highlighted and accepted, whilst supporting the idea of accessibility. Our neurodiversity team is a group that currently consists of individuals that have autism, dyspraxia/DCD, speech-language differences, ADHD, dyslexia, or are neurotypical allies. If you have these or other neurominorities and wish to be part of the team, you are more than welcome to join! 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 7b8b3722b32..0db6c624074 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 @@ -47,9 +47,9 @@ 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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/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://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-37109-001) until they burn out. -Others have written [far more comprehensively](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/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. +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. ![Differences between the UK and US labour situation include differences in pay, job expectations, benefits and industrial relations. The webinar recording provides more information.](labour-situation.webp) diff --git a/content/educators-corner/021-LMU-FORRT-Train-the-Trainer-Program-Press-Release/index.md b/content/educators-corner/021-LMU-FORRT-Train-the-Trainer-Program-Press-Release/index.md index c4cf0436664..21f67054231 100644 --- a/content/educators-corner/021-LMU-FORRT-Train-the-Trainer-Program-Press-Release/index.md +++ b/content/educators-corner/021-LMU-FORRT-Train-the-Trainer-Program-Press-Release/index.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ title: "LMU-FORRT Train-the-Trainer Program Press Release" subtitle: "LMU Open Science Center launches Train-the-Trainer program to advance open research practices in partnership with the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT)" summary: "LMU Open Science Center launches Train-the-Trainer program to advance open research practices in partnership with the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT)" -authors: ['Dr. Sarah von Grebmer zu Wolfsthurn (s.grebmer@lmu.de).'] +authors: ['Dr. Sarah von Grebmer zu Wolfsthurn'] tags: [] categories: [] date: 2025-06-03T15:30:39-03:00 diff --git a/content/educators-corner/022-repro-metrics-forrt-irise/index.md b/content/educators-corner/022-repro-metrics-forrt-irise/index.md index 3f5e2d14f39..e7647450b0a 100644 --- a/content/educators-corner/022-repro-metrics-forrt-irise/index.md +++ b/content/educators-corner/022-repro-metrics-forrt-irise/index.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ title: "Quantifying reproducibility: Lessons from an iRISE-FORRT collaborative project" subtitle: "The iRISE (improving Reproducibility In SciencE) consortium conducted a scoping review to identify reproducibility metrics. FORRT joined the effort. This piece summarises the lessons learned from this collaborative project." summary: "The iRISE (improving Reproducibility In SciencE) consortium conducted a scoping review to identify reproducibility metrics. FORRT joined the effort. This piece summarises the lessons learned from this collaborative project." -authors: ['Rachel Heyard (rachel.heyard@uzh.ch).'] +authors: ['Rachel Heyard'] tags: [] categories: [] date: 2025-07-16T15:30:39-03:00 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 20e9cd26a9e..0252fe73e14 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 @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ In our [new tutorial](https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/6zsx3_v2), we walk you t To test this hypothesis, we suggest the following workflow: -1. We define the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI, see [Lakens 2017](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177)) and implement it as a region of practical equivalence (ROPE, see [Kruschke 2018](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2515245918771304)). Defining a SESOI is not easy and requires a good quantitative understanding of the phenomena. In our example, we define the ROPE in terms of the acoustic differences that lead to a certain accuracy performance in a forced-choice perception task (the so-called just-noticeable-difference). The simplified idea is that if you cannot reliably hear a certain acoustic difference, then the difference should not matter for communication. +1. We define the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI, see [Lakens 2017](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177)) and implement it as a region of practical equivalence (ROPE, see [Kruschke 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918771304)). Defining a SESOI is not easy and requires a good quantitative understanding of the phenomena. In our example, we define the ROPE in terms of the acoustic differences that lead to a certain accuracy performance in a forced-choice perception task (the so-called just-noticeable-difference). The simplified idea is that if you cannot reliably hear a certain acoustic difference, then the difference should not matter for communication. 2. For the difference between contexts, we quantify the proportion of posterior samples inside of the ROPE (i.e. the posteriors are practically equivalent to 0, indicating no meaningful results) relative to the proportion of posteriors outside of the ROPE (i.e. the posteriors represent meaningful differences). We do this for both the posterior distributions before observing the data (i.e., priors only) and after observing the data (i.e., priors combined with the likelihood). diff --git a/content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md b/content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md index 81b4c14e341..c1b4ba47f04 100644 --- a/content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md +++ b/content/lesson-plans/nd-lessons-plans.md @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Each has suitable context: (e.g., entry-level/undergraduate/postgraduate), total 1. [The myth of the normality How neurodiversity dismantles the generalisability crisis - Lesson Plan](../neurodiversity-lessonbank/Lesson_Plans/The_myth_of_the_normality_How_neurodiversity_dismantles_the_generalisability_crisis.pdf) 1. [Neurodiversity Culture and Teaching - text](http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/ed-5971.pdf) Lesson Plan Pdf[Neurodiversity Culture and Teaching - Lesson Plan](../neurodiversity-lessonbank/Lesson_Plans/Neuro_para.pdf) 1. [Avoiding ableist language to diversify OS - text](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/aut.2020.0014)Lesson Plan pdf[Avoiding ableist language to diversify OS](../neurodiversity-lessonbank/Lesson_Plans/Avoiding_ableist%20language_to_diversify_open_scholarship.pdf) -1. How can Open Scholarship address structural ableism and racism? [Text 1](https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2019/02/open-science) [Text 2](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09638288.2023.2173315?journalCode=idre20) LessonPlan Pdf[How can Open Scholarship address structural ableism and racism?](../neurodiversity-lessonbank/Lesson_Plans/How_can_we_Open%20Scholarship_to_address_the%20structural_ableism_and_racism_in_our_society.pdf) +1. How can Open Scholarship address structural ableism and racism? [Text 1](https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2019/02/open-science) [Text 2](https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2023.2173315) LessonPlan Pdf[How can Open Scholarship address structural ableism and racism?](../neurodiversity-lessonbank/Lesson_Plans/How_can_we_Open%20Scholarship_to_address_the%20structural_ableism_and_racism_in_our_society.pdf) --- diff --git a/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/_index.md b/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/_index.md index 98bc4956854..1ac4fb19f8a 100644 --- a/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/_index.md +++ b/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/_index.md @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ Lesson 9: Text 1 -   Text 2 +   Text 2    Lesson Plan {{< youtube oMkF8DiAolQ >}} diff --git a/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/diversity-and-research/index.md b/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/diversity-and-research/index.md index e826057642f..b2f6fc8d182 100644 --- a/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/diversity-and-research/index.md +++ b/content/neurodiversity-lessonbank/diversity-and-research/index.md @@ -43,5 +43,5 @@ Watch the presentation here ### Extra reading: -- [How open science promotes diverse research](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1475725719869164) +- [How open science promotes diverse research](https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725719869164) - [Respect for Diversity in Community Psychology](https://press.rebus.community/introductiontocommunitypsychology/chapter/respect-for-diversity/) diff --git a/content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md b/content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md index 1d7201f1347..6e6e3542dec 100644 --- a/content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md +++ b/content/neurodiversity/neurodiversity.md @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ This team is responsible for discussing how open scholarship can be used to supp Although originally written about autistic people, we believe that this quote summarizes our approach to all forms of neurodiversity: -> ‘Their strengths and deficits do not deny them humanity but, rather, shape their humanity’ ([Grinker, 2010, p.173](https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1548-1352.2010.01087.x)). +> ‘Their strengths and deficits do not deny them humanity but, rather, shape their humanity’ ([Grinker, 2010, p.173](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1352.2010.01087.x)).
diff --git a/content/reversals/reversals.md b/content/reversals/reversals.md index 7c0bb2229a8..6572558909f 100644 --- a/content/reversals/reversals.md +++ b/content/reversals/reversals.md @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ 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 role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications’](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.335.4255&rep=rep1&type=pdf), Srull and Wyer, Jr. 1979; 2 experiments with Study 1: n = 96; Study 2: n = 96. [citations = 2409 (GS, November 2021)]. -* Critique: [McCarthy et al. 2018](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2515245918777487#abstract) [n = 7,373 for Study 1, citations = 40(GS, November 2021)]. [McCarthy et al. 2021](https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/7/1/18738/116070/A-Multi-Site-Collaborative-Study-of-the-Hostile) (see Figure) [n = 1,402 for close replication; n = 1,641 for conceptual replication, citations = 2(GS, November 2021)]. +* Critique: [McCarthy et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918777487) [n = 7,373 for Study 1, citations = 40(GS, November 2021)]. [McCarthy et al. 2021](https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/7/1/18738/116070/A-Multi-Site-Collaborative-Study-of-the-Hostile) (see Figure) [n = 1,402 for close replication; n = 1,641 for conceptual replication, citations = 2(GS, November 2021)]. * Original effect size: 2.99 (1.58%). * Replication effect size: All effect sizes are located in McCarthy et al. 2018: Acar: _d _= 0.16. Aczel: _d _= 0.12. Birt: _d_ = -0.11. Evans: _d_ = -.22. Ferreira-Santos: _d_ = 0.01. Gonzalez-Iraizoz: _d_ = -.21. Holzmeister: _d_ = .11. Klein Selfe and Rozmann: _d_ = -0.51. Koppel: _d_ = -.14. Laine: _d_ = -.27. Loschelder: _XX_ =-.07. McCarthy: _d_ = -.10. Meijer: _d_ = .03. Ozdorgru: _d_ = .22. Pennington: _d_ = -.52. Roets: _d_ = -.01. Suchotzki: _d_ = .10. Sutan: _d_ = .49. Vanpaemel: _d_ = .17. Verschuere: _d_ = -.14. Wick: _d_ = .07. Wiggins: _d_ = .01. Average replication effect size: _d_ = -0.08. McCarthy et al. 2021: _d_ = 0.06. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ 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 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)]. -* Critiques: [O’Donnell et al. 2018](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691618755704) [n = 4,493 who met the inclusion criteria; n = 6,454 in supplementary materials, citations = 71(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%. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Moral priming (cleanliness)**. Participants exposed to physical cleanliness were shown to reduce the severity of their moral judgments. Direct, well-powered replications did not find evidence for the phenomenon. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: [With a Clean Conscience: Cleanliness Reduces the Severity of Moral Judgments](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x?casa_token=uRH1oAgdskoAAAAA%3Ahf7TyDhog_mLb75lVnxJOKHMb4NrxHwHqbwxFd0p76Cwwp492JBrXNPuadQB-9VxBm1SqLEJyPSv), Schnall, Benton, and Harvey, 2008; 2 experiments with Study 1: n = 40, Study 2: n = 44. [citations=645 (GS November 2021)]. +* Original paper: [With a Clean Conscience: Cleanliness Reduces the Severity of Moral Judgments](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x), Schnall, Benton, and Harvey, 2008; 2 experiments with Study 1: n = 40, Study 2: n = 44. [citations=645 (GS November 2021)]. * Critiques: [Johnson et al.](https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000186) 2014, [Study 1: n = 208, Study 2: n = 126. citations=128(GS November 2021)]. * Original effect size: Study 1: d = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.23, 0.04]; Study 2: d = -0.85, 95% CI [-1.47, -0.22] * Replication effect size: Study 1: d = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.26]; Study 2: d = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.36] @@ -213,8 +213,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Moral priming (contemplation)**. Participants exposed to a moral-reminder prime would demonstrate reduced cheating. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633)’, Mazar et al. 2008; 6 experiments with Study 1: n = 229; Study 2: n = 207; Study 3: n = 450; Study 4: n = 44; Study 5: n = 108; Study 6: n = 326. [citations= 3072 (GS November 2021)]. -* Critiques: [Verschuere et al. 2018](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2515245918781032) [n = 5786 replication of Experiment 1, citations = 65(GS November 2021)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance](https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633)’, Mazar et al. 2008; 6 experiments with Study 1: n = 229; Study 2: n = 207; Study 3: n = 450; Study 4: n = 44; Study 5: n = 108; Study 6: n = 326. [citations= 3072 (GS November 2021)]. +* Critiques: [Verschuere et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918781032) [n = 5786 replication of Experiment 1, citations = 65(GS November 2021)]. * Original effect size: not reported; commandants-cheat versus books-cheat: _d_ = -1.45[-2.61, -0.29] [obtained from the Verschuere et al.’s 2018 meta analysis Figure 2], commandants-cheat versus commandants-control: _d_ = -0.35 [–1.26, 0.57] [obtained from the Verschuere et al.’s 2018 meta analysis Figure 3]. * Replication effect size: All effect sizes are located in Verschuere et al. 2018: Commandants-cheat versus books-cheat: Aczel: _d_ = -0.26 [-1.22, 0.69]. Birt: _d_ = 0.41 [-0.58, 1.39]. Evans: _d_ = 0.85 [-0.13, 1.83]. Ferreira-Santos: _d_ = -0.19 [-1.14, 0.77]. Gonzalez-Iraizoz: _d_ = 0.26[-0.77, 1.28]. Holzmeister: _d_ = 1.11[-0.30, 2.52]. Klein Selle and Rozmann: _d_ = -0.27 [-1.11, 0.58]. Koppel: _d_ = 0.39[-0.40, 1.17]. Laine: _d_ = -0.37 [-1.18, 0.44]. Loschelder: _d_ = -0.11[-0.86, 0.65]. McCarthy: _d_ = 0.57 [-0.87, 2.02]. Meijer: _d_ = -0.15 [-0.75, 0.44]. Ozdogru: _d_ = 1.19 [0.01, 2.37]. Suchotzki: _d_ = 0.00 [–0.93, 0.93]. Sutan: _d_ = 0.02[-0.79, 0.83]. Vanpaemel: _d_ = 0.17[-0.55, 0.88]. Verschuere: _d_ = 0.18 [-0.55, 0.91]. Wick: _d_ = -0.09 [-1.06, 0.87]. Wiggins: _d_ = 0.19 [-0.51, 0.90]. Meta-analytic estimate: _d_ = 0.11 [-0.09, 0.31]. Commandants-cheat versus commandants-control: Aczel: _d_ = 0.05 [-0.77, 0.88]. Birt: _d_ = 0.83 [-0.10, 1.75]. Evans: _d_ = 0.60 [-0.39, 1.59]. Ferreira-Santos: _d_ = -0.33 [-1.41, 0.74]. Gonzalez-Iraizoz: _d_ = 1.11 [0.14, 2.08]. Holzmeister: _d_ = 1.30 [-0.17, 2.78]. Klein Selle and Rozmann: _d_ = -0.15 [-0.79, 1.09]. Koppel: _d_ = 0.51 [-0.20, 1.22]. Laine: _d_ = 0.10 [-0.63, 0.83]. Loschelder: _d_ = -0.24 [-1.38, 0.90]. McCarthy: _d_ = 1.10 [-0.20, 2.41]. Meijer: _d_ = -0.31 [-0.89, 0.25]. Ozdogru: _d_ = 1.15 [-0.10, 2.41]. Suchotzki: _d_ = -0.05 [-0.86, 0.75]. Sutan: _d_ = 0.41 [-0.41, 1.23]. Vanpaemel: _d_ = 0.36 [-0.37, 1.09]. Verschuere: _d_ = 0.13 [-0.61, 0.87]. Wick: _d_ = -0.14 [-0.94, 0.67]. Wiggins: _d_ = -0.08 [-1.02, 0.87]. Meta-analytic estimate: _d_ = 0.24 [0.03, 0.44]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Distance priming**. Participants primed with distance compared to closeness produced greater enjoyment of media depicting embarrassment (Study 1), less emotional distress from violent media (Study 2), lower estimates of the number of calories in unhealthy food (Study 3), and weaker reports of emotional attachments to family members and hometowns (Study 4). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Keeping One's Distance: The Influence of Spatial Distance Cues on Affect and Evaluation](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02084.x)’, Williams and Bargh 2008; 4 studies with n’s = 73, 42, 59 and 84. [citation=581(GS, October 2021)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Keeping One's Distance: The Influence of Spatial Distance Cues on Affect and Evaluation](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02084.x)’, Williams and Bargh 2008; 4 studies with n’s = 73, 42, 59 and 84. [citation=581(GS, October 2021)]​. * Critiques: [Pashler 2021](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042510#references) [n=92, citations=185(GS, October 2021)]. * Original effect size: _η2_=.09​/ _d_=0.31 [converted from partial eta squared to Cohen’s _d_ using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Pashler: _ηp2_=0.009/_d_ = 0.009 [converted from partial eta squared to Cohen’s _d_ using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Flag priming**. Participants primed by a flag are more likely to be more in conservative positions than those in the control condition. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[A Single Exposure to the American Flag Shifts Support Toward Republicanism up to 8 Months Later’, ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797611414726)Carter et al. 2011; experimental design, 2 studies with n = 191 completed three sessions and 71 completed the fourth session, Experiment 2: n = 70. [citations = 186 (GS, October 2021)]. +* Original paper: ‘[A Single Exposure to the American Flag Shifts Support Toward Republicanism up to 8 Months Later’, ](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611414726)Carter et al. 2011; experimental design, 2 studies with n = 191 completed three sessions and 71 completed the fourth session, Experiment 2: n = 70. [citations = 186 (GS, October 2021)]. * Critique: [Klein et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-20922-002.html) [n=6,082, citations = 957 (GS, October 2021)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = 0.50. * Replication effect size: All effect sizes are located in ManyLabs: Adams and Nelson: _d_ = .02. Bernstein: _d_ = 0.07. Bocian and Frankowska: _d_ = .19 (Study 1). Bocian and Franowska: _d_ = -.22 (Study 2). Brandt et al.: _d_ = .21. Brumbaugh and Storbeck: _d_ = -.22 (Study 1). Brumbaugh and Storbeck: _d_ = .02 (Study 2). Cemalcilar: _d_ = .14. Cheong: _d_ = -.11. Davis and Hicks: _d_ = -.27 (Study 1). Davis and Hicks: _d_ =-.03 (Study 2). Devos: _d_ = -.11. Furrow and Thompson: _d_ = .09. Hovermale and Joy-Gaba: _d_ = -.07. Hunt and Krueger: _d_ = .27. Huntsinger and Mallett: _d_ = .06. John and Skorinko: _d_ = .08. Kappes: _d_ = .04. Klein et al.: _d_ = -.11. Kurtz: _d_ =.04. Levitan: _d_ = -.01. Morris: _d_ = .09 Nier: _d_ = -.45. Packard: _d_ = .04. Pilati: _d_ = 0.00. Rutchick: _d_ = -.07. Schmidt and Nosek (PI): _d_ =.03. Schmidt and Nosek (MTURK): _d_ = .09. Schmidt and Nosek (UVA): _d_ = -.15. Smith: _d_ = .27. Swol: _d_ =-.03. Vaughn: _d_ = -.17. Vianello and Galliani: _d_ =.49. Vranka: _d_ = -.03. Wichman: _d_ = .11. Woodzicska: _d_ =-.09. Average replication effect size: _d_ = 0.03. @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Fluency priming**. Objects that are fluent (e.g., conceptually fluent, visually fluent) are perceived more concretely than objects that are disfluent (disfluent objects are perceived more abstractly). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Effects of Fluency on Psychological Distance and Mental Construal (or Why New York Is a Large City, but New York Is a Civilized Jungle)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02062.x)’, Alter and Oppenheimer 2008; experimental design, 3 studies, 2 of which are split into Part A and Part B with n’s = 1A: 40 and 1B: 196; 2A: 32 and 2B: 230; Experiment 3: n = 70. [citations = 304 (GS, October 2021)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Effects of Fluency on Psychological Distance and Mental Construal (or Why New York Is a Large City, but New York Is a Civilized Jungle)](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02062.x)’, Alter and Oppenheimer 2008; experimental design, 3 studies, 2 of which are split into Part A and Part B with n’s = 1A: 40 and 1B: 196; 2A: 32 and 2B: 230; Experiment 3: n = 70. [citations = 304 (GS, October 2021)]. * Critique: [Klein et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-20922-002.html) [n=1146, citations = 957 (GS,October 2021)]. * Original effect size: _r_ = 0.13/ _d_ = 0.26 [converted, using [escal](https://www.escal.site/)]. * Replication effect size: Klein et al.: _r_ = .02/_d_ = 0.04 [converted, using [escal](https://www.escal.site/)]. @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness?](https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf)’, Finkel et al. 2002; 3 experiments with Study 1: n = 89; Study 2: n = 155; Study 3: n = 78. [citations = ~ 1108(GS, November 2021)]. -* Critiques: [Cheung et al. 2016](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694) [n = 2284, citations = 110(GS, November 2021)]. +* Critiques: [Cheung et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616664694) [n = 2284, citations = 110(GS, November 2021)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = -0.65. * Replication effect size: Cheung et al.: _d_ = -0.22. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: [‘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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868309352321?casa_token=6qU7Bbt0sNcAAAAA:PLGOSUy673fGIk7ji8h0zex6uh35R7FPx8SE4sI4ADMwCU80b5BqrJGDBWmu8gFh-_JhufRz63ql_Q) [_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)]. +* 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 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 >}} @@ -285,8 +285,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Implicit God prime increases self-reported risky behaviour**. Implicitly priming God using the scrambled-sentence paradigm increases self-reported risk taking. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Anticipating divine protection? Reminders of god can increase nonmoral risk taking](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614563108)’, Kupor et al. 2015; experimental design, Experiment 1a: n=61 and Experiment 1b: n=202. [citations=76 (GS, November 2022)]. -* Critiques:[ Gervais et al. 2020](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797620922477) [Experiment 1a: n=556, Experiment 1b: n=548, citations=9 (GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Anticipating divine protection? Reminders of god can increase nonmoral risk taking](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563108)’, Kupor et al. 2015; experimental design, Experiment 1a: n=61 and Experiment 1b: n=202. [citations=76 (GS, November 2022)]. +* Critiques:[ Gervais et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620922477) [Experiment 1a: n=556, Experiment 1b: n=548, citations=9 (GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: Experiment 1a: _d_=0.574 [0.05, 1.09]; Experiment 1b: _d_=0.323 [0.04,0.60]. * Replication effect size: Gervais et al.: Experiment 1a: _d_=0.14 [-0.07, 0.34]; Experiment 1b: _d_=-0.11 [-0.31, 0.09]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Implicit God prime increases actual risky behaviour**. Implicitly priming God using the scrambled-sentence paradigm increases willingness to engage in risky behaviour for financial reward. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Anticipating divine protection? Reminders of god can increase nonmoral risk taking](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614563108)’, Kupor et al. 2015; Experiment 3: n=101. [citations=76 (GS, November 2022)]. +* 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)]. * 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]. @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed (the effect is smaller than originally believed) * Original paper: ‘[Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025008)’, Berkowitz and LePage 1967; between-subjects design, _n_ = 100 (male university students). [citations = 1161 (GS, October 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Turner and Simons 1974](https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727400100164) [_n_ = 60, citations = 11 (GS, October 2022)]. [Frodi 1975](https://doi.org/10.1080/00207597508247340) [_n = _100, citations = 50 (GS, October 2022)]. [Carlson et al. 1990](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.622) [meta-analysis; _n_ = 628 (fail-safe), _k_ = 56 studies, citations = 339 (GS, October 2022)]. [Benjamin et al., 2018](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1088868317725419) [meta-analysis; _n_ = 7,668 participants, _k_ = 78 studies, citations = 12 (GS, October 2022)]. [Ariel et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818812918) [RCT of taser presence and the police force; _n_ = 678 officers, citations = 42 (GS, October 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Turner and Simons 1974](https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727400100164) [_n_ = 60, citations = 11 (GS, October 2022)]. [Frodi 1975](https://doi.org/10.1080/00207597508247340) [_n = _100, citations = 50 (GS, October 2022)]. [Carlson et al. 1990](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.622) [meta-analysis; _n_ = 628 (fail-safe), _k_ = 56 studies, citations = 339 (GS, October 2022)]. [Benjamin et al., 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317725419) [meta-analysis; _n_ = 7,668 participants, _k_ = 78 studies, citations = 12 (GS, October 2022)]. [Ariel et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818812918) [RCT of taser presence and the police force; _n_ = 678 officers, citations = 42 (GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: all reported effect sizes are found in Carlson et al.: _d_ = 0.76 to 1.06. * Replication effect size: Turner and Simons: _d_ = -1.17 to 0.64 (reported in [Carlson et al., 1990](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.622)); the greater the evaluation apprehension, the less likely aggressive behaviour was observed (mixed). Frodi: _d_ = 0.91 (reported in [Carlson et al., 1990](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.622)) (replicated). Carlson et al.: _d_ = 0.38 (replicated). Benjamin et al. : _d_ = 0.29 [0.21, 0.36] (replicated); The effect is moderated by several variables : Smaller if looked at behaviour (_d_ = 0.25 [0.07, 0.43]), educed for “field” experiments (_d_ = 0.22 [-0.07, 0.51]), larger when photos used (_d_ = 0.35 [0.26, 0.44]) rather than actual weapons (_d_ = 0.12 [-0.08, 0.31]). Ariel et al. : The presence of a taser on the officer led to Increased use of force, IRR = 1.48 [1.27, 1.72] (replicated); Increased injury to officers, IRR = 2.11[1.53, 2.91] (replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -348,8 +348,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Verbal framing (temporal tense)**. Participants who read what a person was doing (relative to those who read what person did) showed enhanced accessibility of intention-related concepts and attributed more intentionality to the person. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Learning about what others were doing: Verb aspect and attributions of mundane and criminal intent for past actions](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797610395393)’, Hart and Albarracin (2011): 3 experiments with Study 1: n = 5458; Study 2: n = 37; Study 3: n = 48. [citations = 37, (GS, January 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Eerland et al. (2016) ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826) [meta analysis (total n= 685 for perfective-aspect condition; n = 681 imperfective-aspect condition) of Study 3 citations = 70, (GS, January, 2022)] +* Original paper: ‘[Learning about what others were doing: Verb aspect and attributions of mundane and criminal intent for past actions](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610395393)’, Hart and Albarracin (2011): 3 experiments with Study 1: n = 5458; Study 2: n = 37; Study 3: n = 48. [citations = 37, (GS, January 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Eerland et al. (2016) ](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615605826) [meta analysis (total n= 685 for perfective-aspect condition; n = 681 imperfective-aspect condition) of Study 3 citations = 70, (GS, January, 2022)] * Original effect size: Study 1: _d_ = 1.00 for intentionality in imperfective-aspect condition; Study 2: _d_ = 1.23 for imagery in imperfective-aspect condition; Study 3: d= 1.20 for intentionality, _d_ = 0.92 for imagery and 0.55 for intention attribution in imperfective-aspect condition. * Replication effect size: All effect sizes are located in Eerland et al. 2016: intentionality: Arnal (lab): _d_ = -0.35; Berger (lab): _d_ = -0.98; Birt and Aucoin (lab): _d_ = -0.38; Eerland et al. (lab): _d_ =0.16; Eerland et al.(online): _d_ = -0.33; Ferretti (lab): _d_ = -0.01; Knepp (lab): d = -0.95; Kurby and Kibbe (lab): d = -0.14; Melcher (lab): _d_ = 0.65; Michael (lab): _d_ = -0.41; Poirier et al. (lab): _d_ = 0.32; Prenoveau and Carlucci (lab): d = -0.38. Meta-analytic estimate for laboratory replications only: _d_ = -0.24. Imagery: Arnal (lab): _d_ = −0.01; Berger (lab): d = −0.45; Birt and Aucoin (lab): _d_ = −0.40; Eerland et al. (lab): _d_ =−0.01; Eerland et al.(online): _d_ = -−0.13; Ferretti (lab): _d_ = 0.33; Knepp (lab): _d_ = 0.00; Kurby and Kibbe (lab): d = 0.02; Melcher (lab): _d_ = −0.16; Michael (lab): d = -0.08; Poirier et al. (lab): _d_ = -0.19; Prenoveau and Carlucci (lab): d = -0.02. Meta-analytic estimate for laboratory replications only: _d_ = -0.08. Intention attribution: Arnal (lab): _d_ = -0.15; Berger (lab): _d_ = -0.15; Birt and Aucoin (lab): _d_ = 0.08; Eerland et al. (lab): _d_ =-0.01; Eerland et al.(online): _d_ = 0.02; Ferretti (lab): _d_ = -0.19; Knepp (lab): _d_ = -0.29; Kurby and Kibbe (lab): _d_ = 0.00; Melcher (lab): _d_ = 0.12; Michael (lab): _d_ = 0.13; Poirier et al. (lab): _d_ = 0.06; Prenoveau and Carlucci (lab): _d_ = 0.03. Meta-analytic estimate for laboratory replications: _d_ = 0.00. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -375,8 +375,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Gustatory disgust on moral judgement**. Gustatory disgust triggers a heightened sense of moral wrongness. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[A Bad Taste in the Mouth: Gustatory Disgust Influences Moral Judgment](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797611398497?casa_token=pdUGVH_hLT0AAAAA%3A7aEiTY9e2JbJX1tRFDgpo8y-x-ftNpNfV2r2bbY2tRqtgXij0O6PfM7mBzIvKjZg4dbvzLrbo2ACMw)’, Eskine et al. 2011; experiment, n = 57.[citation = 564 (GS, January 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Ghelfi et al. 2020](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2515245919881152) [meta-analysis, total n = 1137, citations = 18 (GS, January 2022)]. [Johnson et al. 2016](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550616654211?journalCode=sppa) [Study 1: n = 478, Study 2: n = 934, citations=52 (GS January 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[A Bad Taste in the Mouth: Gustatory Disgust Influences Moral Judgment](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611398497)’, Eskine et al. 2011; experiment, n = 57.[citation = 564 (GS, January 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Ghelfi et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919881152) [meta-analysis, total n = 1137, citations = 18 (GS, January 2022)]. [Johnson et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616654211) [Study 1: n = 478, Study 2: n = 934, citations=52 (GS January 2022)]. * Original effect size:_ _Cohen’s _d _= 1.12 (comparison to control group); Cohen’s _d _= 1.28 (comparison to sweet taste). * Replication effect size: Johnson et al.: Cohen’s _d_ = 0.04 (Study 1 - comparison to control group), Cohen’s _d_ = 0.05 (Study 2 - comparison to control group). All effect sizes are located in Ghelfi et al. 2016: comparison to sweet group: Christopherson: Hedges _g_ = 0.53. Christopherson: Hedges’ _g_ = 0.04. Fischer: Hedges’ _g_ = 0.25. Guberman: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.30. de Haan: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.13. Legate: Hedges’ _g_ = 0.99. Legate: Hedges’ _g _= -0.02. Lenne: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.19. Urry: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.13. Wagemans: Hedges’ _g_ = 0.03. Weber: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.27. Meta-analytic estimate: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.05. Comparison to control group: Christopherson: Hedges _g_ = 0.68. Christopherson: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.19. Fischer: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.01. Guberman: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.12. de Haan: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.24. Legate: Hedges’ _g_ = 0.79. Legate: Hedges’ _g _= 0.37. Lenne: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.13. Urry: Hedges’ _g_ = 0.08. Wagemans: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.11. Weber: Hedges’ _g_ = -0.04. Meta-analytic estimate: Hedges’ _g_ = 0.10. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656619301230) [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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0098628314549703) [textbook analysis, n=NA, citations = 37 (GS, January 2022)]. [Griggs 2014 ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/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://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1348/014466605X48998) [experimental case study but not exact replication of SFE; n = 15, citations ~435 (GS, January 2022)]. [Lovibond, Adams, & Adams 1979 ](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/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://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)]. * 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/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://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-013-9724-3) [n=NA, citations= 14(GS, January 2022)]. [Griggs 2016 ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550617693060?journalCode=sppa) [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://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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -430,7 +430,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: NA * Original paper: '[Superordinate Goals in the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict](https://sci-hub.se/10.1086/222258)', Sherif 1958; field experiment, n=22. [citations= 1,010(GS, February, 2022)]. In addition to the original paper, some related books from the author(s) are also highly cited including: '[Groups in harmony and tension](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1954-02446-000)', Sherif & Sherif 1958 [citations=2,280 (GS, February, 2022)] and ‘[Intergroup Conflict and Co-operation](https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=24TwCQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Group+Conflict+and+Co-operation+&ots=ufwdngs5bi&sig=qxT2o26vEi7KdeJxWNqfSYHdaSM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Group%20Conflict%20and%20Co-operation&f=false)', Sherif et al. 1961 [citations= 253, (GS, February, 2022)]. Overall, the effect accounts to more than 4000 total citations including the [SciAm piece](http://patrick-fournier.com/d/cours13-3140.pdf). -* Critiques: [Billig 1976](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2420100108) in passing [book, n=NA, citations= 808 (GS, February, 2022), see media mention by [Haslam 2018](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04582-7)]. [Perry 2018](https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Boys-Muzafer-Sherifs-experiment/dp/1947534602/ref=sr_1_6?crid=2AMX9Z8LJP4RO&keywords=the+lost+boys&qid=1645026882&s=books&sprefix=the+lost+boys%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C183&sr=1-6) in passing [book, citations= 25 (GS, February, 2022), see also media summary by [Shariatmadari 2018](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/16/a-real-life-lord-of-the-flies-the-troubling-legacy-of-the-robbers-cave-experiment) and [Haslam 2018](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04582-7)]. [Tavris 2014](https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/teaching-contentious-classics/comment-page-1) [n=NA, citations= 11(GS, March 2023)] also claims that the underlying "realistic conflict theory" is otherwise confirmed. No definitive conclusion can be reached. +* Critiques: [Billig 1976](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420100108) in passing [book, n=NA, citations= 808 (GS, February, 2022), see media mention by [Haslam 2018](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04582-7)]. [Perry 2018](https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Boys-Muzafer-Sherifs-experiment/dp/1947534602/ref=sr_1_6?crid=2AMX9Z8LJP4RO&keywords=the+lost+boys&qid=1645026882&s=books&sprefix=the+lost+boys%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C183&sr=1-6) in passing [book, citations= 25 (GS, February, 2022), see also media summary by [Shariatmadari 2018](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/16/a-real-life-lord-of-the-flies-the-troubling-legacy-of-the-robbers-cave-experiment) and [Haslam 2018](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04582-7)]. [Tavris 2014](https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/teaching-contentious-classics/comment-page-1) [n=NA, citations= 11(GS, March 2023)] also claims that the underlying "realistic conflict theory" is otherwise confirmed. No definitive conclusion can be reached. * Original effect size: N/A. Not reported in conventional format. (Rationale: "results obtained through observational methods were cross-checked with results obtained through sociometric technique, stereotype ratings of in-groups and outgroups, and through data obtained by techniques adapted from the laboratory. Unfortunately, these procedures cannot be elaborated here.") * Replication effect size: N/A. Various sources (Billig, Perry, Tavris): No good evidence that tribalism arises spontaneously following arbitrary groupings and scarcity, within weeks, and leads to inter-group violence. The “spontaneous” conflict among children at Robbers Cave was orchestrated by experimenters; tiny sample (maybe 70?); an exploratory study taken as inferential; no control group; there were really three experimental groups - that is, the experimenters had full power to set expectations and endorse deviance; results from their two other studies, with negative results, were not reported. Set aside the ethics: the total absence of consent - the boys and parents had no idea they were in an experiment - or the plan to set the forest on fire and leave the boys to it. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -438,7 +438,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Digital technology use and adolescent wellbeing**. Adolescents who spent more time on new media (including social media and electronic devices such as smartphones) are more likely to report mental health issues. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: N/A -* Original paper: [‘Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen-time](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2167702617723376)’, Twenge et al. 2010; cross-sectional survey, n=506,820. [citations= 910 (GS, February, 2022)] . +* Original paper: [‘Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen-time](https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617723376)’, Twenge et al. 2010; cross-sectional survey, n=506,820. [citations= 910 (GS, February, 2022)] . * Critiques: [Orben & Przybylski 2019](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0506-1) [n=355,358, citations=621 (GS, February, 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = .27 for the rise in the depressive symptoms among females (2010 through 2015) due to screen media use. * Replication effect size: Orben & Przybylski: A large-scale analysis on the association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use, demonstrates that screen time accounts for only 0.4 % of the variation in well-being of adolescents. Hence, the increased screen-time is [not strongly associated](http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-01-15-technology-use-explains-most-04-adolescent-wellbeing) with a decreased wellbeing in adolescents. Median association of technology use with adolescent well-being was β=−0.035, SE=0.004. @@ -447,8 +447,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Anthropomorphism for inanimate objects**. Individuals who are lonely are more likely than people who are not lonely to attribute humanlike traits (e.g., free will) to nonhuman agents (e.g., an alarm clock),to fulfill unmet needs for belongingness. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Creating Social Connection Through Inferential Reproduction: Loneliness and Perceived Agency in Gadgets, Gods, and Greyhounds](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x?casa_token=wB20P1GmttgAAAAA%3AxfhrS3yxTMyXdT6JCYs-dfwEmcJZ01bNYn_KP3PxW2a2YOQcIfqT6FSAItyLQEFUSBenEvvElA1n)’, Epley et al. 2008; experimental design, n=20 for experiment 1, n=99 for experiment 2, n =57 for experiment 3. [ citations=722 citations, (GS, March 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Sandstrom & Dunn, Open Science Collaboration 2015](https://osf.io/m5a2c/) [total n=81, citations= 6314 (GS, March 2022)]. [Bartz et al. 2016](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797616668510?casa_token=qcDJNqQPntEAAAAA%3Aul4FzUrPqPGk0Y2lem5J4E6x2vl0HPz4WRILo-UTZtyf3eKUK7V8-eWpYsvDtf1x-R-qKXWzYPcd) [total n=178, citations= 83 (GS, March 2023]. +* Original paper: ‘[Creating Social Connection Through Inferential Reproduction: Loneliness and Perceived Agency in Gadgets, Gods, and Greyhounds](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x)’, Epley et al. 2008; experimental design, n=20 for experiment 1, n=99 for experiment 2, n =57 for experiment 3. [ citations=722 citations, (GS, March 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Sandstrom & Dunn, Open Science Collaboration 2015](https://osf.io/m5a2c/) [total n=81, citations= 6314 (GS, March 2022)]. [Bartz et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616668510) [total n=178, citations= 83 (GS, March 2023]. * Original effect size: _r_=0.53. * Replication effect size: Sandstrom & Dunn, Open Science Collaboration: participants in the disconnection condition were no different from the beliefs of participants in the fear and control conditions combined, _t_(78) = .18, _p_ = .86. Bartz et al.: _r_=0.17. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: '[Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test](https://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/rosenfeld/documents/greenwald98IAT.pdf)', Greenwald 1998; experimental study, n=28 for Experiment 3. [citations= 16,144(GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Oswald et al. 2013](http://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/brenner/mar7588/Papers/oswald-jpsp2013.pdf) [meta-analysis of 308 experiments, citations= 900(GS, Dec 2021)]. [Carlsson and Agerström, 2015](https://lnu.se/globalassets/lmdswp201511.pdf) [n=NA, citations= 84(GS, Dec 2021)]. [Schimmack 2021](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619863798) [review paper, n=NA, citations= 101(GS, Dec 2021)]. [Schimmack 2019](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691619863798) [review paper, n=NA, citations= 113(GS, Jan 2022)]. [Forscher et al. 2019](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6687518/pdf/nihms-1017350.pdf)[meta-analysis n=87,418, citations= 459(GS, Jan 2022)]. [Marchery 2021](https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcs.1569?casa_token=62xeAxMgE0wAAAAA%3AEiZuGpbw22N_fJ85Q7Ixjmqj2JH0X_jL086xHuM7h2d_oIdPdOeEeTRq3UQJUagIGzEGqn1aZe_G) [review paper, n=NA, citations= 3(GS, Jan 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Oswald et al. 2013](http://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/brenner/mar7588/Papers/oswald-jpsp2013.pdf) [meta-analysis of 308 experiments, citations= 900(GS, Dec 2021)]. [Carlsson and Agerström, 2015](https://lnu.se/globalassets/lmdswp201511.pdf) [n=NA, citations= 84(GS, Dec 2021)]. [Schimmack 2021](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619863798) [review paper, n=NA, citations= 101(GS, Dec 2021)]. [Schimmack 2019](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619863798) [review paper, n=NA, citations= 113(GS, Jan 2022)]. [Forscher et al. 2019](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6687518/pdf/nihms-1017350.pdf)[meta-analysis n=87,418, citations= 459(GS, Jan 2022)]. [Marchery 2021](https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1569) [review paper, n=NA, citations= 3(GS, Jan 2022)]. * Original effect size: attitude _d_=0.58; _r_=0.12. * Replication effect size: Oswald: stereotype IAT _r_=0.03 [-0.08, 0.14], attitude IAT _r_=0.16 [0.11, 0.21]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -474,8 +474,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Pygmalion effect** (Rosenthal Effect, self-fulfilling prophecy). Expectations about performance (e.g., academic achievement) impact performance. Specifically, teachers' expectations about their students’ abilities affect those students’ academic achievement; teacher beliefs impact their behaviour which in turn impacts student beliefs and behaviour. {{< 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.115)', Rosenthal and Jacobson 1966, n around 320. [citations=881, but the [popularisation](https://link.springer.com/article/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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3) [review, n=NA, citations= 1,760(GS, March 2023)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Stereotype threat on Asian women’s mathematical performance**, i.e. the interaction between race, gender and stereotyping. This study found that Asian-American women performed better on a math test when their ethnic identity was activated, but worse when their gender identity was activated, compared with a control group who had neither identity activated. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: Mixed -* Original paper: [‘Domain-specific Effects of Stereotypes on Performance’](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9280.00111), Shih et al.1999; two between-subjects experiments, n1=46, n2=19. [citations = 2,073 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Original paper: [‘Domain-specific Effects of Stereotypes on Performance’](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00111), Shih et al.1999; two between-subjects experiments, n1=46, n2=19. [citations = 2,073 (GS, March 2023)]. * Critiques: [Gibson et al. 2014](http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000184) [n=127, citations= 81(GS, March 2023)]. [Moon and Roeder 2014](https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000193) [n=139, citations= 50(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: Asian-identity-salient > control > female-identity-salient, _r_=.27; Asian-identity-salient > female-identity-salient, _r_=.35. * Replication effect size: Gibson et al.: No group differences, _η2_=.01; Asian-primed vs. female-primed, _p_=.18, _d_=.27; Including only those who were aware of the stereotypes, group accuracy _p_=.02, _η2_=.04, and the means followed the predicted pattern, Asian (M=.63), Control (M=.55), and Female (M=.51); Likewise, female-primed participants performed worse than Asian-primed participants, _p_=.02, _d_=.53. Moon & Roeder: Group accuracy, _p_=.44, _η2_=.004; female-primed and Asian-primed conditions, _p_=.43, _d_=.17; Analysing just those who were aware of the stereotype, _p_=.28, _η2_=.012; female-primed participants vs. Asian-primed participants, _p_=.28, _d_=.27. @@ -493,17 +493,17 @@ 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://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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/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://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 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 >}} -* **Increase in narcissism** (leadership, vanity, entitlement) in young people over the last thirty years. It's [an ancient hypothesis.](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehave) The basic counterargument is that they’re misidentifying an age effect as a cohort effect (The narcissism construct [apparently](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691609357019) decreases by about a standard deviation between adolescence and retirement.) “every generation is Generation Me”. +* **Increase in narcissism** (leadership, vanity, entitlement) in young people over the last thirty years. It's [an ancient hypothesis.](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehave) The basic counterargument is that they’re misidentifying an age effect as a cohort effect (The narcissism construct [apparently](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691609357019) decreases by about a standard deviation between adolescence and retirement.) “every generation is Generation Me”. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: '[The Evidence for Generation Me and Against Generation We](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691609356789) [_k_ = 5, n=477,380, citations = 432(GS, March 2022)]. [Arnett 2013](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2167696812466842) [unsystematic review, citations=171(GS, March 2022)]. [Roberts 2017](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/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?casa_token=qE5buOQueq8AAAAA:NCXuXV6p-fEPLlchdyGzpyeTF-ERyZSAv3atmS7MBKuMrkVPvNpmSMhRUhZoXRg0WKx151PCcQ) [total n =24990, citations = 5(GS, March 2022)]. -* Original effect size: _[d=0.37](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550609355719)_ increase in NPI scores (1980-2010), n=49,000. +* 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)]. +* 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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2420030103); experimental design, n=75. [citations=2232 (GS, January 2023)]. [Falk et al. 2014](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202) [n1=64, n2=48, citations=8126 (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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -520,7 +520,7 @@ 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 independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority of one against a unanimous majority’](https://eclass.uowm.gr/modules/document/file.php/NURED262/%CE%A0%CE%A1%CE%A9%CE%A4%CE%9F%CE%A4%CE%A5%CE%A0%CE%91%20%CE%91%CE%A1%CE%98%CE%A1%CE%91/Asch%20studies%20in%20independence%20and%20conformity%201956%20PM.pdf), Asch, 1956; experimental design, n = 123. [citations = 6558, GS, October 2021]​. -* Critiques: [Friend et al. 1990](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2420200104) [n= 99 accounts in social psychology textbooks, citations = 156 (GS, November 2021)]. [Griggs 2015](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Griggs-2/publication/272384315_The_Disappearance_of_Independence_in_Textbook_Coverage_of_Asch's_Social_Pressure_Experiments/links/59710f6da6fdcc64d065dce2/The-Disappearance-of-Independence-in-Textbook-Coverage-of-Aschs-Social-Pressure-Experiments.pdf) [n= 20 introductory psychology textbooks and 10 introductory social psychology, citations = 12 (GS, November 2021)]. [Bond and Smith, 1996](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=EFB2A69D78906BDA9BC45EF5E41651C8?doi=10.1.1.370.6293&rep=rep1&type=pdf) [meta-analysis, _k=_137, citations = 2,228 (GS, March 2023)]. Criticism focuses on the fact that textbooks exaggerate and misquotate evidence of conformity and omit or diminish evidence of independence. +* Critiques: [Friend et al. 1990](https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420200104) [n= 99 accounts in social psychology textbooks, citations = 156 (GS, November 2021)]. [Griggs 2015](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Griggs-2/publication/272384315_The_Disappearance_of_Independence_in_Textbook_Coverage_of_Asch's_Social_Pressure_Experiments/links/59710f6da6fdcc64d065dce2/The-Disappearance-of-Independence-in-Textbook-Coverage-of-Aschs-Social-Pressure-Experiments.pdf) [n= 20 introductory psychology textbooks and 10 introductory social psychology, citations = 12 (GS, November 2021)]. [Bond and Smith, 1996](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=EFB2A69D78906BDA9BC45EF5E41651C8?doi=10.1.1.370.6293&rep=rep1&type=pdf) [meta-analysis, _k=_137, citations = 2,228 (GS, March 2023)]. Criticism focuses on the fact that textbooks exaggerate and misquotate evidence of conformity and omit or diminish evidence of independence. * Original effect size: 36.8% of the responses were incorrect (influenced by the majority). The effect has been interpreted by the author as evidence for the prevalence of independence (“_The preponderance of judgments was independent, evidence that under the present conditions the force of the perceived data far exceeded that of the majority._”, Asch, 1956, p.24). * Replication effect size: Bond and Smith: _d_ = .92[.89-.96], average rate of incorrect answers: 25%. Friend et al./Griggs: The majority of academic textbooks present the study as evidence for overwhelming conformity, failing to report the evidence of independent tendencies among participants. A common practice seen in many academic textbooks and popular writings is to report the value of “75%” or “76%” as the general indicator of conformity. In reality, this is the fraction of respondents who yielded to the majority in at least one of the twelve trials. The reversal of this value (rarely mentioned in the literature) would be 24% - a fraction of completely independent respondents or 95% - a fraction of respondents who remain independent in at least one of twelve trials. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -556,7 +556,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Romantic red: Red enhances men’s attraction to women](https://web.archive.org/web/20090419084901id_/http://www.psych.rochester.edu:80/faculty/elliot/documents/ElliotNiesta_RomanticRed.2008.pdf)’, Elliot and Niesta 2008; experiment, N = 42. [citation=66 (GS, February 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Peperkoorn et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704916673841) [n=830, citations=48 (GS, February 2022)]. [Pazda et al. 2021](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-021-02045-3#Sec2) [experiment 1: n = 116; experiment 2: n = 230; experiment 3: n = 230, citations= 3(GS, January 2023)]​. +* Critiques: [Peperkoorn et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704916673841) [n=830, citations=48 (GS, February 2022)]. [Pazda et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02045-3) [experiment 1: n = 116; experiment 2: n = 230; experiment 3: n = 230, citations= 3(GS, January 2023)]​. * Original effect size: Experiment 1: _d_ = 1.11; Experiment 2: _η2p_ = .08; Experiment 3: attractiveness: _η2p_ = .11, sexual desire: _η2p_ = .19, desired sexual behaviour _η2p_ = 13; Experiment 4: attractiveness: _d_ = 0.73, sexual desire: _d_ = 1.55, desired sexual behaviour _d_ = 1.11; Experiment 5: attractiveness: _d_ =0.86, sexual desire: _d_ = 1.00, desired sexual behaviour _d_ = 1.11;_ _asking someone on a date: _d_ = 0.95; spending on a date: _d_ = 1.35. * Replication effect size: Peperkoorn et al.: Study 1: _η2p_= .03 (in support of white more attractive than red); Study 2: _F_ = .07;​ Study 3: _d_ = −.12. Pazda et al.: Experiment 1: sexually receptive: _d_ = .42, attractive: _d_ = .30, sexually appealing _d_ = .47; Experiment 2: sexually receptive: _d_ = .25, attractive: _d_ = .16, perceptions of sexually appealing _d_ = .23; Experiment 3: sexually receptive: _d_ = .75, attractive: _d_ = .54, sexually appealing d = .63. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Imagined Contact - _Bias_**. Imagining social contact (instead of having actual contact) with someone from an outgroup (based on e.g., ethnicity, sexuality, religion, age) can reduce intergroup bias. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ['Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes'](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368430207081533), Turner et al. 2007; three experiments, Study 1: N = 28, Study 2 = 24, Study 3 =27. [citations = 633 (GS, October 2022)]. +* Original paper: ['Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes'](https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207081533), Turner et al. 2007; three experiments, Study 1: N = 28, Study 2 = 24, Study 3 =27. [citations = 633 (GS, October 2022)]. * Critiques: [Firat and Ataca 2020](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-30949-001) [N = 335 citations = 9 (GS, October 2022)], [Hoffarth and Hodson 2016](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-25375-005) [Study 1: N = 261, Study 2: N = 320 citations = 36 (GS, October 2022)]. [Miles and Turner 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213510573) [meta-analysis, _k_ = 71, N = 5,770 citations= 450 (GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: Study 1: _d_ = .42. Study 2: _ηp²_ = 0.20. Study 3: _d_= 0.86 (as calculated for this entry, using [Lakens’ tool](https://osf.io/vbdah/)). * Replication effect size: Firat and Ataca: _ηp2_ = .01. Hoffarth and Hodson: Study 1 (concerning gay people): many outcomes, largest _β_ = .10; Study 2 (concerning Muslims): many outcomes, largest β = .095. Miles and Turner: overall _d_ = .35 [0.26, 0.44]. @@ -583,7 +583,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< 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)]. -* 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/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. +* 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). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< 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)]​. -* Critiques: [Batson et al. 1979](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3033698.pdf?casa_token=Qj4UpHd_VNsAAAAA:EH6YSv6XKfP8LqlfmJrp3oCgx1sJcoD9kv30iPOUI2GkVD4pDq8ZulHgFvKNiHXWsFhjwWstPQeSNCY5PG4RYMmHH42bwToP0EG1jc5ffV9G5LEqNuQ) [n = 40, citations=132 (GS, June 2022)]. [Blevins and Murphy 1974](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/014616727600300119) [Study 1 n = 64, Study 2 n = 106, citations=39 (GS, October 2022)]. Failed replications: [Job 1987](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1987.9713711) [n=100 letters placed under the windshield wipers of cars, citations=38(GS, March 2023)].​ +* 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). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Behavioural-consequences-of automatic-evaluation** (affective compatibility effect). Automatic classification of stimuli as either good or bad have direct behavioural consequences.​ Automatic evaluation results directly in behavioural predispositions toward the stimulus, such that positive evaluations produce immediate approach tendencies, and negative evaluations produce immediate avoidance tendencies. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Consequences of Automatic Evaluation: Immediate Behavioral Predispositions to Approach or Avoid the Stimulus](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167299025002007)’, Chen and Bargh 1979; two mixed design experiments, Study 1: n= 42, Study 2: n = 50. [citations = 1943 (GS, October 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Consequences of Automatic Evaluation: Immediate Behavioral Predispositions to Approach or Avoid the Stimulus](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025002007)’, Chen and Bargh 1979; two mixed design experiments, Study 1: n= 42, Study 2: n = 50. [citations = 1943 (GS, October 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Rotteveel et al. 2015](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00335/full) [Study 1: n=100, Study 2: n=50, citations = 35(GS, October 2022)]. Meta-analysis:[ Phaf et al. 2014](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00378/full) [N=1538 across 29 studies, citations=271(GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: Study 1 (conscious evaluation) – congruence factor main effect _ηp2_= 0.168 / _d_ = 0.44 [_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)]; Study 2 (automatic evaluation) – congruence factor main effect _ηp2 _= 0.078 / _d_ = 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)]. * Replication effect size: Rotteveel et al.: Study 1 – Evaluative judgement × Lever movement interaction effect _ηp2_ = 0.030 [reported, non-significant] / _d_ = 0.17 [converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Study 2 – Affective valence × Lever movement interaction effect _ηp2_ = 0.057 [reported, marginally significant] / _d_ = 0.24 [converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. Phaf et al.: Positive emotions – The average effect size differed significantly from zero for explicit instructions to evaluate (_g_ = 0.287; _p_ = 0.0001; 95% CI = 0.204, 0.369) and for explicit-converted instructions (_g_= 0.287; _p_= 0.0001; 95% CI = 0.146, 0.429), but not for implicit instructions (_g_= 0.028; _p_= 0.572) [all reported]. Negative emotions – Effect sizes differed significantly from zero for explicit-converted instructions (_g_= 0.389; _p_= 0.001; 95% CI = 0.155, 0.624) and for explicit instructions (_g_= 0.249; _p_ = 0.0001; 95% CI = 0.159, 0.339), but not for implicit instructions (_g_= 0.103; _p_= 0.0959) [all reported]. Both emotions – The average effect size differed significantly from zero for explicit-converted instructions (_g_= 0.433; _p_ = 0.0001; 95% CI = 0.295, 0.571) and explicit instructions (_g_= 0.403; _p_ = 0.0001; 95% CI = 0.286, 0.521), but not for implicit instructions (_g_= 0.076; _p_= 0.148) [all reported]. @@ -627,8 +627,8 @@ 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?casa_token=uHhPSwhkMtsAAAAA:eafeHREL_yQ7JDYcOianUpNX3EBgQ0DGcX4a5Eeew7Z8w-ZN7rKcQefGprxNHenNuEFULt161nV2QeECb-3i33dw)’, 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?casa_token=Xnxtt10rqxoAAAAA:UJQbWrjcbb1JndJEUYTG4fysb5HzZDGFHNt5_TdsebqrynfxYHlwXosz64Ogu2R0GhED1DaWrf4) [n= 70, citations= 114 (GS, June 2022)]. Lange and Egger also points at statistical mistakes in the meta-analysis of Hagger et al. +* 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. * 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 >}} @@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Power impairs perspective-taking effect**. Individuals made to feel high in power were more likely to inaccurately assume that others view the social world from the same perspective as they do. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Power and Perspectives Not Taken](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/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)]. +* 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)]. * 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]. @@ -654,8 +654,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Status-legitimacy effect**. Members of low-status, disadvantaged, and marginalised groups are more likely to perceive their social systems as legitimate than their high-status and advantaged counterparts under certain circumstances. People who are most disadvantaged by the status quo, due to the greatest psychological need to reduce ideological dissonance, are most likely to support, defend, and justify existing social systems, authorities, and outcomes. {{< 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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/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://link.springer.com/article/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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.2016.1242472) [n=38,967, citations=50(GS, October 2022)]. [Henry and Saul 2006](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11211-006-0012-x) [n=356, citations=156(GS, October 2022)]. +* 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)]. * 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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -663,8 +663,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **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. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Color and psychological functioning: The effect of red on performance attainment](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.154)’, Elliot et al. 2007; 6 experiments, Total N=282. [citations=948(GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Gnambs 2020](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-020-01772-1) meta-analysis of 67 effect sizes (22 studies, 38 samples) [Total N=282, citations=8(GS, October 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Color and psychological functioning: The effect of red on performance attainment](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.154)’, Elliot et al. 2007; 6 experiments, Total N=282. [citations=948(GS, October 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Gnambs 2020](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01772-1) meta-analysis of 67 effect sizes (22 studies, 38 samples) [Total N=282, citations=8(GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = -0.51 to -1.14​. * Replication effect size: Gnambs: _d_ = -0.06 to -0.04; Δ = -0.34. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -681,8 +681,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Moral licensing effect** (self-licensing, moral self-licensing, licensing effect) is the effect that acting in a moral way makes people more likely to excuse and perform subsequent immoral, unethical, or otherwise problematic behaviours. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper:[ ‘Sinning Saints and Saintly Sinners’](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x?casa_token=pKaB9TiHf7MAAAAA%3AhzX6UrXeTzfnjsLD_aSA1O9lttBra3SL6rlqK37SIT151l8I_BQlU9BkFKpOGXspGt2asdlWatg), 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146167215572134?casa_token=1IDy3O-LZ8oAAAAA%3A4XYJkfWDYJ2BtYxbX69KR6KHl4f_MyNuJxxW-aBCYG6jHsDYBrJnXAkhBYJBhZCWbLE6QKxReOg) [meta-analysis, total n = 7,397, citations = 470(GS, June 2022)]. [Simbrunner and Schlegelmilch 2015](https://link.springer.com/article/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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797610363538?casa_token=J59_IJ6murwAAAAA%3Aps_4AI4lziKUPHgIKw_b1fLAXi4W6xYm3Cc0B5KfYW6ue3tEqOf4Iof38hsDu96NWjUl4KPjOXc), 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)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -691,7 +691,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[Blue or Red? Exploring the Effect of Color on Cognitive Task Performances](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1169144)’, Mehta and Zhu 2009; six studies, studies 1-5 between-subject experiments, study 6 correlational, Study 1: n = 69, Study 2: n = 208, Study 3: n = 118, Study 4: n = 42, Study 5: n = 161, Study 6: n = 68. [citations=1003 (GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques:[ Steele et al. 2010](http://www.appstate.edu/~steelekm/documents/Psychonomic2010Poster_Steele.pdf) direct replication of Mehta an d Zhu Study 1 [n=172, citations=2(GS, November 2022)].[ Steele et al. 2013](http://www.appstate.edu/~steelekm/documents/APS_Poster_2013_Steele.pdf) direct replication of Mehta andZhu Study 1 [n=263, citations=2(GS, November 2022)].[ Steele 2014](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-013-0548-3) direct replication of Mehta and Zhu Study 1 [n=263, citations=45(GS, November 2022)].​ +* Critiques:[ Steele et al. 2010](http://www.appstate.edu/~steelekm/documents/Psychonomic2010Poster_Steele.pdf) direct replication of Mehta an d Zhu Study 1 [n=172, citations=2(GS, November 2022)].[ Steele et al. 2013](http://www.appstate.edu/~steelekm/documents/APS_Poster_2013_Steele.pdf) direct replication of Mehta andZhu Study 1 [n=263, citations=2(GS, November 2022)].[ Steele 2014](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0548-3) direct replication of Mehta and Zhu Study 1 [n=263, citations=45(GS, November 2022)].​ * Original effect size: Study 1 – blue versus red condition comparison for approach-related anagrams, _d_ = 0.81, and for avoidance-related anagrams _d_ = 0.96; Study 2 – blue versus red condition on detailed-oriented task, _d_ = 0.64, and on creative task, _d_ = 0.6; Study 3 - blue versus red condition on detailed-oriented task, _d_ = 1.05, and on creative task, _d_ = 0.69; Study 4 - blue versus red condition on the practicality of the designed toy, _d_ = 0.64, and on the originality/novelty of the designed toy, _d_ = 0.67; Study 5​ - blue versus red condition on detailed-oriented processing style, _d_ = 0.42, and creative thinking, _d_ = 0.56; * Replication effect size:​ Steele et al.: colour by word-type interaction _ηp2_ = 0.038 / _d_ = 0.20 [_ηp2 _calculated from the reported F statistics and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (not replicated).​ Steele et al.: colour by word-type interaction _ηp2_ = 0.014 / _d_ = 0.12 [_ηp2 _calculated from the reported F statistics and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (not replicated).​ Steele: The colour X word type interaction _ηp2_ = 0.007 [reported] / _d_ = 0.083 [converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (not replicated). {{< /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://psycnet.apa.org/doi/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://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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **American flag priming boosts Republican support**. Subtle exposure to the American flag causes people to report more conservative, Republican beliefs and attitudes. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[A Single Exposure to the American Flag Shifts Support Toward Republicanism up to 8 Months Later](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797611414726)’, Carter et al. 2011; two experiments; Experiment 1: N = 235 in Session 1 (exposure to prime), 197 in Session 2 (appx. two weeks later, right before the 2008 presidential election), 191 in Session 3 (the week after this election), 75 in Session 4 (eight months after this election); Experiment 2: N = 70. [citations = 197 (GS, June 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[A Single Exposure to the American Flag Shifts Support Toward Republicanism up to 8 Months Later](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611414726)’, Carter et al. 2011; two experiments; Experiment 1: N = 235 in Session 1 (exposure to prime), 197 in Session 2 (appx. two weeks later, right before the 2008 presidential election), 191 in Session 3 (the week after this election), 75 in Session 4 (eight months after this election); Experiment 2: N = 70. [citations = 197 (GS, June 2022)]. * Critiques:​ [Klein et al. 2014 ](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-20922-002.html)[n = 6344, citations = 1082 (GS, June 2022)] * Original effect size: _d_= .50 * Replication effect size: Klein et al.: median _d_ = .02. @@ -744,8 +744,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Unethicality darkens perception of light** (El Greco fallacy). Recalling abstract concepts such as evil (as exemplified by unethical deeds) and goodness (as exemplified by ethical deeds) can influence the sensory experience of the brightness of light. Recalling unethical behaviour led participants to see the room as darker and to desire more light-emitting products (e.g., a flashlight) compared to recalling ethical behaviour. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated. -* Original paper: ‘[Is It Light or Dark? Recalling Moral Behavior Changes Perception of Brightness](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797611432497)’, Banerjee et al. 2012; two between-subjects experiments, Experiment 1: n = 40, Experiment 2: n = 74. [Citations= 194 (GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques:[ Brandt et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-20922-016.pdf) [online Study 1: n=475, online Study 2: n=482, lab Study 1: n=100, lab Study 2: n=121; meta-analysis: _k_=11, N not reported, citations=31(GS, October 2022)].[ Firestone & Scholl 2013](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797613485092) [Experiment 4 n=89, Experiment 5 n=91, citations=266(GS, October 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Is It Light or Dark? Recalling Moral Behavior Changes Perception of Brightness](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611432497)’, Banerjee et al. 2012; two between-subjects experiments, Experiment 1: n = 40, Experiment 2: n = 74. [Citations= 194 (GS, October 2022)]​. +* Critiques:[ Brandt et al. 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-20922-016.pdf) [online Study 1: n=475, online Study 2: n=482, lab Study 1: n=100, lab Study 2: n=121; meta-analysis: _k_=11, N not reported, citations=31(GS, October 2022)].[ Firestone & Scholl 2013](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613485092) [Experiment 4 n=89, Experiment 5 n=91, citations=266(GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: perceived brightness – _d_= 0.65 [reported]​, _estimated watts d_= 0.64 [reported], lamp preference_ – d_= 1.23 [reported], candle preference – _d_= 0.79 [reported], flashlight preference _– d_= 1.33 [reported] * Replication effect size: All effect sizes reported in Brandt et al.: ​Brandt et al.: _d_= 0.12 [-0.46, 0.10] (non-significant, online study 1). Brandt et al.: _d_= -0.11 [-0.50, 0.28] (non-significant, lab study 1). _estimated watts_ –Brandt et al.​: _d_= 0.05 [-0.15, 0.25] (online study 2). Brandt et al.: _d_= 0.03 [-0.36, 0.42] (non-significant, lab study 2). _lamp preference_ – Brandt et al.​: _d_= -0.03 [-0.23, 0.17] (non-significant, online study 2). Brandt et al.: _d_= -0.11 [-0.35, 0.33] (non-significant, lab study 2). _candle preference_ –Brandt et al.: _d_= 0.03 [-0.31, 0.37] (non-significant, online study 1). Brandt et al.: _d_= 0.01 [-0.33, 0.35] (non-significant, lab study 2). _flashlight preference_ –Brandt et al.: _d_= -0.10 [-0.30, 0.10] (non-significant, online study 2). Brandt et al.: _d_= -0.09 [-0.25, 0.43] (non-significant, lab study 2). Meta-analytic estimate: effects on brightness judgements mean _d_ = 0.14 [0.002, 0.28], desirability of light-emitting products mean effect size of _d_ = 0.13 [-0.04, 0.29]. _perceived brightness_ – Firestone and Scholl: _d_= 0.38 [-0.06, 0.82] (non-significant, study 4)​. Firestone and Scholl: _d_= 0.46 [0.02, 0.90] (study 5). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -754,7 +754,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[The fluctuating female vote: politics, religion, and the ovulatory cycle](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612466416)’, Durante et al., 2013; between-subjects design, two studies, Study 1: n = 275 women, Study 2: n = 502 women. [Citations = 117 (GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques:[ Harris et al. 2014](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797613520236) [n = 1,206, citations=15 (GS, October 2022)].​ +* Critiques:[ Harris et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613520236) [n = 1,206, citations=15 (GS, October 2022)].​ * Original effect size: single women _d_ = 0.32 [reported], women in relationships _d_ = 0.37 [reported]​. * Replication effect size: Harris et al.: hypothetical voting preferences – single women _d_ = 0.01 [reported; non-significant], women in relationships _d_ = 0.37 [reported]​; actual voting behaviour - single women _d_ = 0.40 [reported], women in relationships _d_ = 0.02 [reported; non-significant]​.​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -781,8 +781,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed. * Original paper: ‘[The 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://link.springer.com/article/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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/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://link.springer.com/article/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/)]. +* 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/)]. * 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 >}} @@ -798,8 +798,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Treating-prejudice-with-imagery effect**. Imagining a positive encounter with a member of a stigmatised group promote positive perceptions when it was preceded by imagined negative encounter.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated. -* Original paper: ‘[Treating” Prejudice: An Exposure-Therapy Approach to Reducing Negative Reactions Toward Stigmatized Groups](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612443838)’, Birtel and Crisp 2012; three between-subjects experiments, Experiment 1: n = 29, Experiment 2a: n = 32, Experiment 2b: n = 30. [Citations = 100 (GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques:[ McDonald et al. 2014](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797613516010) [Study 1: n = 240, Study 2: n = 175, citations = 24 (GS, October 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Treating” Prejudice: An Exposure-Therapy Approach to Reducing Negative Reactions Toward Stigmatized Groups](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612443838)’, Birtel and Crisp 2012; three between-subjects experiments, Experiment 1: n = 29, Experiment 2a: n = 32, Experiment 2b: n = 30. [Citations = 100 (GS, October 2022)]​. +* Critiques:[ McDonald et al. 2014](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613516010) [Study 1: n = 240, Study 2: n = 175, citations = 24 (GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: All effect sizes reported in McDonald et al.: anxiety adult with schizophrenia _d_= 0.76, anxiety homosexual men _d_ = 1.08, contact homosexual men _d_ = -0.88. * Replication effect size: McDonald et al.: anxiety adult with schizophrenia _d_ = 0.10 (non-significant), anxiety homosexual men _d_ = -0.19 (non-significant), contact homosexual men _d_ = 0.01 (non-significant).​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -807,8 +807,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Grammar influences perceived intentionality**. Describing a person's behaviours in terms of what the person _was doing _(rather than what the person _did_) enhances intentionality attributions in the context of both mundane and criminal behaviors.​ Participants judged actions described in the imperfective as being more intentional and they imagined these actions in more detail. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed. -* Original paper: ‘[Learning About What Others Were Doing: Verb Aspect and Attributions of Mundane and Criminal Intent for Past Actions](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610395393)’, Hart and Albarracín 2011; three between-subject experiments, Experiment 1 n = 54, Experiment 2 n = 37, Experiment 3 n = 48. [citations=40(GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques:[ Eerland et al. 2016](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141181) Multilab direct replication of Study 3 [N=685 across 12 studies, citations=82(gs, October 2022)].​ [Sherrill et al. 2015](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141181) [N=699 across 4 Experiments, citations=14(GS, October 2022)].[ ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691615605826) +* Original paper: ‘[Learning About What Others Were Doing: Verb Aspect and Attributions of Mundane and Criminal Intent for Past Actions](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610395393)’, Hart and Albarracín 2011; three between-subject experiments, Experiment 1 n = 54, Experiment 2 n = 37, Experiment 3 n = 48. [citations=40(GS, October 2022)]​. +* Critiques:[ Eerland et al. 2016](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141181) Multilab direct replication of Study 3 [N=685 across 12 studies, citations=82(gs, October 2022)].​ [Sherrill et al. 2015](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141181) [N=699 across 4 Experiments, citations=14(GS, October 2022)].[ ](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615605826) * Original effect size: Experiment 1 – accessibility to intention-relevant concepts _d_= 1.00 [reported]; Experiment 2 – attribution of intentionality _d_= 1.00 [reported], detailed segmentation of behaviour descriptions _d_= 1.23 [reported]; Experiment 3 – criminal intentionality _d_= 0.76 [reported], intention attributions _d_= 0.66 [reported], imagery _d_= 0.73 [reported]. * Replication effect size: Eerland et al.: intentionality _d_= -0.98 to _d_= 0.65 [reported], Meta-analytic effect for laboratory replications _d_= -0.24 [-0.50, 0.02] [non-significant, reported]; imagery _d_= -0.45 to _d_= 0.33, Meta-analytic effect for laboratory replications _d_= -0.08 [-0.23, 0.07] [non-significant, reported]; intention attribution _d_= -0.29 to _d_= 0.19, Meta-analytic effect for laboratory replications _d_= 0.00 [-0.07, 0.08] [non-significant, reported]. Sherrill et al.: Experiment 2 – murder intentionality judgement in imperfective vs. perfective condition _ηp2_ = 0.036 [reported] / _d_ = 0.19 [converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated); Experiment 3 – murder intentionality judgement in imperfective vs. perfective condition _ηp2_ = 0.040 [reported] / _d_ = 0.20 [converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated); Experiment 4 – imperfective murder vs. perfective murder condition _d_= 0.15 [non-significant, reported]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -816,7 +816,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Attachment-warmth embodiment effect** (anxious attachment warm food effect) Attachment anxiety positively predicts sensitivity to temperature cues.​ Individuals with high (but not low) attachment anxiety report higher desires for warm foods (but not neutral foods) when attachment is activated. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Warm Thoughts: Attachment Anxiety and Sensitivity to Temperature Cues](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797611435919)’, Vess 2012; between-subject experiment, Study 1: n = 56. [citations = 45 (GS, October 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Warm Thoughts: Attachment Anxiety and Sensitivity to Temperature Cues](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435919)’, Vess 2012; between-subject experiment, Study 1: n = 56. [citations = 45 (GS, October 2022)]​. * Critiques: ​[LeBel and Campbell 2013](https://etiennelebel.com/documents/l&c(2013,psci).pdf) [Sample 1: n = 219, Sample 2: n=233, citations = 46 (GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: _f2_ = .0734 ([Table 1](https://etiennelebel.com/documents/l&c(2013,psci).pdf)), _d_ = .60 (CurateScience), but [calculated](https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/other/mult-pkg/faq/general/effect-size-power/faqhow-is-effect-size-used-in-power-analysis/): _d_ = .54 * Replication effect size: LeBel and Campbell: Sample 1: _f2_ = .000228, _d_ = .03; Sample 2: _f2_ = .000563, _d_=.05. @@ -825,7 +825,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Social and personal power**. Social power (power over other people) and personal power (freedom from other people) have opposite associations with independence and interdependence; they have opposite effects on stereotyping (social power decreases and personal power increases stereotyping), but parallel effects on behavioural approach (both types of power increase it). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Differentiating Social and Personal Power Opposite Effects on Stereotyping, but Parallel Effects on Behavioral Approach Tendencies](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02479.x)’, Lammers et al. 2009; Study 1 between-subject experiments, Study 2 field/correlational study, n1 = 113, n2 = 3,082. [citations=233(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Differentiating Social and Personal Power Opposite Effects on Stereotyping, but Parallel Effects on Behavioral Approach Tendencies](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02479.x)’, Lammers et al. 2009; Study 1 between-subject experiments, Study 2 field/correlational study, n1 = 113, n2 = 3,082. [citations=233(GS, December 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Mayiwar and Lai 2009](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-48251-001) direct replication of the Lammers et al. Study 1 [n=295, citations=5(GS, December 2022)].​ * Original effect size: Study 1 – effect of the power manipulations on participants’ stereotyping _ηp2_ = 0.23 [reported] / _d_ = 0.54 [converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; effect of the power manipulations on participants’ behavioural approach tendencies _ηp2_ = 0.13 [reported] / _d_ = 0.38 [converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Study 2 – significant effects of personal, _b_ = 0.05 [0.01, 0.09], and social power, _b_ = -0.04 [0.08, 0.01] on stereotyping; significant effects of personal, _b_ = 0.22 [0.19, 0.26], and social power, _b_ = 0.18 [0.13, 0.24] on behavioural approach tendencies. * Replication effect size: Mayiwar and Lai: effect of the power manipulations on participants’ stereotyping _ηp2_ = 0.056 [reported] / _d_ = 0.24 [converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated); effect of the power manipulations on participants’ behavioural approach tendencies _ηp2_ = 0.017 [reported, not significant] / _d_ = 0.13 [converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (not replicated). @@ -862,7 +862,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Facial redness, expression, and masculinity influence perceptions of anger and health](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1273201)’, Young et al., 2018; full within-subjects design, 40 (Study 1) + 44 (Study 2). [citations=23(GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques: Effect could not be replicated with natural shades of red: [Wolf et al., 2021](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699931.2021.1979473) [n=609, citations=1(GSt, October 2022)]. Effect persisted only in a within-subjects design: [Wolf et al., 2022](https://psyarxiv.com/ntukz/) [n= 40 (Study 1) + 329 (Study 2), citations=0(GS, October 2022)]. ​ +* Critiques: Effect could not be replicated with natural shades of red: [Wolf et al., 2021](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.1979473) [n=609, citations=1(GSt, October 2022)]. Effect persisted only in a within-subjects design: [Wolf et al., 2022](https://psyarxiv.com/ntukz/) [n= 40 (Study 1) + 329 (Study 2), citations=0(GS, October 2022)]. ​ * Original effect size: Cohen’s _f_ = .35. * Replication effect size: Wolf, et al.: ηp2=0.04 [0.01, 0.06]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Stereotype activation effect**. Judgments of targets that follow gender-congruent primes are made faster than judgments of targets that follow gender-incongruent primes.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Automatic Stereotyping](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00346.x)’, Banaji and Hardin 1996; method - the semantic priming procedure, sample size = 68. [citations=1060 (CS, November 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Automatic Stereotyping](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00346.x)’, Banaji and Hardin 1996; method - the semantic priming procedure, sample size = 68. [citations=1060 (CS, November 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Müller](https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/1864-9335/a000183#) and [Rothermund](https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/1864-9335/a000183#), 2014 [n=294, citations=32(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: Prime Gender x Target Gender: _F_(2, 144) = 15.28, _p_<.001 * Replication effect size: Müller and Rothermund: Prime Gender × Target Gender interaction: _F_(1, 293) = 39.68, _p_ = 1.09 × 10−9 @@ -888,8 +888,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Sex difference in distress to infidelity**. Men, compared to women, are more distressed by sexual than emotional infidelity, and this sex difference continued into older age.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00215.x)’, David et al. 1999; study design = experimental (Questionnaire), sample 1 size = 405, sample 2 size = 626. [citations=552 (GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Shackelford and Voracek, 2004](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-004-1010-z) [n=234 citations=172 (GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00215.x)’, David et al. 1999; study design = experimental (Questionnaire), sample 1 size = 405, sample 2 size = 626. [citations=552 (GS, November 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Shackelford and Voracek, 2004](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-004-1010-z) [n=234 citations=172 (GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: _t_(494) = 6.09 for Sample 1 and _t_(624) = 6.82 for Sample 2, both _p_’s < .001. * Replication effect size: _d_ = 1.29, _t_(232) = 9.89, _p_ < .001; {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -933,7 +933,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Information source on attitudes effect**. The source of information has a major impact on how that information is perceived and evaluated. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Prestige, Suggestion, and Attitudes](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891)’, Lorge and Curtiss 1936; experiment, sample size = 99. [citations=242(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Prestige, Suggestion, and Attitudes](https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891)’, Lorge and Curtiss 1936; experiment, sample size = 99. [citations=242(GS, November 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Klein et al. 2014](https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178) [n=6325, citations=1129 (GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Klein et al.: _d_ = 0.31[0.19, 0.42]. @@ -1014,7 +1014,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: Vicarious hypocrisy: Bolstering attitudes and taking action after exposure to a hypocritical ingroup member, Focella et al., 2016; experimental design, exp 1: n = 161, exp 2 : n = 68, exp 3: n = 64, exp 4: n = 68. [citations= 34 (GS, February 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Gaffney et al. 2012](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2012.663741) [n = 78, citations=17(GS, November 2022)]. Jaubert 2022 [n = 133, citations = NA]. [Jaubert et al. 2020](https://psyarxiv.com/hc2n3/) [meta-analyse _in submission_; _k _= 13 studies, citations = 0 (GS, March 2023)].​ [Monin et al. 2004](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368430204046108) [study 1 n=57, study 2 n = 25, citations=97(GS, November 2022)].​ +* Critiques: [Gaffney et al. 2012](https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.663741) [n = 78, citations=17(GS, November 2022)]. Jaubert 2022 [n = 133, citations = NA]. [Jaubert et al. 2020](https://psyarxiv.com/hc2n3/) [meta-analyse _in submission_; _k _= 13 studies, citations = 0 (GS, March 2023)].​ [Monin et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430204046108) [study 1 n=57, study 2 n = 25, citations=97(GS, November 2022)].​ * Original effect size: Effect of induced-hypocrisy on behavioural intention: _d_= 0.70 [0.12, 1.26]​. * Replication effect size: Gaffney et al.: group membership X response to the hypocrisy interaction effect on attitudes _ηp2_ =0.142 /_d_ = 0.40 [calculated from the F statistics and converted using this conversion] (replicated). Jaubert: Effect of vicarious dissonance on attitude change: _η2p_= 0.03. Jaubert et al.: Effect of vicarious dissonance toward the induced-compliance paradigm: _d_= 0.46 [0.27, 0.64]. Monin et al.: study 1 disagree versus agree condition attitude change comparison _d_ = 0.30 [calculated from the t-test values using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; study 2 no consequence versus consequence condition attitude change comparison _d_= 0.46 [calculated from the t-test values using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1023,7 +1023,7 @@ 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 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)]​. -* Critiques: [Bravata et al. 2020](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-019-05364-1): [n= 62 studies - systematic review, citations= 272 (GS, January 23)]. +* 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). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1041,7 +1041,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: The name of the effect shows up first in ‘[The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science](https://doi.org/10.1177/030631293023002004)’, Rossiter, 1993; theoretical paper, n=NA. [citations=114(GS, February 2023)]​. -* Critiques: Unpublished replication in [Feeley and Lee 2015](https://www.buffalo.edu/content/dam/cas/communication/documents/MatildaEffect.pdf) [n=1177 articles across 3 journals, citations=5 (GS, February 2023)]. Related article also in communication research is [Feeley and Yang 2022](https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2021.1974505) [n=3324 articles across 10 journals, citations=2(GS, February 2023)]. Knobloch-Westerwick and Glynn 2013; correlational design, n=1020 articles across 2 journals [citations=114 (GS, February 2023)]. [Rajko et al. 2023](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00936502221124389) [n=5,500 communication scholars from 11 countries, citations=0 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Critiques: Unpublished replication in [Feeley and Lee 2015](https://www.buffalo.edu/content/dam/cas/communication/documents/MatildaEffect.pdf) [n=1177 articles across 3 journals, citations=5 (GS, February 2023)]. Related article also in communication research is [Feeley and Yang 2022](https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2021.1974505) [n=3324 articles across 10 journals, citations=2(GS, February 2023)]. Knobloch-Westerwick and Glynn 2013; correlational design, n=1020 articles across 2 journals [citations=114 (GS, February 2023)]. [Rajko et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221124389) [n=5,500 communication scholars from 11 countries, citations=0 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Knobloch-Westerwick and Glynn: Publications with female lead authors were cited 12.77 times on average (SD = 20.57), whereas publications with male lead authors were cited 17.73 times on average (SD = 35.34), _η_² = 0.006; Male-typed publications receiving significantly more citations (M = 21.04, SD = 38.63 vs. M = 14.44, SD = 28.08), _η_² = 0.006; Publications with at least one male author received significantly more citations with M = 17.11 (SD = 33.38), compared with M = 11.93 citations (SD = 19.84) for publications from female authors, _η_² = 0.006Feeley and Lee: Female lead authors were cited, on average, 19.34 times (SD = 30.22) compared to male lead authors (M = 18.05, SD = 25.98) (non-significant); Male-typed topics (M = 22.43, SD = 36.55) received more citations than female-typed topics (M= 17.87, SD = 25.80), _η_² = 0.003. Feeley and Yang: 2 out of the 8 journals examined exhibited Matilda effects. Rajko et al.: After controlling for country, the total number of papers, and the total number of views, female scholars have significantly lower levels of citations than male peers (β = −.05; p < .001). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1058,7 +1058,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Ethnoracial diversity and trust**. Ethnoracial diversity negatively affects trust and social capital. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x)’, Putnam 2007; observational study, N = 23260. [citations = 6860 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x)’, Putnam 2007; observational study, N = 23260. [citations = 6860 (GS, February 2023)]. * Critiques: [Abascal et al. 2015](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/683144) [observational study, N = 29733, citations = 331 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: Trust in Neighbors increases by 0,18 (on a 4-point scale) when switching from a maximally heterogeneous to a maximally homogeneous community in the USA. _t_= 5.1. (see table 3). * Replication effect size: On the full-sample of the US, the authors find a similar result: trust in neighbours decreases by 0,12 in heterogeneous compared to homogeneous communities, BUT when using random subsamples of the US population, they only find a significant effect in 4 out of 30 models (average _t_=: -0,76). @@ -1095,7 +1095,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2329488415612478)[n=202, citations = 49 (GS, March 2023)]. [Evans et al. 2020](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/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://link.springer.com/article/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)]. +* 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 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 >}} @@ -1103,8 +1103,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Social referencing effect**. Crosby et al. (2008) found that hearing an offensive remark caused subjects to look longer at a potentially offended person, but only if that person could hear the remark. On the basis of this result, they argued that people use social referencing to assess the offensiveness. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Where do we look during potentially offensive behavior?](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02072.x?journalCode=pssa)’, Crosby et al. 2008; experimental design, n=25. [Citations = 95 (GS, Jan 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Jonas and Skorinko 2015](https://osf.io/nkaw4) [n=58, Citations = 0 (GS, Jan 2023)]. [Rabagliati et al. 2020](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2515245919870737) [n = 283, Citations = 2 (GS, Jan 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Where do we look during potentially offensive behavior?](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02072.x)’, Crosby et al. 2008; experimental design, n=25. [Citations = 95 (GS, Jan 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Jonas and Skorinko 2015](https://osf.io/nkaw4) [n=58, Citations = 0 (GS, Jan 2023)]. [Rabagliati et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919870737) [n = 283, Citations = 2 (GS, Jan 2023)]. * Original effect size: _F_(3,69)=5.15, _p_<.005. * Replication effect size: Jonas and Skorinko: _F_(1.86, 101.7) = 0.07, _p_=0.917. Rabagliati et al: χ2(3) = 22.11, _p_ < .001, pseudo-_R2_ = .85; χ2(3) = 22.11, _p_ < .001, pseudo-_R2_ = .85. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1113,7 +1113,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: [‘Recognition for faces of own and other race’](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028434), Malpass and Kravitz 1969; forced-choice recognition task, n=40. [Citations=1036 (GS, Feb 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Lee and Penrod 2022](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3997) [various recognition tasks n=24937, Citations=1 (GS, Feb 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Lee and Penrod 2022](https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3997) [various recognition tasks n=24937, Citations=1 (GS, Feb 2023)]. * Original effect size: _η2p_=0.291 to 0.350 (insufficient information for CI). * Replication effect size: Lee and Penrod: Hedge’s _g_=0.54. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1122,7 +1122,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated. * Original paper: ‘[Memories of unethical actions become obfuscated over time](https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1523586113)’, Kouchaki and Gino 2016; nine studies, between-subjects (Study 1a, 1b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7a, 7b) and correlational design (Study 2), total n = 2,109. [citations=177(GS, May 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Stanley et al. 2018](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-018-0803-y) replication of Kouchaki and Gino 2016 study 5 [n1=228, n2=232, n3=228, citations=22(GS, May 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Stanley et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0803-y) replication of Kouchaki and Gino 2016 study 5 [n1=228, n2=232, n3=228, citations=22(GS, May 2023)]. * Original effect size: Study 1a - _ηp2_= 0.06; Study 1b – in the “self” conditions, participants had less clear memory of their unethical actions, _ηp2_ = 0.06; Study 2 –cheaters reported lower clarity of memory, _ηp2_ = 0.04; Study 3 –participants in the self-unethical condition had a less clear recall of thoughts and feelings than did participants in the self-ethical condition, _ηp2_ = 0.05; Study 4 - participants who read that they had cheated indicated they had a less clear memory than those who did not cheat, _ηp2_ = 0.20; Study 5 – objective memory score was lower for those who read in the story that they had cheated than for those who read that they had behaved honestly, _d_ = 0.43; Study 6 - participants in the likely-cheating condition recalled the die-throwing task less precisely than those in the no-cheating condition, _d_ = 0.57; Study 7 - participants in the likely-cheating condition recalled the die-throwing task less precisely than those in the no-cheating condition, _d_ = 0.38 (Study 7a), _d_ = 0.33 (Study 7b). * Replication effect size: Stanley et al.: no significant differences in objective memory score between participants who read the vignette depicting the ethical behaviour versus the unethical cheating behaviour, Study 1 - _d_ = .26 (n.s.), Study 2 - _d_ = .04 (n.s.), Study 3 - _d_ = .17 (n.s.). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1130,7 +1130,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Feeling dirty after networking**. People feel uncomfortable networking because networking triggers a state of “moral impurity,” which translates into feelings of “dirtiness” and a heightened desire for “cleansing”. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The contaminating effects of building instrumental ties: How networking can make us feel dirty](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0001839214554990)’, Casciaro et al. 2014; 4 studies, 1 survey and 3 laboratory experiments, experiment 1: n=306, experiment 2: n=149, survey 3: n=165, experiment 4: n=149. [citations=271(GS, June 2023)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[The contaminating effects of building instrumental ties: How networking can make us feel dirty](https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214554990)’, Casciaro et al. 2014; 4 studies, 1 survey and 3 laboratory experiments, experiment 1: n=306, experiment 2: n=149, survey 3: n=165, experiment 4: n=149. [citations=271(GS, June 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Ziani 2022](https://psyarxiv.com/ys9dh) [n=1069, citations=0(GS, June 2023)]. * Original effect size: _d_=0.98. * Replication effect size: Ziani: _d_=0.02 to _d_=0.51. @@ -1152,8 +1152,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Power pose.** Taking on a power pose lowers cortisol and risk tolerance, while it raises testosterone and feelings of power. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: '[Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797610383437?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed)', Carney et al. 2010; between-subjects design, n=42 mixed sexes.[citations = 1450 (GS, April, 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Garrison et al. 2016](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1948550616652209) [n=305, citations = 70 (GS, April 2022)]. [Metzler and Grezes 2019](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6585898/#!po=40.4762) [n = 82 men, citations = 3 (GS, April 2022)]. [Ranehill 2015](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797614553946) [total n=200, citations = 291 (GS, April 2022)]. [Ronay 2017](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23743603.2016.1248081) [n=108, citations = 38 (GS, April 2022)]. +* Original paper: '[Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610383437)', Carney et al. 2010; between-subjects design, n=42 mixed sexes.[citations = 1450 (GS, April, 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Garrison et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616652209) [n=305, citations = 70 (GS, April 2022)]. [Metzler and Grezes 2019](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6585898/#!po=40.4762) [n = 82 men, citations = 3 (GS, April 2022)]. [Ranehill 2015](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614553946) [total n=200, citations = 291 (GS, April 2022)]. [Ronay 2017](https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2016.1248081) [n=108, citations = 38 (GS, April 2022)]. * Original effect sizes: Φ = 0.30 in risk-taking from Carney et al. (2010), Sources unknown: _d_ = -0.30 for cortisol, _d_=0.35 for testosterone, _d_=0.79 for feelings of power. * Replication effect size: Garrison et al.: feeling of power: _ηp2_ = .016. Metzler and Grezes: cortisol: _ηp2 _= 0.02, testosterone: _ηp2 _= 0.01. Ranehill: cortisol: _d_ = -0.157, feelings of power: _d_ = 0.34; risk taking: _d_ = -0.176, testosterone: _d_ = -0.200. Ronay: cortisol: _d_ = 0.034, feeling of power: _d_ = 0.226, testosterone: _d_ = 0.121. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1170,7 +1170,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Positive affirmation on mood**. Positive self-statements boost mood for people with high self-esteem and reduce mood for people with low self-esteem. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Positive Self-Statements: Power for Some, Peril for Others](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02370.x)’, Wood et al. 2009; 3 experiments with Study 1: n = 249, Study 2: n = 68, Study 3: n=116. [citation=294(GS, February 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Positive Self-Statements: Power for Some, Peril for Others](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02370.x)’, Wood et al. 2009; 3 experiments with Study 1: n = 249, Study 2: n = 68, Study 3: n=116. [citation=294(GS, February 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Flynn and Bordieri 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.03.003) [experiment: n = 462, citations=4(GS, February 2022)]. * Original effect size: Study 1: not reported [_g_ = 0.53]; Study 2: not reported [_g_ = 1.00 calculated]; Study 3: not reported [_g_ = 0.86, _d_= -0.74, _d_= 2.13, _d_ = -0.49 calculated]. A meta-analysis combining the studies suggested that participants with high self-esteem did receive some benefit, _Z_ = 2.51, _p_ < .013, _d_ = 0.66 (for participants with low self-esteem, _Z_ = −3.21, _p_ < .002, _d_ = 0.72). * Replication effect size: Flynn and Bordieri: Study 1: not reported [_g_ = 0.53 calculated]; Study 2: not reported [_g_ = 1.00 calculated]. @@ -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://link.springer.com/article/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://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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1193,7 +1193,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< 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)]​. -* Critiques: Experiment 1 and 4: [Alogna 2014](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691614545653) [n=1105 (experiment 1), n = 663(experiment 2), citations=192 (GS, November 2022)]. Мeta-analysis. +* 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%]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1201,8 +1201,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition effects - influence on free recall (pure block)**. Early-acquired items are recalled more accurately than late-acquired items when early-acquired items are presented in a separate block and late-acquired items are presented in a separate block. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: [‘Word imagery but not age of acquisition affects episodic memory](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03198377)’, Coltheart and Winograd 1986; experiment, Experiment 1a: n = 42. [citations=44(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Almond and Morrison 2014](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13825585.2013.849653?casa_token=1mZ----fbTMAAAAA:mC66IZWTiiUfd5Tga5m683nbSPU8KkLfjIihbi0KvN3QivtJ95X1I8ACDyI3-8C6ExLd-gk1jy8Adw) [n =80, citations = 8(GS, November 2022)]. [Dewhurst et al. 1998](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher-Barry-6/publication/232448882_Separate_effects_of_word_frequency_and_age_of_acquisition_in_recognition_and_recall/links/5735b45708ae298602e08719/Separate-effects-of-word-frequency-and-age-of-acquisition-in-recognition-and-recall.pdf) [n=128, citations=117(GS, November 2022)]. [Macmillan et al. 2022](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-021-01137-6) [n = 44, citations = 9 (GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: [‘Word imagery but not age of acquisition affects episodic memory](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198377)’, Coltheart and Winograd 1986; experiment, Experiment 1a: n = 42. [citations=44(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Almond and Morrison 2014](https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2013.849653) [n =80, citations = 8(GS, November 2022)]. [Dewhurst et al. 1998](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher-Barry-6/publication/232448882_Separate_effects_of_word_frequency_and_age_of_acquisition_in_recognition_and_recall/links/5735b45708ae298602e08719/Separate-effects-of-word-frequency-and-age-of-acquisition-in-recognition-and-recall.pdf) [n=128, citations=117(GS, November 2022)]. [Macmillan et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01137-6) [n = 44, citations = 9 (GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: ηp² = .05 [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: Almond and Morrison: η² = .111. Dewhurst et al.: _F_ < 1. Macmillan et al.: ηp² = 0.008. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1211,7 +1211,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Separate Effects of Word Frequency and Age of Acquisition in Recognition and Recall](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher-Barry-6/publication/232448882_Separate_effects_of_word_frequency_and_age_of_acquisition_in_recognition_and_recall/links/5735b45708ae298602e08719/Separate-effects-of-word-frequency-and-age-of-acquisition-in-recognition-and-recall.pdf)’, Dewhurst et al. 1998; experiment, n=80. [citations=117(GS, November 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Macmillan et al. 2022](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-021-01137-6) [n = 44, citations = 9 (GS, November 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Macmillan et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01137-6) [n = 44, citations = 9 (GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: ηp² = 0.15 [np2 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: Macmillan et al.: ηp² = 0.003. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1219,8 +1219,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition effects - influence on recognition (mixed block)**. Early-acquired items are recalled more accurately than late-acquired items. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: reversed -* Original paper: [‘Word imagery but not age of acquisition affects episodic memory](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03198377)’, Coltheart and Winograd 1986; experiment, Experiment 2: n = 102. [citations=44(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Dewhurst et al. 1998](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher-Barry-6/publication/232448882_Separate_effects_of_word_frequency_and_age_of_acquisition_in_recognition_and_recall/links/5735b45708ae298602e08719/Separate-effects-of-word-frequency-and-age-of-acquisition-in-recognition-and-recall.pdf) [Experiment 1: n=30, Experiment 2: n = 30; citations=117(GS, November 2022)]. [Macmillan et al. 2022](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-021-01137-6) [n = 44, citations = 9 (GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: [‘Word imagery but not age of acquisition affects episodic memory](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198377)’, Coltheart and Winograd 1986; experiment, Experiment 2: n = 102. [citations=44(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Dewhurst et al. 1998](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher-Barry-6/publication/232448882_Separate_effects_of_word_frequency_and_age_of_acquisition_in_recognition_and_recall/links/5735b45708ae298602e08719/Separate-effects-of-word-frequency-and-age-of-acquisition-in-recognition-and-recall.pdf) [Experiment 1: n=30, Experiment 2: n = 30; citations=117(GS, November 2022)]. [Macmillan et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01137-6) [n = 44, citations = 9 (GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: ηp² = .03 [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: Dewhurst et al.: Experiment 1: Hits: ηp² = 0.42 [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)], False alarms: _F_ < 1, d’: ηp² = 0.31 [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: Hits: _d_ = 0.74 [_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)], False alarms: _d_= 0.57 [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)], d’: _d_ = 0.09 [_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)]. Macmillan et al.: Hits: _d_ = 0.023, False alarms: _d_= 0.56, d’: _d_ = 0.44, C = 0.35, da = 0.65, slope = 0.25. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1228,8 +1228,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influences the pre-conceptual stages of lexical retrieval (progressive demasking)**. Early-acquired items are identified more accurately than late-acquired items, using a progressive demasking task. A progressive demasking task is a type of perceptual identification task where participants are presented with a series of words that are gradually revealed over time and their ability to identify words at each stage of the task is measured. Words learned at an earlier age are thought to be easier to demask than those learned later in life, perhaps because the individual has gained more experience and exposure to the word, which can make it easier to recognize. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: [‘Word age-of-acquisition and visual recognition threshold](https://link.springer.com/article/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://link.springer.com/article/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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9817.12040?casa_token=KVhDoVhN5sUAAAAA:uV5Dk3A-T5LjDGJy4S0FTeuJ0H_vRPRkVrwDyM9mv8xu70lIgL3kEKjwodT4zwXS2E0CqlfB-TTz)[n = 64, citations = 1(GS, December 2022)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1237,8 +1237,8 @@ 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 (object decision)**. The age at which one acquires the concept of an object does not contribute to the speed and accuracy of recognising whether an object is a real object or not a real world object that has chimeric features. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: [‘Age of acquisition, not word frequency, affects object naming, not object recognition](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03202720)’, Morrison et al. 1992; experiment, n = 20. [citations=495(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Catling and Johnston 2009 ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470210701814352?casa_token=cBjiHPY1S2EAAAAA%3A__YuabpjtelXo1DyH3PjTZxNcUxcI6UxH6dXF3PrNc4h4C75SIiNcMNzpY7dwPX1wNS27vFpNHg)[Experiment 2: n = 20; citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)]. [Holmes and Ellis 2006 ](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13506280544000093?casa_token=hCSgWyLLg84AAAAA%3ACQ0TDFs4z0ap-tmKleeo9sCRNMHE9NBnAYSwxTaaBgWgnPWgY2MXZkT0QkTOdpeUeaWzdq-izU8)[Experiment 2: n = 20, Experiment 3: n = 20, Experiment 7: n = 46, citations = 87 (GS, December 2022)]. [Moore et al. 2004](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09541440340000097?casa_token=q3lMfUyD3zMAAAAA:qHstbfceqQDXkxM0IZuAAYjqr2_A15dkjKhwjC3v3lzTI3zLQxEaIdUc0PhcZU_U16uuXZ3V7kM) [Experiment 1: n = 39, Experiment 2: n = 38, citations = 79 (GS, December 2022)]. [Vitkovitch and Tyrrell 1995 ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14640749508401419)[n = 16, citations = 211 (GS, December 2022)]. +* Original paper: [‘Age of acquisition, not word frequency, affects object naming, not object recognition](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202720)’, Morrison et al. 1992; experiment, n = 20. [citations=495(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Catling and Johnston 2009 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701814352)[Experiment 2: n = 20; citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)]. [Holmes and Ellis 2006 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000093)[Experiment 2: n = 20, Experiment 3: n = 20, Experiment 7: n = 46, citations = 87 (GS, December 2022)]. [Moore et al. 2004](https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000097) [Experiment 1: n = 39, Experiment 2: n = 38, citations = 79 (GS, December 2022)]. [Vitkovitch and Tyrrell 1995 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401419)[n = 16, citations = 211 (GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: Beta = .044. * Replication effect size: Catling and Johnston: _ηp2_ = 0.18 [_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 2: _d_= 1.18 [_d_ calculated from _t_ statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Experiment 3: _d_= 1.44[_d_ calculated from _t_ statistic and converted using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], Experiment 7: _ηp2 _= 0.38[_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)]. Moore 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)]. Vitkovitch and Tyrell: Beta = .426. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1246,8 +1246,8 @@ 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 (anagram solution)**. Age of acquisition is thought to affect lexical retrieval through its impact on anagram (word jumbles) solutions, such that words acquired at an earlier age tend to be solved more quickly and accurately in anagram tasks than those learned later in life. This may be because words learned earlier in life are more deeply encoded and may therefore be more easily accessed. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper:[ ‘Age-of-acquisition, imagery, familiarity and meaningfulness norms for 543 words’](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03201278), Stration et al. 1975; experiment, n = 879. [citations=46(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques:[ Gilhooly and Johnson 1978](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14640747808400654) [n = 45, citations = 78(GS, December 2022)].;[ Gilhooly and Gilhooly 1979](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03197541) [n = 45, citations = 236(GS, December 2022)]. +* Original paper:[ ‘Age-of-acquisition, imagery, familiarity and meaningfulness norms for 543 words’](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201278), Stration et al. 1975; experiment, n = 879. [citations=46(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Critiques:[ Gilhooly and Johnson 1978](https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747808400654) [n = 45, citations = 78(GS, December 2022)].;[ Gilhooly and Gilhooly 1979](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197541) [n = 45, citations = 236(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Gilhooly and Johnson: not reported. Gilhooly and Gilhooly: beta = -.41. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1264,8 +1264,8 @@ 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 (category verification)**. The age at which one acquires an object does not contribute to the speed and accuracy of category verification during a semantic categorisation task (where objects have to be decided whether they represent one group or another, e.g. tools vs. furniture). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: reversed -* Original paper: ‘[Age-of-acquisition effects in picture naming: Are they structural and/or semantic in nature?](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13506280544000084?casa_token=zlvQIG1j4LYAAAAA:_dCrMCTRb20l6LJANyECukcah1LJnKrKc3CGu4RGrENetJ_NAIxSj0kCoj5LMU_d77rH8JezPUk), 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://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1348/000712605X53515?casa_token=UGzPKL897K0AAAAA:1d36m-_51V8D7ssU_nJYJ_HFTQK3WqMQfhEgXosiAjDEbq73Bt9IqTfyJnlLCU8-OjMOPa1xfqUb) [Experiment 1: n = 15, citations = 17(GS, December 2022)]. [Catling and Johnston 2009 ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470210701814352?casa_token=cBjiHPY1S2EAAAAA%3A__YuabpjtelXo1DyH3PjTZxNcUxcI6UxH6dXF3PrNc4h4C75SIiNcMNzpY7dwPX1wNS27vFpNHg)[Experiment 1: n = 24, citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)]. [Holmes and Ellis 2006 ](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13506280544000093?casa_token=hCSgWyLLg84AAAAA%3ACQ0TDFs4z0ap-tmKleeo9sCRNMHE9NBnAYSwxTaaBgWgnPWgY2MXZkT0QkTOdpeUeaWzdq-izU8)[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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470210802511139?casa_token=pDIGsm7dHd4AAAAA%3AGUSBA6-rY-HjKyIjQkD-OP6NGiga7W1aiHL5Zk5GmZEzUmxp3jMR081eB7pjPo_BMPH3VdbU3Ko)[n = 100, citations = 51 (GS, December 2022)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1273,8 +1273,8 @@ 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 (category falsification)**. The age at which one acquires the name of an object object does not contribute to the speed and accuracy of category falsification (i.e. deciding that a different word and the picture of the acquired concept do not match; e.g. the picture of the acquired concept of a rabbit, paired with the non-matching word “mouse”). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Age of acquisition and typicality effects in three object processing tasks](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13506280544000093?casa_token=hCSgWyLLg84AAAAA%3ACQ0TDFs4z0ap-tmKleeo9sCRNMHE9NBnAYSwxTaaBgWgnPWgY2MXZkT0QkTOdpeUeaWzdq-izU8)’, 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://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1348/000712605X53515?casa_token=UGzPKL897K0AAAAA:1d36m-_51V8D7ssU_nJYJ_HFTQK3WqMQfhEgXosiAjDEbq73Bt9IqTfyJnlLCU8-OjMOPa1xfqUb) [Experiment 1: n = 15, citations = 17(GS, December 2022)]. [Stadthagen-Gonzalez et al. 2009 ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470210802511139?casa_token=pDIGsm7dHd4AAAAA%3AGUSBA6-rY-HjKyIjQkD-OP6NGiga7W1aiHL5Zk5GmZEzUmxp3jMR081eB7pjPo_BMPH3VdbU3Ko)[n = 100, citations = 51 (GS, December 2022)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1283,7 +1283,7 @@ 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 in face categorisation: Is there an instance-based account?’](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027799000207), Lewis 1999; correlational study, n = 9. [citations = 106(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques:[ Lima et al. 2022](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-021-01572-y) [n = 180, citations = 2 (GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques:[ Lima et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01572-y) [n = 180, citations = 2 (GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _r_ = -0.50. * Replication effect size: Lima et al.: _r_ = -0.16. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1301,7 +1301,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on face gender decision**. The age at which a celebrity face is acquired does not affect the speed to recognise a celebrity’s face, using a gender decision task (is this face male or female?). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper:[‘Mechanisms of identity and gender decisions to faces: Who rocked in 1986?’](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/p6023), Richards and Ellis 2008; experimental design, Experiment 2: n = 32. [citations = 13(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Original paper:[‘Mechanisms of identity and gender decisions to faces: Who rocked in 1986?’](https://doi.org/10.1068/p6023), Richards and Ellis 2008; experimental design, Experiment 2: n = 32. [citations = 13(GS, December 2022)]​. * Critiques:[ Richards and Ellis 2009](https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/169/16911991001.pdf) [n = 36, citations = 9 (GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _ηp2_ = 0.12 [_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: Richards and Ellis: NA. @@ -1311,7 +1311,7 @@ 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 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470218.2012.719528?casa_token=TYjTUEFlwaYAAAAA%3AznG0ujwMs7wIFYqAoyATylPGOEfg1gliUN2BVkvRoXdanL7jjZUX7hDW_lgDWDS_cp6lU59E3LY) [Experiment 3: n = 32, citations = 6(GS, December 2022)].[ Chen et al. 2007](https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1348/000712606X165484?casa_token=zi8r1WVmVPQAAAAA%3AooKjFY9sLC6fWXbWhpA9cQ8hbFetgBo9jrAfcy9zsEhFFBHX9H-VOo8p-ZBCI4WMrtYibm5KxJVx) [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)]. +* 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 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 >}} @@ -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://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://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03195559) [n = 46, citations = 372 (GS, January 2023)]. [Bonin et al. 2001](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713755968?casa_token=38y5RBQDY08AAAAA:maWDcXn1e9E-PqRxZ6pIZEkFXsFA9fZONJ2-Kl-ezanxfOdW9usuRxizz_YZDXtXRYBgGscaRsQ) [n = 30, citations=166(GS, December 2022)]​. [Bonin et al. 2003](https://link.springer.com/article/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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470210701814352?casa_token=cBjiHPY1S2EAAAAA%3A__YuabpjtelXo1DyH3PjTZxNcUxcI6UxH6dXF3PrNc4h4C75SIiNcMNzpY7dwPX1wNS27vFpNHg) [Experiment 4: n = 24, citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)].[ Johnston et al. 2010](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BRM.42.2.461) [n = 25, citations = 35(GS, January 2023)]. [Karimi and Diaz 2020 [](https://link.springer.com/article/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://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03195603) [n = 31, citations = 52(GS, January 2023)].[ Snodgrass and Yuditsky 1996](https://link.springer.com/article/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://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 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 >}} @@ -1328,7 +1328,7 @@ 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 logographic languages** (spoken picture naming in logographic languages). Early-acquired names of objects are produced more quickly and accurately than late-acquired names in logographic languages such as Japanese and Chinese. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Predictors of timed picture naming in Chinese](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03193165)’, Weekes et al. 2007; experiments, Experiment 1: n = 30, Experiment 2: n = 100. [citations=78(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Predictors of timed picture naming in Chinese](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193165)’, Weekes et al. 2007; experiments, Experiment 1: n = 30, Experiment 2: n = 100. [citations=78(GS, December 2022)]​. * Critique:[ Liu et al. 2011](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016505) [n = 30, citations = 84(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: Experiment 1: beta = .19, Experiment 2: beta = .24. * Replication effect size: Liu et al.: objective AoA: _r_ = .591, rated AoA: _r_ = .475. @@ -1337,8 +1337,8 @@ 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 transparent languages** (spoken picture naming in transparent language). Early-acquired objects are named more quickly and accurately than late-acquired objects in transparent languages or shallow orthography (i.e. spelling-sound correspondence is direct where one is able to pronounce the word correctly based on the spelling; e.g. Spanish, Turkish, Italian). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper:[ ‘Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures in Spanish](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03200741)’, Cuetos et al. 1999; experiment, n = 64. [citations=301(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Cuetos and Alija 2003](https://link.springer.com/article/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://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-013-0358-6) [n = 117, citations = 44(GS, January 2023)].[ Wolna et al. 2022](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-022-01923-3) [n = 98, citations = 0 (GS, January 2023)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1346,8 +1346,8 @@ 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** (written picture naming). Early-acquired object names are written more quickly and accurately than late-acquired names. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Age of Acquisition and Word Frequency in Written Picture Naming](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713755968?casa_token=38y5RBQDY08AAAAA:maWDcXn1e9E-PqRxZ6pIZEkFXsFA9fZONJ2-Kl-ezanxfOdW9usuRxizz_YZDXtXRYBgGscaRsQ)’, 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?casa_token=V8ZVhbmKBYoAAAAA:xMCsi_h91BzxdQL7Pn-xuHkWpwcQlL0kCQJoCvd5FaP58PoBIqmM0M1Z_llXAA4lvAa8bQ8eOXkI) [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)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1355,7 +1355,7 @@ 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** (typing). Early-acquired object names are typed more quickly than late-acquired object names. Typing allows more precise measure for the response execution, while written picture naming is a measure for lexical retrieval. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ['Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures’](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03200540), Snodgrass and Yuditsky 1996; experiment, experiment 2, n = 96. [citations=403(GS, December 2022)]​. +* 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)]. * 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. @@ -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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470210701814352?casa_token=cBjiHPY1S2EAAAAA%3A__YuabpjtelXo1DyH3PjTZxNcUxcI6UxH6dXF3PrNc4h4C75SIiNcMNzpY7dwPX1wNS27vFpNHg) [Experiment 5: n = 24, citations = 54 (GS, December 2022)].[ Holmes and Ellis 2006](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13506280544000093?casa_token=hCSgWyLLg84AAAAA%3ACQ0TDFs4z0ap-tmKleeo9sCRNMHE9NBnAYSwxTaaBgWgnPWgY2MXZkT0QkTOdpeUeaWzdq-izU8) [Experiment 6: n = 25, citations = 87 (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)]. * 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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095414400382208?casa_token=Ho_hgRrJORMAAAAA:5dGdTjDLLPWBWeHaOHuHo5Y-wxEDT6-vi09vcsFNJ_CeO2KNTNhNM5fQdqYMyFPtQu8kvgqhF7M) [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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691803001070) [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 >}} @@ -1382,8 +1382,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on lexical retrieval** (written word naming). Early-acquired words are written and spelled more quickly and accurately than late-acquired words. In contrast to written picture naming, written word naming involves access to the lexical and sublexical pathways that are not accessed in typing or written picture naming. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Effects of consistency and age of acquisition on reading and spelling among developing readers](https://link.springer.com/article/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://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-022-01928-y) [Experiment: n = 20, citations = 0(GS, December 2022)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1391,8 +1391,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on lexical retrieval in opaque languages** (immediate spoken word naming in opaque language). Early-acquired words are named 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). {{< 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://link.springer.com/article/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://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-019-00986-6) [n = 48, citations = 10(GS, January 2023)].[ Izura and Playfoot 2012](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-011-0175-8) [n = 120, citations = 35(GS, January 2023)].[ Morrison and Ellis 2000](https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000712600161763?casa_token=2Ha8ufqI3dkAAAAA:WZw5PGsGq4KDhJIjdw5V24x0dGET1j2wWI2pQ6pbftn9EO1r2UDrGAWn3excYD6fFxy7fPrkcyYz) [n = 27, citations = 293(GS, January 2023)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1400,8 +1400,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on lexical retrieval** (immediate spoken word naming in transparent language). Early-acquired words are named more quickly and accurately than late-acquired words in transparent languages or shallow orthography (i.e. spelling-sound correspondence is direct where one is able to pronounce the word correctly based on the spelling; e.g. Italian, Spanish). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Word Frequency Affects Naming Latency in Dutch when Age of Acquisition is Controlled](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095414496383149?casa_token=W2Qv5aejnNoAAAAA:V2K1TW7EjS2F5ovIDztJXN5S5C-7WxRJumCeCkSRiIiE8eVbJQcf2W6DqDpSY7W8WkcekzfNvLY)’, Brysbaert 1996; experiment, n = 22. [citations=73(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Brysbaert et al. 2000](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095414400382208?casa_token=Ho_hgRrJORMAAAAA:5dGdTjDLLPWBWeHaOHuHo5Y-wxEDT6-vi09vcsFNJ_CeO2KNTNhNM5fQdqYMyFPtQu8kvgqhF7M) [n = 20, citations = 227 (GS, January 2023)].[ Cuetos and Barbon 2006](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13594320500165896?casa_token=f-lrLArhEQQAAAAA%3A_knq7MTdGe0a5lj8Jzm3gndt7CprgHxeET-iIHS9MTMY2VWrzQVFNJvmMTQhqQJJ5H2M7RBpUss) [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?casa_token=-CFsW_Z-EvgAAAAA:ynRuugbMBXHxEcjiJ2S6HpKy9WU_NR1flVubnGnUOwMD49gKQBMIGi7LQLz2mVAxhPluq-JMyW0xW45qNbhVLo515Vs) [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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13506280500153200?casa_token=m3cwrkBm_xIAAAAA%3AxjWNY3ZfduDQlLC_OgkCj85iLnmyXXZaJpICa1MalzPnIiO58g7SrMmlb2Znw8141UuY1XDWNbs) [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)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1409,9 +1409,9 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on lexical retrieval in logographic languages** (spoken character naming in logographic languages). Early-acquired characters are named more quickly and accurately than late-acquired characters in logographic languages such as Japanese and Chinese. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Two age of acquisition effects in the reading](https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1997.tb02648.x?casa_token=wEnO6Z6TLogAAAAA:JAKN5NUetsMvtqaTHEqFOOjxRvFgFb0kuLaJeVDIRpShddyLyr0tda2AtV5mQinsNxz98IGoU6Bo) -* [of Japanese Kanji](https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1997.tb02648.x?casa_token=wEnO6Z6TLogAAAAA:JAKN5NUetsMvtqaTHEqFOOjxRvFgFb0kuLaJeVDIRpShddyLyr0tda2AtV5mQinsNxz98IGoU6Bo)’, Yamazaki et al. 1997; experiment, n = 26. [citations=107(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critique:[ Chen et al. 2007](https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1348/000712606X165484?casa_token=wv5E2voBq-MAAAAA%3AXgRfPuBzettc6T3qShrziQaw6zbbZDWKk7UT5f07QVxnI_7ynY2y9PA1F1YuMwQ8U783ODlQCN0W) [n = 26, citations = 43(GS, December 2022)].[ Havelka and Tomita 2006](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13506280544000156?casa_token=AVDff8x397kAAAAA%3A_QndQRQMg8htyatAF9VR00JaLwko2R0YChq6ag7FbpFa6e3J4iGX8pOitIRj_xcKbUFLzu2W5mY) [n = 40, citations = 45(GS, December 2022)].[ Liu et al. 2007](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03193147) [n = 480, citations = 161(GS, December 2022)].[ Liu et al. 2008](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/PBR.15.2.344) [n = 39, citations = 29(GS, December 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Two age of acquisition effects in the reading](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1997.tb02648.x) +* [of Japanese Kanji](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1997.tb02648.x)’, Yamazaki et al. 1997; experiment, n = 26. [citations=107(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Critique:[ Chen et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X165484) [n = 26, citations = 43(GS, December 2022)].[ Havelka and Tomita 2006](https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000156) [n = 40, citations = 45(GS, December 2022)].[ Liu et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193147) [n = 480, citations = 161(GS, December 2022)].[ Liu et al. 2008](https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.344) [n = 39, citations = 29(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: Spoken: beta = 0.236, Written, beta = 0.343. * Replication effect size: Chen et al.: Experiment 1: _ηp2_ = 0.41 [calculated using this conversion from F to](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)_ηp2_. Havelka and Tomita: _ηp2_ = 0.51 [calculated using this conversion from F to](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared) _ηp2_]. Liu et al.: Beta = .670. Liu et al.: _ηp2_ = 0.53 [calculated using this conversion from F to](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared) _ηp2_]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1429,7 +1429,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: [‘Lexical Search Speed in Children and Adults’, ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002209658490064X)Cirrin 1984; experimental study, kindergarten children: n = 12; first grade children: n = 11; third grade children: n = 11; adults: n = 11. [citations = 50(GS, December 2022)]. -* Critiques: ​[Baumgaertner and Tompkins 1998](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02687039808249561?casa_token=Q0L4kDQexnYAAAAA:FsxlQX6kyvjwXyt2mex44B_s3jcMsazBqsXfxrW-a-TKEzfWx4Ze7Wif9uhmZnRMO-falpBVSDo) [n = 35, citations = 15(GS, December 2022)]. [Turner et al. 1998 ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03201200)[n = 20, citations = 161(GS, December 2022)]. +* Critiques: ​[Baumgaertner and Tompkins 1998](https://doi.org/10.1080/02687039808249561) [n = 35, citations = 15(GS, December 2022)]. [Turner et al. 1998 ](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201200)[n = 20, citations = 161(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: kindergarten children: _r_ = .485, first grade children: _r_ = .172, third grade children: _r_ = .369, adults: _r_ = .379 * Replication effect size: Baumgaertner and Tompkins: _r_ = 0.66. Turner et al.: _d_ = 1.30 [_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 >}} @@ -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://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://link.springer.com/article/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://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000712600161763?casa_token=szbV_PCbclEAAAAA:kjQQcFRZ9-yOV54lkXE0fPyhOazsrLA_hOO18OpJ_Z8aFgBS8_SBmdsupORB9g-IygS_50bfhQTa) [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://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-009-9649-x) [n = 97, citations = 12(GS, December 2022)].[ Turner et al. 1998](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03201200)[n = 25, citations = 161(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 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 >}} @@ -1446,8 +1446,8 @@ 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 transparent language). Early-acquired words are responded more quickly and accurately than late-acquired words in transparent languages or shallow orthography (i.e. spelling-sound correspondence is direct where one is able to pronounce the word correctly based on the spelling; e.g. Spanish, Turkish, Italian). {{< 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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095414400382208?casa_token=Ho_hgRrJORMAAAAA:5dGdTjDLLPWBWeHaOHuHo5Y-wxEDT6-vi09vcsFNJ_CeO2KNTNhNM5fQdqYMyFPtQu8kvgqhF7M)’, 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470210601100126) [Italian speakers n = 54, Dutch speakers: n = 50, citations = 51(GS, January 2023)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1456,7 +1456,7 @@ 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 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://link.springer.com/article/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://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-020-01455-8) [n = 1765, citations = 121(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 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 >}} @@ -1465,7 +1465,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< 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)]​. -* Critiques:[ Dirix and Duyck 2017](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-017-1233-8) [n = 14, citations = 17(GS, December 2022)].[ Juhasz 2018](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470218.2016.1253756?casa_token=WyN64EUvkKsAAAAA%3Au5fggG0Wh6G-ZnUuAk_Wrutlp3xGXl1LwClHngUXRZDcMtSBiqjYDggGLITJ6yJIwpRu5dkAw0s) [n = 45, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)]​.[ Juhasz and Rayner 2006](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13506280544000075?casa_token=gHwjHBSjY54AAAAA:lszMvULjctfQx2uHWlSmDHtUwIWVB3-eCMxl0R6jnWsS_R-AtIV6Nf9DpqXnjLBNO_byJMuDBM4) [Experiment 1: n = 32, Experiment 2: n = 40, citations = 185 (GS, December 2022)].[ Juhasz and Sheridan 2020 [](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-019-00963-z)n = 47, citations = 2(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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1473,8 +1473,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on name retrieval**. The earlier an individual learns a celebrity name and face, the more quickly and accurately the participant will name the celebrity. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper:[ ‘The Effect of Age of Acquisition on Speed and](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713755779?casa_token=uXrinWebRjoAAAAA:1BLgpya1JHG00uRr0IhoVhh88pgfIFJwwNdkb-jy38XJznJdwpL-H_Ptz_INkhv7CjT3H4PSD0A) -* [Accuracy of Naming Famous Faces](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713755779?casa_token=uXrinWebRjoAAAAA:1BLgpya1JHG00uRr0IhoVhh88pgfIFJwwNdkb-jy38XJznJdwpL-H_Ptz_INkhv7CjT3H4PSD0A)’, Moore and Valentine 1998; experiments, experiment 1 n=30, experiment 2 n= 24, experiment 3 n= 24. [citations= 83(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Original paper:[ ‘The Effect of Age of Acquisition on Speed and](https://doi.org/10.1080/713755779) +* [Accuracy of Naming Famous Faces](https://doi.org/10.1080/713755779)’, Moore and Valentine 1998; experiments, experiment 1 n=30, experiment 2 n= 24, experiment 3 n= 24. [citations= 83(GS, December 2022)]​. * Critiques: [ Smith-Spark et al. 2012](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001691811001880) [Experiment: n = 72, citations = 3 (GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: Experiment 1: RT _ηp2_= 0.37[_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)], accuracy: _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: RT: _ηp2_= 0.63[_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)]; accuracy: _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)], Experiment 3: RT: _ηp2_= 0.38[_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)], accuracy: _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)]. * Replication effect size: Smith-Spark et al.: accuracy: _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)]; RT: _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)]. @@ -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://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10936-011-9169-z) [n = 36, citations = 19(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)]​. * 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 >}} @@ -1492,7 +1492,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on lexical-semantic processes (picture-word interference)**. The pictures of objects whose concept is acquired earlier show smaller semantic interference with simultaneously appearing semantically related words, compared to when the task is done using pictures of objects whose concept is acquired later. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper:[ ‘Age of Acquisition, Word Frequency, and Picture–Word Interference](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470210903380830?casa_token=smbRRIf0JfQAAAAA%3AQaJF0LIzLOru8gN6vX8zsT9BzvAGw_bIcAUE3H_-TLvKZIH9D3g3-JRsFPm9zxSlNoIVHLfuflA)’, Catling et al. 2010; experiment, n = 20.[citations=26(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Original paper:[ ‘Age of Acquisition, Word Frequency, and Picture–Word Interference](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903380830)’, Catling et al. 2010; experiment, n = 20.[citations=26(GS, December 2022)]​. * Critiques:[ de Zubicaray et al. 2012](https://direct.mit.edu/jocn/article/24/2/482/27734/Independent-Distractor-Frequency-and-Age-of) [n = 17, citations = 24(GS, December 2022)]​. * Original effect size: Experiment 2: ηp² = 0.40. * Replication effect size: de Zubicaray et al.: Experiment 2: ηp² = 0.79 [_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)]. @@ -1502,7 +1502,7 @@ 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 predicts rate of lexical evolution’](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027714001644), 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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cogs.12968) [n = 784 words, citations = 7 (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%. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1510,8 +1510,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Age of acquisition influence on learning (conceptual learning)**. The earlier a concept is learned, the more likely the concept will be more strongly consolidated and more likely to be recalled. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Order of acquisition in learning perceptual categories: A laboratory analogue of the age-of-acquisition effect?](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/PBR.15.1.70)’, Stewart and Ellis 2008; experiment, n = 27. [citations=35(GS, December 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Catling et al. 2013](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470218.2013.764903?casa_token=Q8LgtFU5PpIAAAAA%3AAadESz5Syen3WG-gR8GRomoKQ0qhloqYGFO0AGclrOeTgV2QR6snXRCtfdNDrtFZ_-y23Eq_j8c) [n = 16, citations = 19(GS, December 2022)].[ Izura et al. 2011](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X1000077X?casa_token=rBdP4ap4vQYAAAAA:Iniu-jdyFiPiXq0tBs9I39mWlKRO7Mf9y85PWL6AFx0DeG6BOVkub8KyYj3MIj1OLxNxPNkw) [Experiment 1: n = 25, Experiment 2: n = 26, Experiment 2: n = 24, citations = 78(GS, December 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Order of acquisition in learning perceptual categories: A laboratory analogue of the age-of-acquisition effect?](https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.70)’, Stewart and Ellis 2008; experiment, n = 27. [citations=35(GS, December 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Catling et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.764903) [n = 16, citations = 19(GS, December 2022)].[ Izura et al. 2011](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X1000077X) [Experiment 1: n = 25, Experiment 2: n = 26, Experiment 2: n = 24, citations = 78(GS, December 2022)]. * Original effect size: _ηp2_= 0.17 [_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: Catling et al.: naming: _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)], visual duration threshold _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)]. Izura et al.: Experiment 1: _ηp2_= 0.49, Experiment 2: _ηp2_= 0.20, Experiment 3: delayed picture naming: _d_ = 0.36 [_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)]/ _ηp2_= 0.12 [ _ηp2_ calculated from Cohen’s d and converted using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], immediate picture naming: _F_ < 1, corrected latencies: _ηp2_= 0.15, lexical decision: _ηp2_= 0.32, semantic categorisation: _ηp2_= 0.20. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1520,7 +1520,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< 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)]​. -* Critiques: [ Magil 1976](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10671315.1976.10615350?casa_token=Thd0gNVT7-IAAAAA:ZMNebGmnoMiaEatOEy__MJCy4dIi3b0DJNQUkrBa4FP7FTLYrc1Z2KnaeQ1XUPARwIehIpbaGac) [n = 105, citations = 13 (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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1529,7 +1529,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: '[Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource?](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9599441)', Baumeister 1998, n=67 [citations = 7141 (GS, September 2022)]. -* Critique: [Xu et al. 2014](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109950), 4 conceptual replications with high-power to detect medium-large effects [citations = 7136 (GS, September 2022)]. [Hagger 2016](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873), 23 independent conceptual replications [citations = 1027 (GS, September 2022)]. [Vohs et al. 2021](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797621989733), multisite project, n = 3,531 [citations = 63 (GS, September 2022)]. +* Critique: [Xu et al. 2014](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109950), 4 conceptual replications with high-power to detect medium-large effects [citations = 7136 (GS, September 2022)]. [Hagger 2016](https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652873), 23 independent conceptual replications [citations = 1027 (GS, September 2022)]. [Vohs et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797621989733), multisite project, n = 3,531 [citations = 63 (GS, September 2022)]. * Original effect size: not reported (calculated d = -1.96 between control and worst condition). * Replication effect size: Xu et al. 2014: hand grip persistence, community adults _d_ = −0.30, young adults _d_=  −0.002, combined difference _d_ = −0.20; Stroop interference, community adults _d_ = −0.15, young adults _d_ = .21, combined difference _d_ = −0.06. Hagger 2016: _d_ = 0.04 [−0.07, 0.14] (NB: not testing the construct the same way). Vohs et al. 2021:_d_ = 0.06. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1538,9 +1538,9 @@ 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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ejn.14935) [n= 56, citations= 20 (GS, October 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)] * 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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/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]. +* 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 >}} * **Depressive realism effect**. Increased predictive accuracy or decreased cognitive bias among the clinically depressed. @@ -1565,8 +1565,8 @@ 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/016146819409500411?journalCode=tcza) [n = NA, citations = 103 (GS, February 2023)].[ Tirri and Nokelainen 2008](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1) [n = NA, citations = 103 (GS, February 2023)]. -* Original effect size: No empirical data collected [Allix, [2000](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/000494410004400306); Lubinski & Benbow, [1995](https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/02/Empiricism1995.pdf); Sternberg 1994; Waterhouse, [2006](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1); Gardner acknowledged lack of empirical data, [2004](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00329.x) (p. 214)]. +* 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)]. +* 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 >}} @@ -1574,7 +1574,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: '[Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory](https://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6829)', Jaeggi 2008; experimental design, n=70. [citations= 2840 (GS, October 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Melby-Lervåg 2013](https://sci-hub.se/10.1037/a0028228) [meta-analysis of 23 studies, citations= 2156 (GS, October 2022)]. [Gwern 2012](https://www.gwern.net/DNB-meta-analysis#moderators) [meta-analysis of 45 studies, citations= NA(GS, April 2023)]. [Reddick 2013](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22708717/) [n= 73, citations= 824 (GS, October 2022)]. [Lampit 2014](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756) [meta-analysis of 52 studies, n= 4885, citations= 809 (GS, October 2022)]. [Berger 2020](https://openaccess.nhh.no/nhh-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2657279/DP%2009.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) [n= 572, citations= 22 (GS, October 2022)]. [Simons 2016](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100616661983?journalCode=psia) [comprehensive review of literature, n=NA, citations= 1015 (GS, October 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Melby-Lervåg 2013](https://sci-hub.se/10.1037/a0028228) [meta-analysis of 23 studies, citations= 2156 (GS, October 2022)]. [Gwern 2012](https://www.gwern.net/DNB-meta-analysis#moderators) [meta-analysis of 45 studies, citations= NA(GS, April 2023)]. [Reddick 2013](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22708717/) [n= 73, citations= 824 (GS, October 2022)]. [Lampit 2014](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756) [meta-analysis of 52 studies, n= 4885, citations= 809 (GS, October 2022)]. [Berger 2020](https://openaccess.nhh.no/nhh-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2657279/DP%2009.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) [n= 572, citations= 22 (GS, October 2022)]. [Simons 2016](https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983) [comprehensive review of literature, n=NA, citations= 1015 (GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_= 0.4 over control, 1-2 days after training. * Replication effect size: Melby-Lervåg: _d_= 0.19 [0.03, 0.37] nonverbal; _d_= 0.13 [-0.09, 0.34] verbal. Gwern: _d_= 0.1397 [-0.0292, 0.3085], among studies using active controls. Reddick: found “no positive transfer to any of the cognitive ability tests”, all _ηp2_ < 0.054. Lampit : _g_=  0.24 [0.09, 0.38] nonverbal memory; _g_=  0.08 [0.01, 0.15] verbal memory; _g_ =  0.22 [0.09, 0.35] working memory; _g_ = 0.31 [0.11, 0.50] processing speed; _g_ =  0.30 [0.07, 0.54] visuospatial skills. Berger(RCT in 6-7 year olds): _d_= 0.2 to 0.4, but many of the apparent far-transfer effects come only 6-12 months later, i.e. well past the end of most prior studies. {{< /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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797614557866?casa_token=wrSb-qr2k84AAAAA%3AavwAA5r8XqG6m0lsdqOkhR72zuH3CaWnRmno-1XMZMjr5Mfk9vHnSKq0aVutCUK0BMijHIx28HnPJVA) (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://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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1610,7 +1610,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[The effects of bilingualism on theory of mind development](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition/article/abs/effects-of-bilingualism-on-theory-of-mind-development/5D9E2C458663A60A255268A839CA8D31)’, Goetz 2003; experiment, English monolinguals: n = 32, Mandarin monolinguals: n = 32, English-Mandarin bilinguals: n = 40. [citations = 486 (GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Dahlgren et al. 2017](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221325.2017.1361376?journalCode=vgnt20) [Monolinguals: n = 14, bilinguals: n = 14, citations = 23 (GS, January 2023)]. [Diaz and Farrar 2018](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0142723717752741) [Monolinguals: n = 33, Bilinguals: n = 32, citations = 23(GS, January 2023)]. [Farhadian et al. 2010](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221325.2017.1361376?journalCode=vgnt20) [Monolinguals: n = 65, bilinguals: n = 98, citations = 61 (GS, January 2023)]. [Gordon 2016](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-child-language/article/high-proficiency-across-two-languages-is-related-to-better-mental-state-reasoning-for-bilingual-children/F618A28BA95AB3FAAF200BE9CDB505B1) [Monolinguals: n = 26, bilinguals n = 26, citations = 24(GS, January, 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Dahlgren et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2017.1361376) [Monolinguals: n = 14, bilinguals: n = 14, citations = 23 (GS, January 2023)]. [Diaz and Farrar 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723717752741) [Monolinguals: n = 33, Bilinguals: n = 32, citations = 23(GS, January 2023)]. [Farhadian et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2017.1361376) [Monolinguals: n = 65, bilinguals: n = 98, citations = 61 (GS, January 2023)]. [Gordon 2016](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-child-language/article/high-proficiency-across-two-languages-is-related-to-better-mental-state-reasoning-for-bilingual-children/F618A28BA95AB3FAAF200BE9CDB505B1) [Monolinguals: n = 26, bilinguals n = 26, citations = 24(GS, January, 2023)]. * Original effect size: _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)]. * Replication effect size: Dahlgren et al.: not reported. Diaz and Farrar: _ηp2 _= .063. Farhadian et al.: _d_ = 0.40 [_d _calculated from mean differences and standard deviation and converted using this [conversion](https://lbecker.uccs.edu/)]. Gordon: _d_ = 0.123. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1618,8 +1618,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Bilingual advantages - perspective taking in referential communication**. Bilingual children are more likely to score higher in Director tasks than monolingual counterparts, using the director task. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The exposure advantage: Early exposure to a multilingual environment promotes effective communication](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797615574699)’, Fan et al. 2015; experiment, English monolingual children: n = 24, monolingual children exposed to other languages: n = 24, bilingual children: n = 24. [citations = 260 (GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Navarro and Conway 2021](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/17470218211009159) [Monolingual adults: n = 26, bilinguals n = 28, citations=10(GS, January, 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The exposure advantage: Early exposure to a multilingual environment promotes effective communication](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615574699)’, Fan et al. 2015; experiment, English monolingual children: n = 24, monolingual children exposed to other languages: n = 24, bilingual children: n = 24. [citations = 260 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Navarro and Conway 2021](https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211009159) [Monolingual adults: n = 26, bilinguals n = 28, citations=10(GS, January, 2023)]. * Original effect size: bilingual vs. monolingual: _d_ = 0.83, bilingual vs. monolingual exposed to other languages: _d_ = 0.02. * Replication effect size: Navarro and Conway: director task experimental condition: _d_ = -0.51, director task control condition: _d_ = 0.29. Non-director task: _ηp2 _= .01. ​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1627,7 +1627,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Exposure to another language in social communication - perspective taking in referential communication**. Children who are exposed to a second language are more likely to score higher in Director tasks than children who are not exposed to a second language, using the director task. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The exposure advantage: Early exposure to a multilingual environment promotes effective communication](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797615574699)’, Fan et al. 2015; experiment, English monolingual children: n = 24, monolingual children exposed to other languages: n = 24, bilingual children: n = 24. [citations = 260 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The exposure advantage: Early exposure to a multilingual environment promotes effective communication](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615574699)’, Fan et al. 2015; experiment, English monolingual children: n = 24, monolingual children exposed to other languages: n = 24, bilingual children: n = 24. [citations = 260 (GS, January 2023)]. * Critiques: [Agostini et al. 2022](https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2068113/v1) [preprint, high exposure for monolingual children: n =32, lower exposure for monolingual children: n = 29, no exposure monolingual children: n = 38, citations=0 (GS, January, 2023)]. * Original effect size: monolinguals exposed to other languages vs. monolingual: _d_ = 0.74. * Replication effect size: Agostini et al.: T1: not reported, T2: not reported. @@ -1636,7 +1636,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Bilingual disadvantages in creativity - fluency.** Monolinguals are more likely to rapidly produce a large number of ideas or solutions to a problem than bilinguals, using the Torrance Test. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[An Intercultural Study of Non-Verbal Ideational Fluency](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001698626500900103?journalCode=gcqb)’, Gowan and Torrance 1965; experiment, monolingual children: n = 853, bilingual children: n = 555. [citations=35(GS, January 2023)]​. +* 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)]. * 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)]. ​ @@ -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?casa_token=RMU8MQZu2FgAAAAA:tx3QXI2smPq126NTwDorZDXeKSm3G4s9EdX-I8gSIHATNdYPH5ZXECqFTVDx01caoBPas9BJ) [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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pms.1999.88.3.843?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.2)b [n=206, citations=126 (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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1680,7 +1680,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< 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)]. -* Critiques: [Ritchie and Tucker-Drob 2018](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797618774253?journalCode=pssa) [meta-analysis: n = ​​615,812, citations = 439 (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]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1706,8 +1706,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Action-sentence Compatibility Effect (ACE)**. Participants’ movements are faster when the direction of the described action (e.g., Mark dealt the cards to you) matches the response direction (e.g., toward). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Grounding language in action](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03196313)’, Glenberg and Kaschak 2002; experimental design, Experiment 1: n= 44, Experiment 2A: n= 70, Experiment 2B: n= 72. [citations= 2870 (GS, October, 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Morey et al. 2022](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-021-01927-8) [pre-registered multi-lab replication, 18 labs, n= 1278, citations= 30 (GS, October 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Grounding language in action](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196313)’, Glenberg and Kaschak 2002; experimental design, Experiment 1: n= 44, Experiment 2A: n= 70, Experiment 2B: n= 72. [citations= 2870 (GS, October, 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Morey et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01927-8) [pre-registered multi-lab replication, 18 labs, n= 1278, citations= 30 (GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: Experiment 1: _ηp2_= 0.186 [calculated]. Experiment 2A: _ηp2_ = 0.051 [calculated]. * Replication effect size: Morey et al.: for native English speakers _d_= 0.0036; for non-native English speakers _d_= -0.019. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1716,7 +1716,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[The 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)]. -* 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/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)]. +* 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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1823,8 +1823,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Simon effect**. Faster responses are observed when the stimulus and response are on the same side than when the stimulus and response are on opposite sides. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Choice reaction time as a function of angular stimulus-response correspondence and age](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140136308930679)’, Simon and Wolf 1963; experimental design, n1 = 20, n2 = 20. [citation=289(GS, June 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Ehrenstein 1994](https://link.springer.com/article/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://link.springer.com/article/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 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1832,8 +1832,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **ERPs in lie detection**. Particularly the P300 ERP component has been related in literature using Guilty Knowledge Tests to conscious recognition of crime-related targets as meaningful and salient stimuli, based on crime-related episodic memories. {{< 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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00615.x) [n=79, citations=187(GS, May 2022)]. [Rosenfeld et al. 2004](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/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)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1841,8 +1841,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Evaluative conditioning**. Implicit and explicit attitudes are differently sensitive to different kinds of information. Explicit attitude are formed and changed in response to the valence of consciously accessible, verbally presented behavioural information and implicit attitudes are formed and changed in response to the valence of subliminally presented primes.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Of Two Minds: Forming and Changing Valence-Inconsistent Implicit and Explicit Attitudes](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01811.x)’, Rydell et al. 2006; mixed design experiment with n=50. [citation=403(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Heycke et al. 2018](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699931.2018.1429389?casa_token=xNcWNNaJOGAAAAAA%3AFDFx4d6LsO-enm4qyfs154qZM27vxi0j8cTKp9CYnkmSsrQN2CaZyWVSd55suDGsm-etNWZwD6H-) [n1=51, n2=57, citations=32(GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Of Two Minds: Forming and Changing Valence-Inconsistent Implicit and Explicit Attitudes](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01811.x)’, Rydell et al. 2006; mixed design experiment with n=50. [citation=403(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Heycke et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1429389) [n1=51, n2=57, citations=32(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: Explicit attitudes: two-way interaction between condition and time _η2 _= 0.71 [reported] / _d_= 1.54 [converted using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]​; Implicit attitudes: two-way interaction between condition and time _η2 _= 0.13 [reported] _d_= 0.38 [converted using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Heycke et al.: Explicit attitudes: time of measurement X valence condition – Experiment 1: _η2 _= 0.757 [reported] _d_= 1.75 [converted using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated); Experiment 2: _η2 _= 0.828 [reported] _d_= 2.17 [converted using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (replicated); Implicit attitudes: 2-way interaction of time of measurement and condition Experiment 1: _η2 _= 0.075 [reported] _d_= 0.28 [converted using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (reversed); Experiment 2: _η2 _= 0.102 [reported] _d_= 33 [converted using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] (reversed). {{< /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://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://link.springer.com/article/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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15324826AN0701_3?casa_token=pKsUPwFj5jcAAAAA:1wKzEhJtBNIjxZU2StJZ2IRtcmwx4NzYDUgBZmZNoTehmhnMkEev3a29OsObqYN5yHeQznJPsOiH0iw) [n1=45, n2=18, n3=19, citations=341(GS, May 2022)]. [Rosselli et al. 2002](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207450290025752) [n= 45, n2=18, n3=19, citations=151(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 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 >}} @@ -1860,7 +1860,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated. * Original paper: ‘[Nostalgia: A Psychological Perspective](https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1995.80.1.131)’, Batcho 1995; Cross-sectional survey to assess nostalgia for 20 aspects of experience, n=648. [citations=399(GS, February 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Wildschut et al. 2006](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.975) [Total N=504 over seven studies, citations=1460(GS, February 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Wildschut et al. 2006](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.975) [Total N=504 over seven studies, citations=1460(GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: Factor analysis suggested that nostalgia is composed of five factors reflecting different spheres and levels of experience. ES not reported, although the regression coefficient for nostalgia on judgement of the past, however, was positive (0.22, _p_ < .0001), suggesting that nostalgia increases as the past is perceived more favourably. * Replication effect size: Wildschut et al.: Nostalgic autobiographical narratives were richer in expressions of positive than negative affect, _ηp2 _=0.783 [calculated from the reported F statistic, _F_(1, 41) = 147.62, using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Participants expressed significantly more positive than negative affect, when describing how writing nostalgic narrative made them feel, _ηp2 _=0.535 [calculated from the reported F statistic, _F_(1, 171) = 196.56, using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)] and reported more positive than negative affect on PANAS measure, _ηp2_ =0.633 [calculated from the reported F statistic, _F_(1, 171) = 294.61, using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]; Relative to participants in the control condition, those in the nostalgia condition scored higher on measures of social bonding, _ηp2 _= 0.205 [calculated from the reported F statistic, _F_(1, 50) = 12.88, using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], positive self-regard,_ηp2 _ = 0.238 [calculated from the reported F statistic, _F_(1, 50) = 15.63, using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)], and positive affect, _ηp2 _ = 0.139 [calculated from the reported F statistic, _F_(1, 50) = 8.05, using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1896,7 +1896,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: [‘A priming method for investigating the selection of motor responses](https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/23848/0000087.pdf?sequence=1)’, Rosenbaum and Kornblum 1982; experimental design, _ _n=6. [citations= 227 (GS, March 2023]. -* Critiques: [da Silva et al. 2020](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1545968320912760) [n=814 (36 articles, meta-analysis), citations = 10 (PubMed, January 2023)].​ [Kiesel et al. 2007](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2864965/) [Theoretical paper, n=NA, citations=138 (GS, March 2023]. [Stoykov and Madhavan 2015](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270918/) [Review, n=NA, citations=148 (GS, March 2023). +* Critiques: [da Silva et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968320912760) [n=814 (36 articles, meta-analysis), citations = 10 (PubMed, January 2023)].​ [Kiesel et al. 2007](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2864965/) [Theoretical paper, n=NA, citations=138 (GS, March 2023]. [Stoykov and Madhavan 2015](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270918/) [Review, n=NA, citations=148 (GS, March 2023). * Original effect size: not reported. * Replication effect size: da Silva: Mean Difference = 8.64 [10.85, 16.43], _Z_ = 2.17, _p_ = .003, _d_=0.30 (estimated from the Z value using d=Z/sqrt(n) equation). Kiesel et al.: not reported. Stoykov and Madhavan: not reported.​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1904,8 +1904,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Flanker task**. The Flanker task is a measure of inhibition of prepotent responses. Response times to target stimuli flanked by irrelevant stimuli of the opposite response set (incongruent) are significantly more impaired than when they are flanked by irrelevant stimuli of the same response set (congruent). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a non-search task](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03203267)’, Eriksen and Eriksen 1974; within-subject design, n=6. [citations= 8085 (GS, August 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Miller 1991](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03214311) [Experiment 1: n= 36, Experiment 2: n=42, Experiment 3: n= 24, Experiment 4: n= 32, Experiment 5: n=32, Experiment 6, n=32, citations= 370 (GS, August 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a non-search task](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267)’, Eriksen and Eriksen 1974; within-subject design, n=6. [citations= 8085 (GS, August 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Miller 1991](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214311) [Experiment 1: n= 36, Experiment 2: n=42, Experiment 3: n= 24, Experiment 4: n= 32, Experiment 5: n=32, Experiment 6, n=32, citations= 370 (GS, August 2022)]. * Original effect size: Spacing condition: ES = 2.96, Noise condition: ES= 2.09. * Replication effect size: Miller: For only noise condition (i.e response compatible/incompatible) Reaction times: ES: Experiment 1= 0.89, Experiment 2: 0.23, Experiment 3: 0.74, Experiment 4: 0.58, Experiment 5: 1.28, Experiment 6: 0.47; Percent Accurate: ES: Experiment 1=0.39, Experiment 2= 0.23, Experiment 4= 0.72, Experiment 5= 0.83, Experiment 6= 0.35; For Spacing condition: Experiment 1, wide separation, ES = 0.40. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1922,8 +1922,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Cocktail Party Effect**. Participants hear their own name being presented in the irrelevant message during a dichotic listening task. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: [‘Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17470215908416289?casa_token=jMW3jvqm5IIAAAAA:XDgWZSwoYjVTVHIacqciEmn7y8KzjivM_fAFQoKr8QUoNygL9QLT3K9mskxYPKvj2zXouXM7EVWA)’, Moray 1959; experimental design, n1=1, n2=12, n3=28. [citation=1972 (GS, February 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Conway et al. 2001](https://link.springer.com/article/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)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1932,7 +1932,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: reversed * Original paper: ‘[Representing object colour in language comprehension](https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/connelll/papers/Connell-2007-Cognition.pdf)’, Connell (2007); experimental design, n = 44. [citation=155(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [de Koning et al. 2017](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20445911.2017.1281283) [n = 139, citations = 14 (GS, November, 2022)]. [Mannaert et al. 2017 ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-017-0708-1)[Experiment 1: n= 205, citations= 33(GS, November 2022)]. [Zwaan and Pecher 2012](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051382) Experiment 3a: n = 152, Experiment 3b: n = 152. [citations=192(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [de Koning et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1281283) [n = 139, citations = 14 (GS, November, 2022)]. [Mannaert et al. 2017 ](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0708-1)[Experiment 1: n= 205, citations= 33(GS, November 2022)]. [Zwaan and Pecher 2012](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051382) Experiment 3a: n = 152, Experiment 3b: n = 152. [citations=192(GS, November 2022)]​. * Original effect size: _d_ = 0.26 [calculated using this conversion](http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863/abstract). * Replication effect size: [de Koning et al.](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared):[ _d_ = .48. ](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)Mannaert et al.: Experiment 1: [_d_ = 0.26. ](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)_Zwaan and Pecher: Experiment 3a: _d_ = 0.32 [calculated using this conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared); study 3b: _d_ = 0.18 [calculated using this conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1940,8 +1940,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Mental simulation - match advantage object orientation**. Readers verify pictures more quickly when they match rather than mismatch the object orientation from the preceding sentence. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9280.00326?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed)’, Stanfield and Zwaan 2001; experimental design, n=40. [citation=897(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [de Koning et al. 2017](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20445911.2017.1281283) [n = 160, citation = 14(GS, November, 2022)]. [Rommers et al. 2013](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797613490746) [Experiment 1: n = 52, Experiment 2: n = 44, Experiment 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 1a: n=176; Experiment 1b: n=176, citations=192 (GS, November 2022)].​ +* Original paper: ‘[The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00326)’, Stanfield and Zwaan 2001; experimental design, n=40. [citation=897(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [de Koning et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1281283) [n = 160, citation = 14(GS, November, 2022)]. [Rommers et al. 2013](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613490746) [Experiment 1: n = 52, Experiment 2: n = 44, Experiment 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 1a: n=176; Experiment 1b: n=176, citations=192 (GS, November 2022)].​ * Original effect size: _d_ = .13. * Replication effect size: de Koning et al.: _d_ = .07. Rommers et al.: Experiment 1: _d_ = .14, Experiment 2: _d_ = .12, Experiment 3: _d_ = .14 [calculated using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. Zwaan and Pecher: Experiment 1a: _d_ = .10; Experiment 1b: _d_ = .09.​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1958,8 +1958,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Mental simulation - match advantage object number**. Verification response was faster for concept-object match when there was numerical congruence (compared with incongruence) between the number word and quantity. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[The conceptual representation of number](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470218.2013.863372?casa_token=NhppAcyf2gQAAAAA%3AtnoDlVvNLd-BzcmyjSvtODfSCGTeOS-7c63dXJJLpBp5phj597RlE8yKDb4ir_Wzz5ITU9TM-yDZ)’, Patson et al. 2014; experimental design, n = 63. [citation = 29(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Beg et al. 2021 ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00426-019-01265-4)[Experiment 1: n = 63, Experiment 2: n = 68, Experiment 3: n =42, citation = 5(GS, November 2022)]​. [Patson et al. 2016](https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=115602f4-e12b-4bbd-bfbc-6cb1a5b6cb71%40redis) [Experiment 1: n = 63, Experiment 2: n = 63, citation = 11(GS, November 2022)]​. [Patson 2021](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01121-6#Sec1) [Experiment 1: n = 62, Experiment 2: n = 83, citation = 1(GS, November 2022)]. [Šetić and Domijan 2017 ](https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1618-3169/a000358?rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org)[Experiment 1: n = 48, Experiment 2: n = 33, citation = 10(GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The conceptual representation of number](https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.863372)’, Patson et al. 2014; experimental design, n = 63. [citation = 29(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Beg et al. 2021 ](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01265-4)[Experiment 1: n = 63, Experiment 2: n = 68, Experiment 3: n =42, citation = 5(GS, November 2022)]​. [Patson et al. 2016](https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=115602f4-e12b-4bbd-bfbc-6cb1a5b6cb71%40redis) [Experiment 1: n = 63, Experiment 2: n = 63, citation = 11(GS, November 2022)]​. [Patson 2021](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01121-6) [Experiment 1: n = 62, Experiment 2: n = 83, citation = 1(GS, November 2022)]. [Šetić and Domijan 2017 ](https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1618-3169/a000358?rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org)[Experiment 1: n = 48, Experiment 2: n = 33, citation = 10(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: _ηp2 _= 0.11. * Replication effect size: Beg et al.: Experiment 1: _ηp2_= 0.11, experiment 2: _ηp2_= not reported, Experiment 3: _ηp2_=0.05. Patson et al.: Experiment 1: _ηp2_=0.03, Experiment 2: _ηp2_=0.06. Patson: Experiment 1: _ηp2_=0.08, Experiment 2: _ηp2_= 0.12. Šetić and Domijan: Experiment 1: _ηp2_=0.13, Experiment 2: _ηp2_= 0.21. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1967,8 +1967,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Mental simulation - match advantage object shape**. Readers verify pictures more quickly when they match rather than mismatch the object shape from the preceding sentence. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Language Comprehenders Mentally Represent the Shapes of Objects](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.00430?casa_token=ggIGxezVqbwAAAAA:V91lgqUIVsZTdhKb-1PRw2ynYViRBSlH0_GJ2eYIU-Hb8NmOQQ7ayNXGpLGZptkQygJoYug0hukV#)’, 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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/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?casa_token=t2Q0V5TUuKMAAAAA:uhP7evMX0p7xHEDdY44rT3cYHMv-aXnkQ8UlEaOdWOh4iGtNG79iXvVSB-VUDb_YRZpmBivMgA) [n1=115, n2=114,n3=112, n4=115, citations = 21 (GS, November 2022)]. [Rommers et al. 2013](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/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 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1976,8 +1976,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Mental simulation - match advantage object size**. Readers verify small imagined pictures more quickly when they are small real pictures, in contrast to big real pictures, while big imagined pictures are verified more quickly when they are big real pictures, as opposed to big imagined pictures.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Size Does Matter: Implied Object Size is Mentally Simulated During Language Comprehension](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1119604)’, de Koning et al. 2016; experiment, children: n = 38, adult: n =150. [citations= 35(GS, November, 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [de Koning et al. 2017](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20445911.2017.1281283) [n = 140, citation = 14(GS, November, 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Size Does Matter: Implied Object Size is Mentally Simulated During Language Comprehension](https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1119604)’, de Koning et al. 2016; experiment, children: n = 38, adult: n =150. [citations= 35(GS, November, 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [de Koning et al. 2017](https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1281283) [n = 140, citation = 14(GS, November, 2022)]. * Original effect size: adults: _ηp2_= .14, children: _ηp2_= .13. * Replication effect size: de Koning et al.: _d_ = .07. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -1985,8 +1985,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Mental simulation - bigger is better effect.** Items that are big in real size are processed more quickly than items that are small in real size. ​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Size matters: Bigger is faster’](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17470210802618900), Sereno et al. 2009; experiment, n =28. [citation=47(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Kang et al. 2011](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470218.2011.575947?casa_token=LD4xDk-wG40AAAAA%3AAuEFUE2djuHdm3hjchGbIU5gGdrz-HmKdSsHIUbq2LNL6Rqml6GSYkcccHmjuS-HSgG7U3xIB068) [n=80, citations=23(GS, November 2022)]. [Wei and Cook 2016](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1175899?casa_token=qYfzf3yOeJkAAAAA:XVA3JCJTQOMPZoxYHeK4Op49-FhnJnypvtQXhfvEeHTvQ3-D_N5EIUDIaPaz_B_Kv_G_yLP-bkLh) [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)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -1994,8 +1994,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Transposed word effect.** Responses to transposed word sequences (e.g. “you that read wrong”) are more error-prone and judged as ungrammatical compared with a control sequence (e.g. “you that read worry”). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[You that read wrong again! A transposed-word effect in grammaticality judgments](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/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://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-022-02150-9) [Experiment 1: n = 49, Experiment 2: n = 51, citations=0(GS, November 2022)]. [Liu et al. 2020 ](https://link.springer.com/article/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://link.springer.com/article/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://link.springer.com/article/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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23273798.2021.1880608) [n = 124, citations=0(GS, November 2022)]. +* 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)]. * 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?casa_token=VUDeT5v2eEcAAAAA:tpHE3nlCW-RDYEghg21NpvZ9EDcvi0b6-YispzhapublSIgNzo5vfipSDH8FWcGrEkMZ4y--VA) [n=26,600 over six large-scale datasets, citations=5(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)].​ * 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 >}} @@ -2012,8 +2012,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Error salience** (epistemic contextualism effects). Judgments about “knowledge” are sensitive to the salience of error possibilities. This is explained by the fact that salience shifts the evidential standard required to truthfully say someone “knows” something when those possibilities are made salient.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed. -* Original paper: ‘[Knowledge Ascriptions and the Psychological Consequences of thinking about Error](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2009.624.x)’, Nagel 2010; theoretical paper, n=NA. [citations=133(GS, May 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Feltz & Zarpentine 2010](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2010.514572?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab&aria-labelledby=full-article) [n1=152, citations=128(GS, May 2023)].[ Hansen & Chemla 2013](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mila.12019) [n1=40, citations=66(GS, May 2023)].​[ Alexander et al. 2014](https://books.google.rs/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HrQAAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA97&dq=Salience+and+Epistemic+Egocentrism:+An+Empirical+Study&ots=0lz7IeQP5x&sig=3gx1xRiKxLuOPHwF_scYCem8oLA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Salience%20and%20Epistemic%20Egocentrism%3A%20An%20Empirical%20Study&f=false) [n1=40, n2=187, n3=93 (not relevant here), n4=126, citations=34(GS, May 2023)].[ Buckwalter 2017](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315745275-4/epistemic-contextualism-linguistic-behavior-wesley-buckwalter) [review paper, n=NA, citations=20(GS, May 2023)].[ Buckwalter 2021](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-019-02221-w) [n1=99, n2=201, n3=203, citations=5(GS, May 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Knowledge Ascriptions and the Psychological Consequences of thinking about Error](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2009.624.x)’, Nagel 2010; theoretical paper, n=NA. [citations=133(GS, May 2023)]​. +* Critiques: [Feltz & Zarpentine 2010](https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2010.514572) [n1=152, citations=128(GS, May 2023)].[ Hansen & Chemla 2013](https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12019) [n1=40, citations=66(GS, May 2023)].​[ Alexander et al. 2014](https://books.google.rs/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HrQAAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA97&dq=Salience+and+Epistemic+Egocentrism:+An+Empirical+Study&ots=0lz7IeQP5x&sig=3gx1xRiKxLuOPHwF_scYCem8oLA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Salience%20and%20Epistemic%20Egocentrism%3A%20An%20Empirical%20Study&f=false) [n1=40, n2=187, n3=93 (not relevant here), n4=126, citations=34(GS, May 2023)].[ Buckwalter 2017](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315745275-4/epistemic-contextualism-linguistic-behavior-wesley-buckwalter) [review paper, n=NA, citations=20(GS, May 2023)].[ Buckwalter 2021](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02221-w) [n1=99, n2=201, n3=203, citations=5(GS, May 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA​. * Replication effect size: Feltz & Zarpentine: Experiment 1 - low versus high * practical consequences and error salience _d_=0.29 (n.s., calculated from the reported _t_(71)=1.213, _p_=0.23 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)). Hansen & Chemla: Positive polarity sentences _η2_ = 0.39 to _η2_ = 0.59; Negative polarity sentences _η2_ = 0.11 to _η2_ = 0.50 (calculated from the reported F statistics in Figure 5 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)). Alexander et al.: Study 1 – _d_ = 1.36; Study 2 – _η2_ = 0.12 (calculated from the reported _F_ (4, 209) = 7.28, _p_ < .000 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)); Study 4 – _d_= 1.26. Buckwalter: ES=NA, mixed evidence reported. Buckwalter: Experiment 1 – truth statements _d_=0.75, belief statements _d_=0.85, evidence statements _d_=1.42, actionability statements _d_=-1.05, knows statements _d_=1.47; Experiment 2 – truth statements _d_=0.62, belief statements _d_=0.06, evidence statements _d_=0.58, actionability statements _d_=-0.25, knows statements _d_=0.43; Experiment 3 – truth statements _d_=-0.09, belief statements _d_=-0.39, evidence statements _d_=0.38, actionability statements _d_=-0.71, knows statements _d_=0.41. @@ -2022,8 +2022,8 @@ 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?casa_token=qirrdZtL7xYAAAAA:DYASavdZMNWUT3KoC2H7eXt43jchMQLFBcIjyujOcCJESbMlHNpBkVEz_jWIRko8zfO9NBaxqw)’ 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://link.springer.com/article/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 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)]. +* 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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2031,7 +2031,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Left-cradling bias** (Child cradling lateralization). Humans preferentially hold their child on the left body side. This is hypothesised to be modulated by handedness as the dominant hand is preferably free for mundane tasks. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Handedness as a major determinant of functional cradling bias](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13576500500513565?casa_token=JmBY4cKhwcUAAAAA%3AEiko-Fy4woaiDdV_N7INojc6nRquY37yHHonu2673DSBKMd5gG0pdq8_J-TOnkgjKuXcQp7nRD1ccrY&journalCode=plat20)’, 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)]​. +* 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)]. ​ * Original effect size: _d_ = 1.06. * Replication effect size: Packheiser et al.: _d_ = 0.34. @@ -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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/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://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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -2059,7 +2059,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[Left-handedness: Association with immune disease, migraine, and developmental learning disorder, ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC346835/)Geschwind and Behan 1982; survey, n= 253. [citations=1637(GS, October, 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Mohammadi and Papadatou-Pastou 2020](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1357650X.2019.1621329) [n = 83 children who stutter, 90 children who do not stutter, citations = 4, (GS, November 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Mohammadi and Papadatou-Pastou 2020](https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2019.1621329) [n = 83 children who stutter, 90 children who do not stutter, citations = 4, (GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: not reported. * Replication effect size: Mohammadi and Papadatou-Pastou: Cramer’s _V_ = 0.125 [calculated using this [conversion](https://mathcracker.com/cramers-v-calculator#results)] {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2068,7 +2068,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: reversed * Original paper: ‘[Left-handedness: Association with immune disease, migraine, and developmental learning disorder](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC346835/), Geschwind and Behan 1982; survey, n = 253. [citations=1637(GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [van Feen et al. 2020](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1357650X.2019.1619750) [n=20539, citations=12 (GS, November 2022)]. ​ +* Critiques: [van Feen et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2019.1619750) [n=20539, citations=12 (GS, November 2022)]. ​ * Original effect size: not reported. * Replication effect size: van Feen et al.: _b_ =.116. {{< /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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14640747608400586?casa_token=bbxCEssuDP8AAAAA:HUrUdAUg9SswCtiKHNIua_HuSGCO7TxvoBTCz9nepDHA70pzvZlbC7IAcUY15kaX7sy1Jow_u1uZFBw) [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?casa_token=vX7R9cczrZ8AAAAA:xmOLMoXhjf9xzmt9rQtBiYZ14cZwluxrdlAuXsXKRyb3z9F1GOIvXge3pot1XpIwE7kocwHQrAg7#bib0050) [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://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)]. * 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1987.60.3.704#:~:text=https%3A//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://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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -2103,8 +2103,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Handedness differences - twins.** Handedness differences between twins and singletons. Twins have been suggested to show increased rates of left handedness compared to singletons.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Handedness in Twins: a Meta-analysis](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/713754339?casa_token=K6-yJ-6pjAEAAAAA:y_V6GF7CpUysRjd012k-anykBBSeJtRYsBX5EaoaE7uRwJEaCWlkjWyWHtHI0DanjxkI9a9xJZU1YT0)’, Sicotte et al. 1999; meta-analysis on rates of atypical handedness, n = 85.371. [citations = 137 (GS, January, 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Zheng et al. 2020](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40359-020-00401-9) [n=631, citations=8 (GS, January 2023)]. [Medland et al. 2003](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/special-twin-environments-genetic-influences-and-their-effects-on-the-handedness-of-twins-and-their-siblings/0E0745F22C72EC9E1E131A50D8E72D4E) [n = 9176, citations=50 (GS, January 2023)]. [De Kovel et al. 2019](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37423-8) [UK Biobank study with n ~500,000, citations=107 (GS, April 2023)]. [Pfeifer et al. 2022](https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-021-00695-3) [meta-analysis, n = 189,422, citations=10 (GS, April 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Handedness in Twins: a Meta-analysis](https://doi.org/10.1080/713754339)’, Sicotte et al. 1999; meta-analysis on rates of atypical handedness, n = 85.371. [citations = 137 (GS, January, 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Zheng et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00401-9) [n=631, citations=8 (GS, January 2023)]. [Medland et al. 2003](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/special-twin-environments-genetic-influences-and-their-effects-on-the-handedness-of-twins-and-their-siblings/0E0745F22C72EC9E1E131A50D8E72D4E) [n = 9176, citations=50 (GS, January 2023)]. [De Kovel et al. 2019](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37423-8) [UK Biobank study with n ~500,000, citations=107 (GS, April 2023)]. [Pfeifer et al. 2022](https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-021-00695-3) [meta-analysis, n = 189,422, citations=10 (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: OR = 1.43 [1.23 - 1.66]​. * Replication effect size: Zheng et al.: No difference between singletons and twins. Medland et al.: No difference between singleton and twins. De Kovel et al.: OR = 1.20. Pfeifer et al.: OR = 1.40 [1.26 - 1.57] (replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2113,7 +2113,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< 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://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02423.x) [n = 266, citations = 11 (GS, January 2023)]. [Green and Young 2001](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1011908532367) [n=284, citations = 93 (GS, January 2023)]. [Holtzen 1994](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01688639408402683?casa_token=VgIaEEgHhFoAAAAA:hUpPfTkcG8NBl0iUj9nPbU9-_VeXi3u41DZHnou7g7mnSzaSsBPACUsq81UwPswJLAp_f_fM46i2sAY) [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)]. +* 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 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 >}} @@ -2139,8 +2139,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Eye movements and false memories.** Lateral eye movements increase false memory rates. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Lateral eye movements increase false memory rates](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2167702618757658)’, Houben et al. 2018; experiment, n=82. [citation=36 (GS, November 2022)]. -* Critique:[ van Schie and Leer 2019](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702619859335) [n=206, citations=24(GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Lateral eye movements increase false memory rates](https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618757658)’, Houben et al. 2018; experiment, n=82. [citation=36 (GS, November 2022)]. +* Critique:[ van Schie and Leer 2019](https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619859335) [n=206, citations=24(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_=-0.77 [-1.34, -0.36]​. * Replication effect size: van Schie and Leer: _d_=0.063 [-0.210, 0.336]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2148,8 +2148,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Gaze-liking effect**. People are more likely to rate objects as more likeable when they have seen a person repeatedly gaze toward, as opposed to away from the object. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Gaze cuing and affective judgments of objects: I like what you look at](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03213926)’, Bayliss et al. 2006; experiment, Study 1: n=24, Study 2: n=24. [citation=317(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [King et al. 2011](https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/soco.2011.29.4.476) [n=24, citations=[ 40(GS, November 2022)]. Tipples and Pecchinenda 2019](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732) [n=98, citations=18(GS, November 2022)]. [Ulloa et al. 2015](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699931.2014.919899) [Study 1: n = 36; Study 2: n = 35, citations = 24(GS, November 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Gaze cuing and affective judgments of objects: I like what you look at](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213926)’, Bayliss et al. 2006; experiment, Study 1: n=24, Study 2: n=24. [citation=317(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [King et al. 2011](https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/soco.2011.29.4.476) [n=24, citations=[ 40(GS, November 2022)]. Tipples and Pecchinenda 2019](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732) [n=98, citations=18(GS, November 2022)]. [Ulloa et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.919899) [Study 1: n = 36; Study 2: n = 35, citations = 24(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_=0.94. * Replication effect size: King et al.: _d_ = 1.32 for trustworthy faces [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)], _d_ = 0.51 for untrustworthy faces [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)], _d_ = 1.12 for congruent faces [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)], _d_ = 0.29 for incongruent faces [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)]. Tipples and Pecchinenda: _d_=0.02; Ulloa et al.: Experiment 1: garage tools: _d_ = 0.07 [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)]; kitchen tools: _d_ = 0.35 [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)], letters: _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)], symbols: _d_ = 0.47 [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: garage tools: _d_ = 0.14 [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)]; kitchen tools: _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)], letters: _d_ = 0.14 [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)]; symbols: _d_ = 0.02 [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)]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2166,7 +2166,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Phonological monitoring impairment in dyslexic adults**, dyslexic show lower scores on phonological monitoring than neurotypical adults. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Consolidation of vocabulary is associated with sleep in typically developing children, but not in children with dyslexia](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/desc.12639?casa_token=bIoZ1WBvnW4AAAAA%3A_yTn9lor8-nDbVlsd5L4J43uJ-qM0qqwXq5y7Y-ocGVyi8MTnuGzv6MQNe3WlC_uTVABaDx1BXXt6HM)’, Smith et al. 2018; experiment, n1 =23 dyslexic children, n2 = 29 neurotypical children. [citations=39(GS, March 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Consolidation of vocabulary is associated with sleep in typically developing children, but not in children with dyslexia](https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12639)’, Smith et al. 2018; experiment, n1 =23 dyslexic children, n2 = 29 neurotypical children. [citations=39(GS, March 2023)]. * Critiques: [Rathcke and Lin 2021](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/11/10/1303) [n1 =13 dyslexic adults, n2 = 11 neurotypical adults, citations=1(GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: _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)]. * Replication effect size: Rathcke and Lin: not reported. @@ -2184,9 +2184,9 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Phonemic fluency impairment in dyslexic adults**. Dyslexic adults show lower scores on phonemic fluency tasks than neurotypical adults. Phonemic fluency tasks are a type of verbal fluency task, where people are asked to generate as many words as possible according to a specific criterion relating to phonemes, for instance words starting with the letter ‘M’. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Organizational deficits in dyslexia: Possible frontal lobe dysfunction](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/87565649009540453?casa_token=_IhZbI1qcBsAAAAA:d-Z780oQ1RRLejyVgEEWP_Mba_wrMhX59xR2alWhP3ZACcMqaH5gL3zcXmqs-eqBx0jr_0G4r6iwgw)’, 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://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000709902158801?casa_token=opL0Nd1UnOwAAAAA:NmdAAfZw0g5a7YN2kVxjY1ML5BxjpQN_Bv6uMQXkxFDX7w1-plr4Pgnm8Cn0llQDH0zMBBFhVHslmcg) [NT: n = 50, AWD: n = 23, citations = 426(GS, November 2022)]. [Marzocchi et al. 2008](https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01859.x?casa_token=GPAub4NmkjwAAAAA%3Aai-Oitj8v3YWAIgeZlJRejZ3v4W5Z1lKq-b5MERoOvRUzPl--FDnUDD6B2OQV3az1xDU7XZMtQ3Wsq8) [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?casa_token=nhu374SoCk4AAAAA:UpaPme51WYrzNOnOT5jrrvbXfMNpz0OLiSqbksUxhJT-50KXh57jp6dxQSp3OO8j2-yktVf3pKw) [neurotypical children and adolescents: n = 65, dyslexic children and adolescent: n = 60, citations = 330(GS, November 2022)]. [Moura et al. 2014 ](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/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://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000709902158801?casa_token=opL0Nd1UnOwAAAAA:NmdAAfZw0g5a7YN2kVxjY1ML5BxjpQN_Bv6uMQXkxFDX7w1-plr4Pgnm8Cn0llQDH0zMBBFhVHslmcg) [NT: n = 50, AWD: n = 23, citations = 426(GS, November 2022)]. [Marzocchi et al. 2008](https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01859.x?casa_token=GPAub4NmkjwAAAAA%3Aai-Oitj8v3YWAIgeZlJRejZ3v4W5Z1lKq-b5MERoOvRUzPl--FDnUDD6B2OQV3az1xDU7XZMtQ3Wsq8) [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?casa_token=nhu374SoCk4AAAAA:UpaPme51WYrzNOnOT5jrrvbXfMNpz0OLiSqbksUxhJT-50KXh57jp6dxQSp3OO8j2-yktVf3pKw) [neurotypical children and adolescents: n = 65, dyslexic children and adolescent: n = 60, citations = 330(GS, November 2022)]. [Moura et al. 2014 ](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732), NT: n = 31, AWD: n = 28, citations = 265 [GS, November 2022]. +* 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]. * 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 >}} @@ -2194,8 +2194,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Semantic fluency impairment in dyslexic adults**. Dyslexic adults show lower scores on semantic fluency than neurotypical adults. Semantic fluency tasks are a type of verbal fluency task, where people are asked to generate as many words as possible according to a specific criterion, for instance items that are part of the same category, such as foods. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Organizational deficits in dyslexia: Possible frontal lobe dysfunction](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/87565649009540453?casa_token=ZhmydNL7mkUAAAAA:0TUmw4PeUGnSSjTUTxs90Iemn9k8UQugUj2mpBEF8gCYn-ADqEiYleo3eDlI6YAU9LPpkQEacbI7iQ)’, 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://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000709902158801?casa_token=opL0Nd1UnOwAAAAA:NmdAAfZw0g5a7YN2kVxjY1ML5BxjpQN_Bv6uMQXkxFDX7w1-plr4Pgnm8Cn0llQDH0zMBBFhVHslmcg) [NT: n = 50, AWD: n = 23, citations = 426(GS, November 2022)]. [Kinsbourne et al. 1991 ](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/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://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01859.x?casa_token=GPAub4NmkjwAAAAA%3Aai-Oitj8v3YWAIgeZlJRejZ3v4W5Z1lKq-b5MERoOvRUzPl--FDnUDD6B2OQV3az1xDU7XZMtQ3Wsq8) [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?casa_token=nhu374SoCk4AAAAA:UpaPme51WYrzNOnOT5jrrvbXfMNpz0OLiSqbksUxhJT-50KXh57jp6dxQSp3OO8j2-yktVf3pKw) [neurotypical children and adolescents: n = 65, dyslexic children and adolescent: n = 60, citations = 330(GS, November 2022)]. [Moura et al. 2014 ](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/dys.321?casa_token=W7Mys23m9WgAAAAA:7Zpr8al5rysFCFRJprBGwVdjoD_gXm45LGup_pECt3glAr9adtXhxpBrrF7GN_t6LXG-0Ys02hcq4pg) [neurotypical students: n = 15, AWD: n = 15, citations = 134 (GS, November 2022)]. [Reiter et al. 2005 ](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/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 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -2204,7 +2204,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Lexical Precision in Skilled Readers: Individual Differences in Masked Neighbor Priming](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jolyn-Hersch/publication/44569234_Lexical_Precision_in_Skilled_Readers_Individual_Differences_in_Masked_Neighbor_Priming/links/09e41501b5628cc7bb000000/Lexical-Precision-in-Skilled-Readers-Individual-Differences-in-Masked-Neighbor-Priming.pdf)’, Andrews and Hersch 2010; experiment, experiment 1: n= 97, Experiment 2: n = 123. [citation=207(GS, November 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Elsherif et al. 2022a](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17470218211046350) [n=84, citations=[ 8(GS, November 2022)]. Elsherif et al. 2022b](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732) n=84, citations=[28(GS, November 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Elsherif et al. 2022a](https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211046350) [n=84, citations=[ 8(GS, November 2022)]. Elsherif et al. 2022b](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1468732) n=84, citations=[28(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: experiment 1: _ηp2_= 0.06/ d= 0.062[calculated, using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)], Experiment 2: _ηp2_= 0.04/ _d_ = 0.043 [calculated, using this [conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#conversion-between-cohens-d-and-partial-eta-squared)]. * Replication effect size: Elsherif et al.: _d_ = 0.28 [[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)]; Elsherif et al.: _d_ = 0.34 [[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 >}} @@ -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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976221119727) [n=90, citations=3(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)]. * 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?casa_token=egs1L8qjF2oAAAAA:Jj_IT1SALnjA11fikF-r8jJDES0YuqhdDk4nawXfQJ-RHTNKkWxZzt6OPdomsTkIP2WWev4aer4) [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://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)]. * [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. @@ -2250,7 +2250,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[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://link.springer.com/article/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?casa_token=oZZieQv3DxcAAAAA:GS5ZApORm9MkSxvOAAECVrtNDXsQmMZm7Do5P4lHTllEiKf9Ht9iMplv0gPI7nl3WY6owGHNYA) [n=579 across three studies (2c, 3a and 3b), citations=261 (GS, January 2023)].[ ](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-13746-007) +* 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)]​. * 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 >}} @@ -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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/p160599) [n=125, citations=109(GS, March 2023)]. [Okada and Matsuoka 1992](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1992.74.2.443?journalCode=pmsb) [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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1969.28.3.791?journalCode=pmsb) [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://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) * 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 >}} @@ -2285,8 +2285,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Positive emotions broaden scope of attention**. People experiencing positive emotions exhibit broader scopes of attention than do people experiencing no particular emotion. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoire](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699930441000238)s’, Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005; between-subjects design, n=104. [citations=5037 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Bruyneel et al. 2013 ](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0432-1)[Exp 1: n=35, Exp 2: n=38, Exp 3: n=25, citations=83 (GS, March 2023)]. [Huntsinger 2013](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963721413480364) [review, citations=137 (GS, March 2023)]. [Huntsinger et al. 2010](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?rapid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=89e9f47cbe4019e86ac43ee196e18f36a0cef6f6) [Exp 1: n=62, Exp 2: n=72, citations=160 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoire](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000238)s’, Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005; between-subjects design, n=104. [citations=5037 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Bruyneel et al. 2013 ](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0432-1)[Exp 1: n=35, Exp 2: n=38, Exp 3: n=25, citations=83 (GS, March 2023)]. [Huntsinger 2013](https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413480364) [review, citations=137 (GS, March 2023)]. [Huntsinger et al. 2010](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?rapid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=89e9f47cbe4019e86ac43ee196e18f36a0cef6f6) [Exp 1: n=62, Exp 2: n=72, citations=160 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = 0.375 (calculated by using[ this calculator](https://lbecker.uccs.edu/)). * Replication effect size: Bruyneel et al.: Across three experiments, positive affect consistently failed to exert any impact on selective attention, Exp 1: _ηp2 _= 0.04, Exp 2: _ηp2 _= 0.001, Exp 3: _ηp2 _= 0.01 (null effects). Huntsinger: Rather than having fixed effects on the scope of attention, the impact of positive and negative affect is surprisingly flexible. Huntsinger et al.: Positive affect empowers whatever focus is momentarily dominant, Exp 1: _d_= 0.58, Exp 2: _d_= 0.71. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2294,8 +2294,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Emotional information facilitates response inhibition**. Response inhibition refers to suppression of prepotent responses which are inappropriate to current task demands. In the lab setting, this is investigated with a stop signal task. The effect showed that both fearful and happy faces as stop signals facilitated response inhibition relative to neutral ones. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Interactions between cognition and emotion during response inhibition’,](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0024109) Pessoa et al. 2012; within-subjects design, n=36. [citations=245 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Pandey and Gupta 2022](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19116-5) [n=54, citations=3 (GS, March 2023)]. [Williams et al. 2020 ](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02699931.2020.1793303)[Study 1: n=40, Study 2: n=40, Study 3: n=42 (only younger adults sample), citations=12 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Interactions between cognition and emotion during response inhibition’,](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024109) Pessoa et al. 2012; within-subjects design, n=36. [citations=245 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Pandey and Gupta 2022](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19116-5) [n=54, citations=3 (GS, March 2023)]. [Williams et al. 2020 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2020.1793303)[Study 1: n=40, Study 2: n=40, Study 3: n=42 (only younger adults sample), citations=12 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: _η2_= 0.17, _d_= 0.44 (fearful vs neutral), _d_= 0.33 (happy vs neutral) (Calculated using[ this](https://lbecker.uccs.edu/) calculator). * Replication effect size: [Pandey and Gupta: ](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19116-5)Angry faces as stop signal impaired response inhibition compared to happy faces,[ _d_ = 0.35](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?rapid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=89e9f47cbe4019e86ac43ee196e18f36a0cef6f6). Williams et al.[: ](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?rapid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=89e9f47cbe4019e86ac43ee196e18f36a0cef6f6)Fearful faces impaired response inhibition compared to happy faces, Study 1: _d_= 0.03 (fearful vs neutral), _d_= 0.04 (happy vs neutral), _d_ = 0.08 (fearful vs happy), Study 2: _d_= 0.11 (fearful vs neutral), _d_= 0.04 (happy vs neutral), _d_= 0.15 (fearful vs happy), Study 3: _d_= 0.56 (fearful vs neutral), _d_= 0.04 (happy vs neutral), _d_= 0.58 (fearful vs happy). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -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://psycnet.apa.org/doi/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://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-43468-001) [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 >}} @@ -2317,8 +2317,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Inhibition induced forgetting.** Inhibition-induced forgetting refers to impaired memory for the stimuli to which responses were inhibited. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Inhibition-induced forgetting: when more control leads to less memory](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797614553945)’, Chiu and Egner 2015; within-subjects design, Exp 1: n=54, Exp 2: n=54, Exp 3: n=53. [citations=77 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Le and Cho 2020](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02699931.2019.1650721) [Exp 1: n=40, Exp 2: n=48, Exp 3: n=40, citations=1 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Inhibition-induced forgetting: when more control leads to less memory](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614553945)’, Chiu and Egner 2015; within-subjects design, Exp 1: n=54, Exp 2: n=54, Exp 3: n=53. [citations=77 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Le and Cho 2020](https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1650721) [Exp 1: n=40, Exp 2: n=48, Exp 3: n=40, citations=1 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: Exp 1: _d_= 0.28, Exp 2: _d_= 0.45, Exp 3: _d_= 0.3. * Replication effect size: Le and Cho: Showed inhibition induced forgetting when stimuli was task relevant, Exp 1: _d_= 0.06, Exp 2: _d_= 0.32, Exp 3: _d_= 0.31 (Calculated using[ this](https://lbecker.uccs.edu/) calculator). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2327,7 +2327,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Evidence for the activation of sensorimotor information during visual word recognition: The body–object interaction effect](https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010-0277(06)00266-6)’, Siakaluk et al. 2008; experimental within-subjects design (high-BOI vs low-BOI), Study 1: n=30, Study 2: n = 30. [citations = 172 (GS, April 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Siakaluk et al. 2010](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/03640210802035399) [Study 1: n = 35, Study 2: n = 35, Study 3 task: n = 35, citations = 104 (GS, April 2023)]. [Tousignant and Pexman 2012](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00053/full) [Study 1 Entity: n = 41, Study 2: n = 39, Study 3: n = 39, Study 4: n = 40, citations = 47 (GS, April 2023)].[Wellsby et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2011.001) [Study 1: n = 25, Study 2: n = 25, Study 3: n = 25, citations = 35 (GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Siakaluk et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802035399) [Study 1: n = 35, Study 2: n = 35, Study 3 task: n = 35, citations = 104 (GS, April 2023)]. [Tousignant and Pexman 2012](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00053/full) [Study 1 Entity: n = 41, Study 2: n = 39, Study 3: n = 39, Study 4: n = 40, citations = 47 (GS, April 2023)].[Wellsby et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2011.001) [Study 1: n = 25, Study 2: n = 25, Study 3: n = 25, citations = 35 (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size:_ _Study 1: _η2_ = .33. Study 2: _η2_ = .30. * Replication effect size: Siakaluk et al.: Study 1a: _η2_ = .38, Study 1b: _η2_ = .38, Study 2: _η2_ = .57.. Tousignant and Pexman: Study 1: _η2_ = 0.69, Study 2: _η2_ = 0.25, Study 3: _η2_ = 0.16, Study 4: _d_ = 0.05 (not reported, calculated from the M and SD reported in Table 3 but does not take into account within-subject design). Wellsby et al.: Study 1: _η2_ = .32, Study 2: _η2_ = .32, Study 3: _η2_ = .33. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2336,7 +2336,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[The formation of false memories](https://journals.healio.com/doi/epdf/10.3928/0048-5713-19951201-07)’, Loftus & Pickrell 1995; one experimental condition, n = 24. [citations=1813(GS, June 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Murphy et al. 2023](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09658211.2023.2198327) [n= 123, citations=1(GS, June 2023)]​. +* Critiques: [Murphy et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2023.2198327) [n= 123, citations=1(GS, June 2023)]​. * Original effect size: 25% of participants ‘remembered’ the false memory. * Replication effect size: Murphy et al.: 35% of participants ‘remembered’ the false memory. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2353,8 +2353,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Modality-switching cost** (modality switch effect). When verifying object properties, processing is slowed when the modality being processed is different from the modality processed in the preceding trial. The presence of the switching cost suggests that people represent semantic information in a modality-specific, rather than amodal or abstract, manner.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: [‘ Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01429)’, Pecher et al. 2003; repeated measures design, Experiment 1: n = 64, Experiment 2: n = 88. [citations=485 (GS, June 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Vermeulen et al. 2007](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03640210709336990) [n=81, citations=104(GS, June 2023)]. [Lynott & Connell (2009)](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BRM.41.2.558) [n=24, citations=279(GS, June 2023)]. [Ambrosi et al. 2011](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0165025410371603) [n=40, citations=8(GS, June 2023)]. +* Original paper: [‘ Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01429)’, Pecher et al. 2003; repeated measures design, Experiment 1: n = 64, Experiment 2: n = 88. [citations=485 (GS, June 2023)]​. +* Critiques: [Vermeulen et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210709336990) [n=81, citations=104(GS, June 2023)]. [Lynott & Connell (2009)](https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.558) [n=24, citations=279(GS, June 2023)]. [Ambrosi et al. 2011](https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410371603) [n=40, citations=8(GS, June 2023)]. * Original effect size: Experiment 1a - _d_ = 0.18 (29ms), Experiment 1b - _d_= 0.15 (20ms), Experiment 2 - _d_= 0.27 (41ms). * Replication effect size: Vermeulen et al.: _d_= 0.5, consistent with the original, with Switch trials being slower than Non-Switch trials. Lynott & Connell: _d_ = 0.36. Ambrosi et al.: _d_= 0.2 (Adults), _dm_= 0.24 (Children). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2362,7 +2362,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Tactile Disadvantage** (conceptual tactile disadvantage). Participants find it more difficult and are slower to process words strongly related to the tactile modality (e.g., _sticky_), compared to processing words from other modalities (visual, auditory etc.). The presence of this conceptual tactile disadvantage mirrors a similar disadvantage observed in perceptual processing, where tactile stimuli are slower and more difficult to process than visual or auditory stimuli.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: NA -* Original paper: [‘Look but don’t touch: Tactile disadvantage in processing modality-specific words](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01429)’, Connell & Lynott 2010; repeated measures design, Experiment 1: n = 45, Experiment 2: n = 46, Experiment 3: n = 60. [citations=74 (GS, June 2023)]​. +* Original paper: [‘Look but don’t touch: Tactile disadvantage in processing modality-specific words](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01429)’, Connell & Lynott 2010; repeated measures design, Experiment 1: n = 45, Experiment 2: n = 46, Experiment 3: n = 60. [citations=74 (GS, June 2023)]​. * Critiques: NA. * Original effect size: Experiment 1 - _η2_ = 0.06, Experiment 2 - _η2_ = 0.03, Experiment 3 - _η2_ = 0.01. * Replication effect size: NA. @@ -2384,8 +2384,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Growth mindset.** Thinking that skill is improvable on attainment. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: '[Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1)', Dweck 1995; correlational and test-retest design, n=638. [citations=3311 (GS, April 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Folioano et al. 2019](https://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Changing%20Mindsets_0.pdf) [a big study of the intervention in English schools, n=4584, citations=46 (GS, April 2023)]. [Sisk 2018](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617739704?journalCode=pssa) [a pair of meta-analyses on both questions, n=365,915, citations=834 (GS, April 2023)]. +* Original paper: '[Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1)', Dweck 1995; correlational and test-retest design, n=638. [citations=3311 (GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Folioano et al. 2019](https://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Changing%20Mindsets_0.pdf) [a big study of the intervention in English schools, n=4584, citations=46 (GS, April 2023)]. [Sisk 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704) [a pair of meta-analyses on both questions, n=365,915, citations=834 (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: Hard to establish, but reported up to _r_ = 0.54 / _d_=0.95 in some papers. * Replication effect size: Folioano: _d_ = 0.00 [-0.02, 0.02]. Sisk: _r_ = 0.10 [0.08, 0.13] for the (nonexperimental) correlation; _d_ = 0.08 [0.02, 0.14]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2394,7 +2394,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[The 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)]. -* Critiques: [Macnamara et al. 2016 ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691616635591)[n=2,765, citations=274(GS, October 2022)]. +* 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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2403,7 +2403,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated. * Original paper: Multiple origins. e.g. the '[Learning style inventory: technical manual](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Kolb-2/publication/241157771_The_Kolb_Learning_Style_Inventory-Version_31_2005_Technical_Specifi_cations/links/555910f508aeaaff3bf98ca9/The-Kolb-Learning-Style-Inventory-Version-31-2005-Technical-Specifi-cations.pdf)', Kolb, 2005; manual, n=NA. [citations=1300 (GS, May 2023)]. [‘Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education’](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40214287) , Kolb, and Kolb 2005; theoretical paper, n=NA. [Citations=7679 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Husmann and O’Loughlin 2019 ](https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ase.1777)[n=426, citations= 227 (GS, March 2023)]. [Knoll et al. 2017](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27620075) [n=52, citations= 156 (GS, March 2023)]. [Pashler et al. 2009 ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x)[literature review but no n reported, citations= 3422 (GS, March 2023](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x)). [Willingham et al. 2015](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0098628315589505) [theoretical paper, n=NA, citations= 559 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Husmann and O’Loughlin 2019 ](https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777)[n=426, citations= 227 (GS, March 2023)]. [Knoll et al. 2017](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27620075) [n=52, citations= 156 (GS, March 2023)]. [Pashler et al. 2009 ](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x)[literature review but no n reported, citations= 3422 (GS, March 2023](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x)). [Willingham et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505) [theoretical paper, n=NA, citations= 559 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Husmann and O’Loughlin: Final Point Total with Use of Practice Questions _r_=–0.155, with Use of Virtual Microscope _r_=0.127, with Use of Lecture Notes _r_=0.122, with Use of Colouring Book _r_=–0.236, with Use of Flashcards _r_=–0.114, with Use of Other Textbook _r_=–0.124, with Use of Outside Websites _r_=–0.363, with Making Your Own Flashcards _r_=–0.148. Knoll et al.: Effect size pictures vs. words: _d_= 0.61, effect size list types: _ηp2_= .51, JOL type: _ηp2_=.15. Pashler et al.: not reported. Willingham et al.: not reported. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -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?casa_token=ZzcWa-TmbWEAAAAA:Zk7f10PAReXi13lkWJqF0IyCbd9_KcpAcfZ53cvQeqLumRkuacvKw_ewst5ctu8W9v2pL3jwMys) [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://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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -2448,7 +2448,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: [‘Rule learning by seven-month-old infants’](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.283.5398.77), Marcus et al. 1999; preferential looking time, Experiment 1: n=16. [Citations=1707 (GS, February 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Rabagliati et al. 2018](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.12704) [meta-analysis, n=1318, citations=53 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Rabagliati et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12704) [meta-analysis, n=1318, citations=53 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: _η2p_=0.647 [0.252, 0.789]. * Replication effect size: Rabagliati et al.: _g_=0.25 [0.09, 0.40]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2484,7 +2484,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[The Mean IQ of Americans: Massive Gains 1932 to 1978](http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn1984b.pdf)’, Flynn, 1984; meta analysis, _k_=73, n=7431. [citations=1852 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Fletcher et al. 2010](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0734282910373341) [meta-analysis, _k_=14 studies, n=2169, citations=27 (GS, March 2023)]. [Trashon et al. 2014](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/) [meta-analysis, _k_=285 studies, n=14,031, citations=369 (GS, March 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Fletcher et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910373341) [meta-analysis, _k_=14 studies, n=2169, citations=27 (GS, March 2023)]. [Trashon et al. 2014](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/) [meta-analysis, _k_=285 studies, n=14,031, citations=369 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: 3.1 (IQ gain per decade). * Replication effect size: Fletcher et al.: 2.80 [2.50, 3.09]. Trashon et al.: 2.93 [2.3, 3.5]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2506,7 +2506,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127)’, Ozer and Benet-Martínez, 2006; review summarizes 86 associations between the Big Five traits and 49 life outcomes. [citation=2754(GS, August 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Roberts et al. 2007](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x), review of prospective longitudinal studies, 34 studies that link personality traits to mortality/longevity, N=117713. [citation=2482(GS, August 2022)]​. [Soto 2019](https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/0956797619831612) [n=1504,citations=256(GS, August 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Roberts et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x), review of prospective longitudinal studies, 34 studies that link personality traits to mortality/longevity, N=117713. [citation=2482(GS, August 2022)]​. [Soto 2019](https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/0956797619831612) [n=1504,citations=256(GS, August 2022)]. * Original effect size: _r_ = .10 to .40. * Replication effect size: Soto: Shrank by 20% (_r_ = .06 to .60). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2515,7 +2515,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: NA * Original paper: ‘[Creative novation behaviour therapy as a prophylactic treatment for cancer and coronary heart disease: Part I—Description of treatment, Behaviour Research and Therapy’, Grossarth-Maticek and Eysenck 1991 (RETRACTED](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(09)80002-8)) matching control and therapy groups and randomization, 600 therapy, 500 control, 100 placebo. [citation=98 (GS, January 2023)]​; ‘[Creative novation behaviour therapy as a prophylactic treatment for cancer and coronary heart disease: Part II—Effects of treatment, Behaviour Research and Therapy’, Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek 1991 (RETRACTED](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(09)80003-X)); matching control and therapy groups and randomization, 600 therapy, 500 control, 100 placebo. [citation=134(GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Pelosi 2019](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1359105318822045) [review paper, n=NA, citations=42(GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Pelosi 2019](https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105318822045) [review paper, n=NA, citations=42(GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: 106 out of 600 died in the control group versus 27 out of 500 died in the therapy group. * Replication effect size: NA. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2524,7 +2524,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper:[ ‘Graphological analysis and psychiatry: an experimental study’](https://www.proquest.com/docview/1293548705?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&imgSeq=1), Eysenck 1945; participants filled in a personality questionnaire and copied the questionnaire without filling it in, graphologist analysed it, N=50. [citations=44 (GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Dazzi & Pedrabissi 2009](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/PR0.105.F.1255-1268) [N=203 across 2 studies, citations= 52 (GS, January 2023)]. [Furnham and Gunter 1987](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886987900456) [N=64, citations=52 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Dazzi & Pedrabissi 2009](https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.105.F.1255-1268) [N=203 across 2 studies, citations= 52 (GS, January 2023)]. [Furnham and Gunter 1987](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886987900456) [N=64, citations=52 (GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: not reported.​ * Replication effect size: Furnham and Gunter: not reported. Dazzi and Pedrabissi: Study 1 - Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients between the scores on the Big Five Questionnaire and the graphologists’ ratings of personality traits based on the handwriting samples varied from –.07 to .21, with a mean value of .04 (first graphologist) and .07 (second graphologist).Only one out from 15 coefficients significantly differed from zero; Study 2 - Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients between the scores on the Big Five Questionnaire and the ratings of traits given by the: first graphologist varied from –.11 to .20, with a mean of .05, and only one of 15 coefficients was statistically significant; coefficients of the second graphologist ranged from –.11 to .14, with a mean of .03, and no single coefficient turned out to be significantly different from zero. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2537,7 +2537,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Do defaults save lives?](https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1091721)’, Johnson and Goldstein 2003; 3 between-subjects experiment, N = 161. [citations=2649 (GS, June 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [DellaVigna & Linos 2022](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/ECTA18709) [Meta analysis of 241 nudges based on 23.5 million participants, citations = 185 (GS, July 2022)]. [Chandrasehkar et al. 2022](https://psyarxiv.com/nymh2/) [N = 1920, citations = 1(GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [DellaVigna & Linos 2022](https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA18709) [Meta analysis of 241 nudges based on 23.5 million participants, citations = 185 (GS, July 2022)]. [Chandrasehkar et al. 2022](https://psyarxiv.com/nymh2/) [N = 1920, citations = 1(GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: OR = 5.15 to OR = 5.93​. * Replication effect size: DellaVigna & Linos: Nudge effects in the published literature tends to report false positives and inflated effect sizes. Chandrasehkar et al.: OR=1.38 to OR = 1.67​. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2572,16 +2572,16 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Risk and Goal Message Framing.** a) For illness detection behaviors, loss framing (presenting information of negative consequences with undesirable behaviors / without desirable behaviors) would be more effective than gain framing (presenting information of benefits through engaging in desirable behaviors) in encouraging healthy attitudes, intentions, and behaviors (perhaps because illness detection behaviors are riskier, Rothman & Salovey, 1997), whereas b) for health-affirming behaviors, gain framing would be more effective than loss framing in motivating healthy attitudes, intentions, behaviors (perhaps because health-affirming behaviors are less risky, Rothman & Salovey, 1997). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: Mixed, depending on operationalizations, DVs, and method (meta-analysis vs empirical study). The conceptual replication failed to provide support for the interaction, but this may be due to limited power. -* Original paper: [Rothman et al. (1999)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167299259003), between-subject design, sample size: 120 (Study 2) [citations=548(GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [van Riet et al. (2016)](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17437199.2016.1176865) criticized reasoning of applying Kahneman and Tversky (1981) Prospect Theory (which was more suitable and applicable for risky choice framing) to goal message framing. Van Riet et al. (2016) also reviewed direct empirical and meta-analytical evidence, and it appears the evidence of risk-framing hypothesis in message framing is not conclusive.Original effect size: Rothman et al. (1999): partial eta squared=0.03, [90% CI [0.00, 0.10], to partial eta squared=0.06, 90% CI [0.01, 0.14]. +* Original paper: [Rothman et al. (1999)](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299259003), between-subject design, sample size: 120 (Study 2) [citations=548(GS, October 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [van Riet et al. (2016)](https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1176865) criticized reasoning of applying Kahneman and Tversky (1981) Prospect Theory (which was more suitable and applicable for risky choice framing) to goal message framing. Van Riet et al. (2016) also reviewed direct empirical and meta-analytical evidence, and it appears the evidence of risk-framing hypothesis in message framing is not conclusive.Original effect size: Rothman et al. (1999): partial eta squared=0.03, [90% CI [0.00, 0.10], to partial eta squared=0.06, 90% CI [0.01, 0.14]. * Replication effect size: Cox et al. (2006): author: partial eta squared =0.03, 90% CI [0.00, 0.12], non-significant, but may be due to limited power. {{< /spoiler >}} * **Status quo effect** (status quo bias). A cognitive bias that leads people to prefer things to stay the same, even when change may be beneficial, thus a preference for the current state of affairs {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Status quo bias in decision making](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00055564)’, Samuelson and Zeckhauser 1988; series of decision-making experiments, n = 486. [citations=2707(SPRINGER LINK, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: Review: [Bostrom and Ord 2006](https://doi.org/10.1086/505233) [n=NA, citations = 354 (GS, January 2023)]. [Godefroid et al. 2022](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11301-022-00283-8) [n = NA, citations=4(GS, February 2023)]​. [Johnson and Goldstein 2003](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1091721) [n = 161, citations = 2824 (GS, February 2023)]. [Xiao et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2020.2470) [Experiment 1: n = 311, Experiment 2: n = 316, citations = 4 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Status quo bias in decision making](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564)’, Samuelson and Zeckhauser 1988; series of decision-making experiments, n = 486. [citations=2707(SPRINGER LINK, January 2023)]​. +* Critiques: Review: [Bostrom and Ord 2006](https://doi.org/10.1086/505233) [n=NA, citations = 354 (GS, January 2023)]. [Godefroid et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00283-8) [n = NA, citations=4(GS, February 2023)]​. [Johnson and Goldstein 2003](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1091721) [n = 161, citations = 2824 (GS, February 2023)]. [Xiao et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2020.2470) [Experiment 1: n = 311, Experiment 2: n = 316, citations = 4 (GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: : Cohen’s _h_ from .16 to .79 (recalculated in Xiao 2021). * Replication effect size: Bostrom and Ord: no ES (replicated). Godefroid et al.: NA. Johnson and Goldstein: no ES (but replicated as default effect). Xiao et al.: Cohen’s _h_ from .45 to .62. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/acp.1386) [n=957, citations = 23 (GS, April 2023)]. [Feldman et al. 1999](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597899928339?casa_token=ndcFRdq13CIAAAAA:qRoUdDYt5_Yz0icb9x-_cgHpU_QQM-0NQ3Po5Wh08Octaz7vBR497EbHqDzW9uMpGOQAJtHDh-Y) [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://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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -2608,7 +2608,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246880280_The_Affect_Heuristic_in_Judgments_of_Risks_and_Benefits)’, Finucane et al. 2000; A mixed 4 (between - affective information: high risk/low risk/high benefit/low benefit) x 3 (within - technologies: nuclear power/natural gas/food preservatives), n=213 participants. [citations = 3694 (GS, June 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Efendić et al. 2021 ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19485506211056761?casa_token=RyBH0-URFaUAAAAA%3AS3bHGvHFyiuulJ6ZEudGSqHjDx68tFzFCUoAORHPDqiqzDUe2Inj8vuvnAUFbFioWHcVbrWwhaF8)[n=1552, citations = 2(GS, November 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Efendić et al. 2021 ](https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211056761)[n=1552, citations = 2(GS, November 2022)]. * Original effect size: _r_ = -0.74 [-0.92,-0.30]. * Replication effect size: Efendić et al.: Study 1: _r_ = -0.87 [-0.96, -0.59]; Study 2: _r_ = -0.84 [-0.95, -0.50]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2626,7 +2626,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< 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)]​. -* Critiques: [Fillon et al. 2020](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699931.2020.1816910) [meta-analysis, _k_= 48, citations = 10 (GS, July 2022)]. [Kutscher and Feldman 2019](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699931.2018.1504747) [exact replication (within-subject), n1= 342, n2 = 342, citations = 19 (GS, April 2023)]. +* 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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2643,7 +2643,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Bias Blind Spot**. The phenomenon that people perceive stronger biases for others compared to self. Pronin (2002) found support for self-other asymmetries in perceived biases but failed to find support for self-other asymmetries in perceived personal shortcomings. Chandrashekar et al. (2021) found support for self-other asymmetries for both biases and personal shortcomings.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Perceptions of bias in self versus others](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167202286008?casa_token=cHkDS3hzrTEAAAAA%3ATmU5qzKa9KkQBW7HrUf-rzvbefn80BFflYuL1kW-f_uIqF6yuhRrzi7u_0rAFdSNP_Tjc2l1FuI&journalCode=pspc)’, Pronin et al. 2002; within-subject design, Study 1: n = 24 , Study 2: n = 30 . [citations=1406 (GS, October 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Perceptions of bias in self versus others](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286008)’, Pronin et al. 2002; within-subject design, Study 1: n = 24 , Study 2: n = 30 . [citations=1406 (GS, October 2022)]. * Critiques: [Chandrashekar et al. 2021](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/agency-and-selfother-asymmetries-in-perceived-bias-and-shortcomings-replications-of-the-bias-blind-spot-and-link-to-free-will-beliefs/33C3F2CE24AC6932CD6339713B566E55) [N = 969, citations=10 (GS, April 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = -0.86 for biases, _d_ = 0.28 for personal shortcomings. * Replication effect size: Chandrashekar et al.: _d_ = -1.00 for biases, _d_ = -0.34 for personal shortcomings. @@ -2661,9 +2661,9 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Disjunction Effect**. The sure-thing principle (STP) posits that if decision-makers are willing to make the same decision regardless of whether an external event happens or not, then decision-makers should also be willing to make the same decision when the outcome of the event is uncertain. People regularly violate the STP – uncertainty about an outcome influence decisions.​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[The Disjunction Effect in Choice under Uncertainty](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/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?casa_token=CGkmyEQ8jYIAAAAA:WQ0S1i2i6jMYNSxYNPUDUjU74dF0fmAs6R5qf_hyH6_bkYtYSJ6F0t0ra0TZkdInLDEJ6hC6-g) [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?casa_token=CGkmyEQ8jYIAAAAA:WQ0S1i2i6jMYNSxYNPUDUjU74dF0fmAs6R5qf_hyH6_bkYtYSJ6F0t0ra0TZkdInLDEJ6hC6-g)); “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?casa_token=CGkmyEQ8jYIAAAAA:WQ0S1i2i6jMYNSxYNPUDUjU74dF0fmAs6R5qf_hyH6_bkYtYSJ6F0t0ra0TZkdInLDEJ6hC6-g))​. +* 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))​. * 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 >}} @@ -2679,8 +2679,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Choosing versus rejecting** (Framing effects, compatibility principle). People are inconsistent in their preferences when faced with choosing versus rejecting decision-making scenarios. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03197186)’, Shafir 1993; 8 experiments with between-subjects design (i.e., two between-subjects conditions), across 8 studies sample size ranged from 170 to 398. [citations=779 (GS, July 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Chandrashekar et al. 2021](https://journal.sjdm.org/20/200131/jdm200131.html) [n = 1026, citations = 1 (GS, July 2022)]. Proposed and tested alternative theoretical predictions to that of Shafir 1993.[Ganzach 1995](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597885710369) [n = 41 & 96, citations = 94 (GS, July 2022)]. [Wedell 1997 ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03211332)[n1=225, n2= 125, citations = 79(GS, July 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197186)’, Shafir 1993; 8 experiments with between-subjects design (i.e., two between-subjects conditions), across 8 studies sample size ranged from 170 to 398. [citations=779 (GS, July 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Chandrashekar et al. 2021](https://journal.sjdm.org/20/200131/jdm200131.html) [n = 1026, citations = 1 (GS, July 2022)]. Proposed and tested alternative theoretical predictions to that of Shafir 1993.[Ganzach 1995](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597885710369) [n = 41 & 96, citations = 94 (GS, July 2022)]. [Wedell 1997 ](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211332)[n1=225, n2= 125, citations = 79(GS, July 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_= 0.22 to 0.51​. * Replication effect size: Chandrashekar et al.: _d_ = 0.01. Ganzach: Experiment 1 - _ηp_ ² = 0.065 (calculated from the reported _F_(1,39)=6.6, _p_<.01 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)), Experiment 2 - _ηp_ ²= 0.105 (calculated from the reported _F_(1,94)=11,_p_<.001 using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2688,8 +2688,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Conjunction bias** (conjunction fallacy). The fallacy consists of judging the conjunction of two events as more likely than any of the two specific events, violating one of the most fundamental tenets of probability theory. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Do Frequency Representations Eliminate Conjunction Effects? An Exercise in Adversarial Collaboration](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40063630)’, [Mellers et al. 2001](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.00350); Essentially 6 between-subjects conditions, n=108 per experimental condition. [citations=562(GS, August 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Chandrashekar et al. (2021)](https://open.lnu.se/index.php/metapsychology/article/view/2474) [n = 1026, citations = 1 (GS, July 2022)]. [Hertwig & Gigerenzer 1999](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199912)12:4%3C275::AID-BDM323%3E3.0.CO;2-M) [n1=18, n2=90, citations=653 (GS, Aug 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Do Frequency Representations Eliminate Conjunction Effects? An Exercise in Adversarial Collaboration](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40063630)’, [Mellers et al. 2001](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00350); Essentially 6 between-subjects conditions, n=108 per experimental condition. [citations=562(GS, August 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Chandrashekar et al. (2021)](https://open.lnu.se/index.php/metapsychology/article/view/2474) [n = 1026, citations = 1 (GS, July 2022)]. [Hertwig & Gigerenzer 1999](https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199912)12:4%3C275::AID-BDM323%3E3.0.CO;2-M) [n1=18, n2=90, citations=653 (GS, Aug 2022)]. * Original effect size: _d_=1.08 to 1.01​. * Replication effect size: Chandrashekar et al.: Cohen’s _d_ = 0.49 to -0.17. Hertwig & Gigerenzer: people infer non mathematical meanings of the polysemous term ‘probability’ in the classic Linda conjunction problem; one can design contexts in which people infer mathematical meanings of the term and are therefore more likely to conform to the conjunction rule. {{< /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?casa_token=F9Sc_6lNkV4AAAAA:8xQ_gV17-nltVYqF1cE5jpiExQQLmFOU98lKQt7cepFrv_TxVTAp-RnVgZsA4jkSGQJmq1fl-D0) [n = 824, citations = 6 (GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Anvari et al. 2021](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103120303929) [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 >}} @@ -2736,7 +2736,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * Status: mixed (but mostly replicated). * Original paper: [‘Omission and commission in judgment and choice’](https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(91)90011-T), Spranca et al. 1991; within-subjects design, Experiment 1: n = 38, Experiment 4: n = 48 [citations = 1,178 (GS, February 2023)].. * Critiques: [Jamison et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103977) [n = 313; citations = 19 (GS, February 2023)]. [Yeung et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211042315) [meta-analysis, n = 1,999 participants, _k_ = 21 studies, citations = 8 (GS, February 2023)]. -* Original effect size: (effect sizes generated using a formula in [Rosenthal & DiMatteo (2001, p. 71)](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59?casa_token=64pk97JtU90AAAAA:6v270IavA0ggpS00pTpMhl4S005V86fKCAHTx3Abi-pk1na30ImJq6vgTndIdnDBGzGPt2_3KGHH4_Hq) using the conversion from _r_ to Cohen's _d_) Experiment 1: Scenario 1: _d_ = 0.63 (estimated from frequencies reported in report: 37 vs. 20, _χ2_(1, _N_ = 57) = 5.07, _p_ = .024), Scenario 2: _d_ = 0.80 (estimated from frequencies reported in report: 39 vs. 18, _χ2_(1, _N_ = 57) = 7.74, _p_ = .005) (*For both scenarios the effect size was estimated from the reported frequencies, generating a chi-square value, converting this to Pearson’s _r_ and then to Cohen’s _d_ for comparison with other experiments); Experiment 4: _d_ = 0.94 [0.33, 1.55] (estimated from reported ANOVA: _F_(1,46) = 10.2, _p_ = .003). +* Original effect size: (effect sizes generated using a formula in [Rosenthal & DiMatteo (2001, p. 71)](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59) using the conversion from _r_ to Cohen's _d_) Experiment 1: Scenario 1: _d_ = 0.63 (estimated from frequencies reported in report: 37 vs. 20, _χ2_(1, _N_ = 57) = 5.07, _p_ = .024), Scenario 2: _d_ = 0.80 (estimated from frequencies reported in report: 39 vs. 18, _χ2_(1, _N_ = 57) = 7.74, _p_ = .005) (*For both scenarios the effect size was estimated from the reported frequencies, generating a chi-square value, converting this to Pearson’s _r_ and then to Cohen’s _d_ for comparison with other experiments); Experiment 4: _d_ = 0.94 [0.33, 1.55] (estimated from reported ANOVA: _F_(1,46) = 10.2, _p_ = .003). * Replication effect size: Jamison et al.: Scenario 1: _d_= 0.45 (replicated), Scenario 2: _d_ = 0.47 (replicated). Yeung et al.: The overall effect size was _g_ = 0.45 [0.14, 0.77]; Measure Used: Morality (_k_= 14): _g_ = 0.45 [0.14, 0.77] (replicated); Blame (_k_ = 7): _g_= 0.32 [0.01, 0.64] (replicated); Decision (_k_ = 4): _g_= 0.30 [-0.62, 1.21] (not replicated). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2744,7 +2744,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: [‘Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims’](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005), Small et al. 2007; field experiments, N = 280 split into Study 1: n=121 and Study 3 n=159. [citations=1126 (GS, June, 2022]​. -* Critiques: [Lee and Feeley 2016 ](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15534510.2016.1216891)[meta-analysis, _k_=41, citations=131 (GS, April 2023)]​. +* Critiques: [Lee and Feeley 2016 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2016.1216891)[meta-analysis, _k_=41, citations=131 (GS, April 2023)]​. * Original effect size: _ηp 2 _= 0.06 (Study 1) to _ηp 2 _= 0.07 (Study 3)​. * Replication effect size: Lee and Feeley: _ηp 2_ = 0.00 (Study 1), _ηp 2 _=0.01 (Study 3); much weaker and less robust than previously thought, with lots of mixed findings, failed replications, null findings and numerous boundary conditions, overall significant yet modest effect, _r_ = .05; after adjusting for publication bias with robust Bayesian meta-analysis there is evidence against an effect in this meta-analysis.​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2752,7 +2752,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Psychophysical numbing**. People prefer to save lives if they are a higher proportion of the total (e.g. do people prefer to save 4,500 lives out of 11,000 or 4,500 lives out of 250,000?). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing’,](https://link.springer.com/article/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)]. +* 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)]. * 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. @@ -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?casa_token=aGBSmMUc_H8AAAAA:JJeJ-n1qZgMg9qYG7yrsOXWU1BPst2yJ-y4HK-sydvq9tcSfv749CdWaG77VEfz_JErYTpc)’, 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://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)]. * 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). @@ -2789,7 +2789,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated * Original paper: ‘[On making the right choice](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1121629)’, Dijksterhuis, 2006; two experiments and two quasi-experiments, n = 80, 59, 93, 115. [citations = 605, WoK (October 2021)]. -* Critiques: [Nieuwenstein and van Rijn 2012](http://journal.sjdm.org/12/12822/jdm12822.html) [n = 48, 24, 32, 24, citations = 12 (WoK, October 2021)]. [Nieuwenstein et al. 2015](http://journal.sjdm.org/14/14321/jdm14321.html) [meta-analysis, _k_=61 studies, n = 40-399, replication study, n = 423, citations = 49 (WoK, October 2021)]. See also [González-Vallejo et al. 2008](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/a0013134) for a theoretical critique [n=NA, citations = 51 (WoK, October 2021)]. +* Critiques: [Nieuwenstein and van Rijn 2012](http://journal.sjdm.org/12/12822/jdm12822.html) [n = 48, 24, 32, 24, citations = 12 (WoK, October 2021)]. [Nieuwenstein et al. 2015](http://journal.sjdm.org/14/14321/jdm14321.html) [meta-analysis, _k_=61 studies, n = 40-399, replication study, n = 423, citations = 49 (WoK, October 2021)]. See also [González-Vallejo et al. 2008](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013134) for a theoretical critique [n=NA, citations = 51 (WoK, October 2021)]. * Original effect size: Experiment 1: _g_= .86; Experiment 2: _g_= .70 (as per Nieuwenstein et al. 2015). * Replication effect size: Nieuwenstein & van Rijn: _g_= 0.10, _g_= -0.55, _g_= 0.87, _g_= -0.74. Nieuwenstein et al.: _g_= -0.01, after trim-and-fill, meta-analysis pooled Hedges’ _g_ = 0.018 [−0.10, 0.14]. ​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2806,7 +2806,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Marshmallow experiment** (self-imposed delay of gratification). A child’s success in delaying the gratification of eating marshmallows or a similar treat is related to better outcomes in later life. ​Outcomes that have been studied include coping, social, and academic competence, substance use, borderline personality features, BMI, executive functioning, and neural activation patterns. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0032198)’, Mischel et al. 1972; experimental design, n=92. [citation=1816 (GS, June 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032198)’, Mischel et al. 1972; experimental design, n=92. [citation=1816 (GS, June 2022)]. * Critiques: Follow-up study: [Shoda et al. 1990](https://depts.washington.edu/shodalab/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/1990.PredictingAdolescent_Shoda.pdf) [longitudinal design, n=185, citation=1989 (GS, June 2022)]​. [Watts et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797618761661) [n=918, citations=319(GS, June 2022)]. [Doebel et al.’s 2020 commentary](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797619839045) on Watts et al. (2018) [n=NA, citations=22(GS, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: academic achievement _r_=.42 to _r_=.57​. * Replication effect size: Shoda et al.: follow-up study: _r_=.02.​ Watt et al. 2018: academic achievement _r_=.28. @@ -2844,7 +2844,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[The 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)]​. -* Critiques: [Arin et. al. 1966](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1901/jeab.1966.9-191) [n=16, citation =778(GS, March 2023)]. [Katz and Lattal 2020](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/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)]. +* 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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2853,7 +2853,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< 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)]. -* Critiques: Meta-analysis: [Zell et al. 2020](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/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)]. +* 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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2862,7 +2862,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: [‘Lake Wobegan be gone! The “below-average effect” and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgements](https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=7314c799-b8a5-459f-8cf0-c1a5427a78db%40redis)’’, Kruger 1999; in studies 1 and 2 participants compared themselves with peers on ability domains, in study 3 cognitive load was added as a condition, study 1: N=37, study 2: N=104, study 3: N=49. [citations=1258 (GS, May 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Eriksson and Funke 2015](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12093) [study 1: n=800, study 2: 193, citations=25 (GS, May 2023)]. [Windschitl et al. 2002 ](https://psychology.uiowa.edu/sites/psychology.uiowa.edu/files/groups/windschitl/files/JEPG%202008%20%28WCK%29.pdf)[study 1: N=40, study 2: N=40, study 3: N=40, study 4: N=87, study 5: N=82, study 6: N=90, experiment 7: N=206, citations= 36 (GS, May 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)]. +* Critiques: [Eriksson and Funke 2015](https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12093) [study 1: n=800, study 2: 193, citations=25 (GS, May 2023)]. [Windschitl et al. 2002 ](https://psychology.uiowa.edu/sites/psychology.uiowa.edu/files/groups/windschitl/files/JEPG%202008%20%28WCK%29.pdf)[study 1: N=40, study 2: N=40, study 3: N=40, study 4: N=87, study 5: N=82, study 6: N=90, experiment 7: N=206, citations= 36 (GS, May 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: Study 1: participants thought they were above average (i.e., above the 50th percentile) in the easy ability domains, but below average in difficult domain (all _p_'s < .01); Easy domain percentile estimates - Using mouse = 58.8, Driving = 65.4, Riding bicycle = 64, Saving money = 61.5; Difficult domain - Telling jokes = 46.4 (n.s.), Playing chess = 27.8, Juggling = 26.5, Computer programming = 24.8; Study 2: beta coefficient= .90; Study 3: participants thought that they were above average in terms of the easy abilities (M percentile = 78.4), and below average in terms of the difficult abilities (M percentile = 23.1). * Replication effect size: Eriksson and Funke: Study 1: ES not reported, but comparison of above-ingroup measures with zero levels show that Democrats exhibited a statistically significant below-average effect on warmth and a null effect on competence; Republicans, on the other hand, exhibited a significant above-average effect on warmth and a null effect on competence; Study 2: ES not reported, but Democrats exhibited a statistically significant below-average effect on warmth (but no significant effect on competence); Republicans, on the other hand, exhibited significant below-average effect on competence (but no significant effect on warmth). Windschitl et al.: not reported.​ 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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2880,7 +2880,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< 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)]​. -* Critiques: [Koppel et al. 2021](https://psyarxiv.com/2ewb9/) [n = 1,203, citations = 0 (GS, June 2022)]. Meta-analysis: [Zell et al. 2020](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/bul0000218) [n = 965,307, citations = 100 (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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2889,7 +2889,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054)’, Pennycook et al. 2021; 2 survey studies with Study 1: n = 853, Study 2: n = 856 [citations=887(GS, March 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Roozenbeek et al. 2021](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976211024535) [n=1583, citations=22(GS, March 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Roozenbeek et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211024535) [n=1583, citations=22(GS, March 2022)]. * Original effect size: Study 1: _d_ = 0.657 [0.477, 0.836] on accuracy judgement; _d_ = 0.121 [0.030, 0.212] on sharing intention; Study 2: control condition: _d_ = 0.050 [−0.033, 0.133]; treatment condition: _d_ = 0.142 [0.049, 0.235]. * Replication effect size: Roozenbeek et al. : Study 1: _F_ = 1.53; Study 2: treatment: _d_ = −0.14 [−0.17, −0.12], control: _d_ = −0.10 [−0.13, −0.078]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2898,7 +2898,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< 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)]​. -* Critiques: [Laves 2020](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-020-00221-6) [theoretical/review paper, n=NA, citations=12(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. ​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2907,7 +2907,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16181440/)’, Wheatley and Haidt 2005; two between-subject experiments, Study1 n=64, Study 2 n=94. [citations=1437(GS, February 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Chapman et al. 2009](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1165565) [n=87 across three experiments, citations=919(GS, February 2023)]. [Eskine et al. 2011](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611398497?journalCode=pssa) [n=57 (with 3 dropped for guessing the hypothesis), citations=600(GS, February 2023)]. [Ghelfi et al. 2020](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2515245919881152) [n=1137 (across 11 studies), citations=32(GS, February 2023)]. Meta-analysis[ Landy and Goodwin 2015](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26177951/) [n=5,102 across 51 studies, citations=391(GS, February 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Chapman et al. 2009](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1165565) [n=87 across three experiments, citations=919(GS, February 2023)]. [Eskine et al. 2011](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611398497) [n=57 (with 3 dropped for guessing the hypothesis), citations=600(GS, February 2023)]. [Ghelfi et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919881152) [n=1137 (across 11 studies), citations=32(GS, February 2023)]. Meta-analysis[ Landy and Goodwin 2015](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26177951/) [n=5,102 across 51 studies, citations=391(GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: Study 1 – participants rated vignettes as being more morally wrong when the hypnotic disgust word was present than when the word was absent _r_=34 [_d_=0.53, reported in[ Landy and Goodwin 2015](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26177951/)]; Study 2 - _r_ =.36 [_d_=0.25, reported in[ Landy and Goodwin 2015](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26177951/)]​. * Replication effect size: Eskine et al.: Regression slope coefficient of physical disgust measure on moral judgement = 0.525, _t_(52) = 4.445, _p_ < .001. Ghelfi et al.: Linear mixed effects regression slope coefficient of standardised disgust ratings on standardised moral-wrongness judgments = 0.07, _p_ = .014.​ Landy and Goodwin: effects of disgust induction in different sensory modalities on moral judgements - _d_=-0.38 to _d_=1.44, weighted mean of the effect sizes across 51 studies _d_=0.11. Chapman et al.: Increasing disgust with increasing offer unfairness [_ηp_²=0.324, calculated from the reported _F_(1,135) = 64.8, _p_ < 0.001, using this[ conversion](https://haiyangjin.github.io/2020/05/eta2d/#from-cohens-d-to-partial-eta-squared)]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -2934,8 +2934,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Decreased sense of free will reduces personal responsibility**. Vohs and Schooler (2008) asked participants to read an article either debunking free will or a control passage, and found that those reading the former cheated more on an experimental task. It was suggested that the decreased sense of free will as a result of reading the text reduced perceptions of personal responsibility. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated. -* Original paper: ‘[The value of believing in free will: Encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02045.x)’, Vohs and Schooler 2008; experimental design, n1=30, n2=122. [Citations=1044(GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Buttrick et al. 2020](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2515245920917931) also found [n = 621, citations= 11 (GS, January 2023)]. The Open Science Collaboration [Embley et al. 2015](https://osf.io/uwt5f/) [n = 58, citations=5(GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The value of believing in free will: Encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02045.x)’, Vohs and Schooler 2008; experimental design, n1=30, n2=122. [Citations=1044(GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Buttrick et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920917931) also found [n = 621, citations= 11 (GS, January 2023)]. The Open Science Collaboration [Embley et al. 2015](https://osf.io/uwt5f/) [n = 58, citations=5(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: _d_=.88. * Replication effect size: Buttrick et al.: no differences in cheating behaviour using a more rigorous measurement approach, _d_ = 0.076 [−0.082, 0.22]. Embley et al.: no differences in cheating behaviour between the two experimental conditions, _d_ = 0.20 [−0.33, 0.74], _p_ = .44. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -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?casa_token=UQBpnkx_i9oAAAAA:2zHIZLlc4LuNrgGH0pu915W46pKHqB2C6u1v8ftK1zgTIlfZ0fzXXJmkr8Pl-2pxbZNG0knQog) [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?casa_token=UQBpnkx_i9oAAAAA:2zHIZLlc4LuNrgGH0pu915W46pKHqB2C6u1v8ftK1zgTIlfZ0fzXXJmkr8Pl-2pxbZNG0knQog)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -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?casa_token=bdQkyCDrpCcAAAAA:INEzEUnwsZXhJ3ILmAk0qK6oSD1ZhsowhwIzgqH3h6qES-wMQbEtg9pywkp_v2M0LnsFOdHX6w) [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://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)].​ * 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 >}} @@ -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/escalc/html/EffectSizeCalculator-SMD17.php) 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 >}} @@ -3182,7 +3182,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper:[ ‘Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options](https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199806)11:2%3C107::AID-BDM292%3E3.0.CO;2-Y)’, Hsee 1998; between-subjects manipulation of lower amount with more complete/full vs. higher amount with less complete/broken/full, Study 1 n=83, Study 2 n= 69, Study 3 n=98, Study 4 n=104. [citations=491(GS, January 2023)]. -* Critique: Study 1 was also replicated in [Klein et al. 2018](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2515245918810225) [aggregate replication sample N=7,646, citations=779(GS, February 2023)]. [Vonasch et al 2023](https://osf.io/ubn2f) [preprint, Study 1 n=132, Study 2 n=133, Study 4 n = 131, citations=0(GS, January 2023)]. +* Critique: Study 1 was also replicated in [Klein et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225) [aggregate replication sample N=7,646, citations=779(GS, February 2023)]. [Vonasch et al 2023](https://osf.io/ubn2f) [preprint, Study 1 n=132, Study 2 n=133, Study 4 n = 131, citations=0(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect sizes: Study 1: _d_ = 0.70 [0.24, 1.15]; Study 2: _d_ = 0.74 [0.12, 1.35]; Study 4: _d_ = 0.97 [0.43, 1.50]. * Replication effect sizes: Klein et al.: Study 1 also replicated with _d_=.78 [.74, .83]. Vonasch et al.: Study 1: _d_ = 0.99 [0.72, 1.25]; Study 2: _d_ = 0.32 [0.05, 0.56]; Study 4: _d_ = 76 [.50, 1.02]. {{< /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?casa_token=nKo-DdCFCZEAAAAA:mNGuNUKei1rSiF00bUKYT9QeQ89kxPoR0LYp-88c4OpXL_uJXXD6IcU5tQCW4-I9Gi7o-hvUaMQ) [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://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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -3221,8 +3221,8 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Readiness potentials**. Readiness potentials are neural signals that are observed in the brain prior to voluntary movements. They are typically measured using electroencephalography (EEG) and are thought to reflect the neural activity associated with preparing for a movement, occurring several hundred milliseconds before the movement occurred, suggesting that the brain prepares for the movement before the person is consciously aware of the decision to move. RP have been observed in various regions of the brain, including the primary motor cortex, supplementary motor area, and premotor cortex. [Schurger](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8192467/) et al. (2021) for a glossary. The discovery of readiness potentials (RP) has been used to argue against the concept of free will, as it suggests that the neural activity associated with a voluntary movement starts before the person is consciously aware of the decision to move. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Hirnpotentialänderungen bei Willkürbewegungen und passiven Bewegungen des Menschen: Bereitschaftspotential und reafferente Potentiale](https://link.springer.com/article/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?casa_token=LPGNl1ujAjAAAAAA:3Aog3dA-XjWLCgMqDuIF1w5FDD7dM8N9NDEjkIAESUuAQO4ACWBqH6Sunehgt-khjNSbXQD1_Uo) [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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17588928.2020.1824176) [n=19, citations = 25 (GS, April 2023)]. +* 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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -3230,7 +3230,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Left-brain vs. Right-brain Hypothesis**. Individuals may be left-brain dominant or right-brain dominant based on personality and cognitive style. Specifically, the hypothesis proposes that the two hemispheres of the brain have different functions and abilities, with the left hemisphere being associated with logical, analytical, and verbal skills, and the right hemisphere being associated with creative, intuitive, and spatial skills. This idea has been popularised in popular culture, but it is not supported by scientific evidence. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: No original paper based on brain data, seems to have evolved from early studies by Broca and Wernicke and on language localization of the brain, became a mainstream popular idea but not backed by evidence ([Source](https://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-left-brain-vs-right-brain-myth-elizabeth-waters))._ _Cognitive styles original papers use questionnaires and non-brain based measures to determine “hemispheric dominance”. No-brain-data early paper: ‘[Hemispheric dominance in recall and recognition’, ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03329403)Zenhausen and Gebhardt 1979; within-subjects design, n = 20. [citations = 34 (GS, June 2022)]. +* Original paper: No original paper based on brain data, seems to have evolved from early studies by Broca and Wernicke and on language localization of the brain, became a mainstream popular idea but not backed by evidence ([Source](https://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-left-brain-vs-right-brain-myth-elizabeth-waters))._ _Cognitive styles original papers use questionnaires and non-brain based measures to determine “hemispheric dominance”. No-brain-data early paper: ‘[Hemispheric dominance in recall and recognition’, ](https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329403)Zenhausen and Gebhardt 1979; within-subjects design, n = 20. [citations = 34 (GS, June 2022)]. * Critiques: [Nielsen et al. 2013](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071275) [n=1,011, citations= 446(GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: N/A [Zenhausen & Gebhardt, not provided]. * Replication effect size: Nielsen et al.: N/A, data are not consistent with a whole-brain phenotype of greater “left-brained” or greater “right-brained” network strength across individuals [no specific result in Nielsen et al. 2013]. @@ -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?casa_token=UzrWvshZhnkAAAAA:JhFYg46yWff6waFgPnmbD1OwVWx90vbXbgEvDdzxwvGE0fk1GjG5GGKWX6OpCI7VCsHpv3jU-DQ1#f0005:~:text=https%3A//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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811917304524?casa_token=UzrWvshZhnkAAAAA:JhFYg46yWff6waFgPnmbD1OwVWx90vbXbgEvDdzxwvGE0fk1GjG5GGKWX6OpCI7VCsHpv3jU-DQ1#f0005:~:text=https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.05.053) [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://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 effect size: _r_ = 0.26. * Replication effect size: Genon et al.: _r_ = 0.​ {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3349,7 +3349,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: [‘Synaesthesia—A window into perception, thought and language’](https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2001/00000008/00000012/1244) Ramchandran and Hubbard 2001; two-alternative forced choice task (claim made about ‘95% of participants,’ but actual study not described), n=NA. [citations=2218 (GS, February 2023)​]. -* Critiques: [Ćwiek et al. 2022](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2020.0390#d1e1326) [n=976 (replication), citations=30 (gs, February 2023)]. [Fort et al. 2018](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/desc.12659) [n=425 (meta-analysis), citations=48 (GS, February 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Ćwiek et al. 2022](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2020.0390#d1e1326) [n=976 (replication), citations=30 (gs, February 2023)]. [Fort et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12659) [n=425 (meta-analysis), citations=48 (GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Ćwiek et al.: Hedge’s _g_=0.106 [0.029, 0.154] (calculated). Fort et al.: Hedge’s _g_=0.163 [0.088, 0.238]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3357,7 +3357,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Human freezing behaviour** (postural sway). A physiological response that occurs in response to a perceived threat. Overall, freezing-like behaviour has been replicated in multiple studies across different species and contexts, and is considered a robust and reliable measure of fear and anxiety. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Facing Freeze: Social Threat Induces Bodily Freeze in Humans](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797610384746?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed)’, Roelofs 2010; emotional face viewing task, n = 50. [citations=310(PUBMED, January 2023)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Facing Freeze: Social Threat Induces Bodily Freeze in Humans](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610384746)’, Roelofs 2010; emotional face viewing task, n = 50. [citations=310(PUBMED, January 2023)]​. * Critiques: [Gladwin et al. 2016](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26994781/) [n= 30, citations=100 (PUBMED, January 2023)]. [Hashemi et al. 2019](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40917-8#Sec11) [n=76, citations= 40 (Nature, January 2023)]. [Van Ast et al. 2021](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34954858/) [n=30, citations=4 (PUBMED, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: _ηp2_= .12-.19. * Replication effect size: Gladwin et al.: replicated (NA). Hashemi et al.: replicated (NA). van Ast et al.: _ηp2_= .18-.41. @@ -3375,10 +3375,10 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. * **Resting-state functional connectivity patterns can accurately classify individuals diagnosed with depression**. Multivariate pattern analyses can identify patterns of resting-state functional connectivity that successfully differentiate individuals with depression from healthy controls. This finding demonstrates the potential utility of resting-state functional connectivity as a biomarker of depression. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper:[ ‘Disease state prediction from resting state functional connectivity’, ](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/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?casa_token=odJw9HqyrvUAAAAA:8vuFDXSdWcjdllXRueqsk3CEffuGKGpRl_uDbabFGlBWIepZjFTrUUlyMZqlsCn-8bLcj-3X1xk#s0025)[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://link.springer.com/article/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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hbm.22278?casa_token=KhNrlpJSuEMAAAAA%3AgX--yTNn5gGVQEFu-eiViXFiz0dWAiWaXimXjRwjuTUDxeDqPJuBIwt_ZUJJnakUfLBQuKeuyavv5p8O) [ncontrols = 29, nclinical = 24, Citations=169 (GS, April 2023)] +* 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)] * 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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hbm.22278?casa_token=KhNrlpJSuEMAAAAA%3AgX--yTNn5gGVQEFu-eiViXFiz0dWAiWaXimXjRwjuTUDxeDqPJuBIwt_ZUJJnakUfLBQuKeuyavv5p8O)/ [Ma et al.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006899312018483?casa_token=odJw9HqyrvUAAAAA:8vuFDXSdWcjdllXRueqsk3CEffuGKGpRl_uDbabFGlBWIepZjFTrUUlyMZqlsCn-8bLcj-3X1xk#s0025)/[ 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://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 >}}
@@ -3389,7 +3389,7 @@ 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://sites.tufts.edu/tuftsliteracycorps/files/2022/10/Rosenthal-and-Jacobson-1965-Pygmalion-in-the-Classroom-Chapter-7.pdf) Rosenthal, and Jacobsen 1968; Teachers were told that certain children would perform better based on a test that was actually non-existent, N = NA. [Citations=13722 (GS, March 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Baumeister et al.2003](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1529-1006.01431) [review paper, n=total number of studies included in their review seems unclear - started with 15,000 sources but narrowed this down and the final number included doesn’t seem clear, citations=6484 (GS, February 2023)]. [Keane,and Loades 2017](https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/camh.12204) [N = 10 studies were identified for this systematic review, citations=102, GS, February 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Baumeister et al.2003](https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01431) [review paper, n=total number of studies included in their review seems unclear - started with 15,000 sources but narrowed this down and the final number included doesn’t seem clear, citations=6484 (GS, February 2023)]. [Keane,and Loades 2017](https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12204) [N = 10 studies were identified for this systematic review, citations=102, GS, February 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Baumeister et al.: theoretical review, not reported; Showed some mixed evidence but mostly refuted claims. They found self-esteem was not related to smoking, alcohol, drug use; seemed to be only minimally associated with interpersonal success; Relationship with school performance seems to be that better school performance leads to higher self-esteem rather than the other way around. Self-esteem was moderately correlated with depression. Keane and Loades: _d_ = 0.37 - 2.26 for the co-occurence of self-esteem and mental health diagnoses (i.e., anxiety and depressive disorders). {{< /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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/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://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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -3407,7 +3407,7 @@ You can find a list of all effects we are working on [here](https://docs.google. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[The 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/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)]. +* 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). * 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 >}} @@ -3442,7 +3442,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: ‘[Menstrual cycle alters face preference](https://www.nature.com/articles/21557?report=reader)’, Penton-Voak et al. 1999; 2 studies including two sessions (during low vs. high conception risk in ovulatory cycle): (1) on Japanese subjects n=39 and (2) on British subjects n=65. [citations=992 (GS, June 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Harris 2011](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-010-9772-8#Sec9) [n=853 (effect tested on 258 women), citations=14 (GS, June 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Harris 2011](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9772-8) [n=853 (effect tested on 258 women), citations=14 (GS, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: not reported; _ηp2 _= 0.20 (Japanese sample) and _ηp2 _= 0.04 (British sample) [calculated for main effect of conception risk using [Lakens 2018](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863/full)]. * Replication effect size: Harris: not reported​; _d_ = 0.29 (for Caucasian faces) and _d_ = 0.00 (for Japanese faces) [calculated for main effect of conception risk using [Lakens 2018](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863/full)]. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3468,7 +3468,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Implicit religious priming**. Implicitly priming god concepts by unscrambling sentences with words relating to religion increases prosocial behaviour in an anonymous economic game. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[God is watching you: Priming god concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01983.x)’, Shariff and Norenzayan (2007); 2 experiments, ns=50 in each experiment [citations=1473, GS, November 2021]. +* 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)]. * 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. @@ -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?casa_token=lZSmZN6s8qMAAAAA:OjL-hHxaNOk45GZKXICNJeWF6IWV3tRz184ZnIiBjKbUB9nZCyMAsedc9A6beoTXt3LpwSfzm_w) [review paper, n=NA, citations=111 (GS, April 2023)]. [Wood et al. 2014](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1754073914523073?journalCode=emra) [meta-analysis, _k_=58, citations=277(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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -3495,7 +3495,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Menstrual cycle and lunar influence**. Women with a 29.5+/-1 day menstrual cycle tend to menstruate during a full moon. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Lunar Influences on the Reproductive Cycle in Women](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41463960?casa_token=QiIB5qX7xs0AAAAA%3AdXe22zLGHLO-usL3MeWybLV9V3oVJ55mAZB7yb32p-KEWLbP5_NT-F-fGsFNgVcctGFiyq8YYSeDZq6wiqoT6qttunpHrIhWomnWtOB7JRScAakNVMJ2&seq=7)’, Cutler et al. (1987); cross-sectional design, N = 229. [citation=54(GS, March 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Lunar Influences on the Reproductive Cycle in Women](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41463960)’, Cutler et al. (1987); cross-sectional design, N = 229. [citation=54(GS, March 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Komada et al. 2021](https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3245/htm) [n=3163, citations=3(GS, March 2022)]. * Original effect size: not reported, two plots showed significant difference from uniform distribution, suggesting that the menstrual phase coincided more often with the full moon. * Replication effect size: Komada et al.: _z_ = −0.58.​ @@ -3513,8 +3513,8 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Men’s strength in particular predicts opposition to egalitarianism**. Muscular men are less likely to support social and economic equality. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[The Ancestral Logic of Politics: Upper Body Strength Regulates Men’s Assertion of Self-Interest Over Economic Redistribution’, ](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797612466415)Petersen et al. 2013; cross-sectional design, n = 213 in Argentina, 486 in United States, 793 in Denmark, N = 1392. [citation=213(GS, May 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2019](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf) [n = not reported, citations = 726(GS, May 2022)]. [Petersen and Laustsen 2019](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12505) [n = 12 different samples from multiple countries, citations = 45(GS, April 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The Ancestral Logic of Politics: Upper Body Strength Regulates Men’s Assertion of Self-Interest Over Economic Redistribution’, ](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612466415)Petersen et al. 2013; cross-sectional design, n = 213 in Argentina, 486 in United States, 793 in Denmark, N = 1392. [citation=213(GS, May 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2019](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf) [n = not reported, citations = 726(GS, May 2022)]. [Petersen and Laustsen 2019](https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12505) [n = 12 different samples from multiple countries, citations = 45(GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: not reported. * Replication effect size: Gelman and Loken: not reported in but effect disappears once participant age is included. Petersen and Laustsen: They are very focussed on statistical significance instead of effect size. Overall male effect was _b_ = 0.17 and female effect was _b_ = 0.11, with a nonsignificant difference between the two (_p_ = 0.09). (They prefer to emphasise the lab studies over the online studies, which showed a stronger difference.) Interesting that strength or "formidability" has an effect in both genders, whether or not their main claim about gender difference holds up. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3523,7 +3523,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/sex-differences-in-human-mate-preferences-evolutionary-hypotheses-tested-in-37-cultures/0E112ACEB2E7BC877805E3AC11ABC889)’, Buss 1989; questionnaire asking about preferences concerning potential mates such as: good financial prospect, ambition and industriousness, age difference between self and spouse, physical attractiveness, chastity, etc., n=10,047. [citations=6,136(GS, June 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Walter et al. 2021](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620904154) [n=14,399, citations=96(GS, June 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Walter et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620904154) [n=14,399, citations=96(GS, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: N/A. The author provided only country-level t-tests separately for each characteristic. * Replication effect size: Walter et al.: _b_ = -0.30 [Mate preferences were standardised across countries prior to analysis, so this and all _b_ values can be interpreted as equivalent to Cohen’s _d_'s]. {{< /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/escalc/html/EffectSizeCalculator-SMD20.php)). * 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 >}} @@ -3581,7 +3581,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< 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)]. -* Critique: [van der Silk et al. 2021](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lang.12470) [n = 547,250, citations = 1 (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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3589,10 +3589,10 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Motivational role of L2 vision**. Mental imagery of oneself as a successful language user in the future can enhance one’s motivation and performance. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Motivation, vision and gender](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lang.12140?casa_token=Y-6oCs7H830AAAAA%3AvfdGjNvGbpzSA_V5S1lWrdvF5zcq21C-VGbyOfYKrBHDMcG1EyNPwX74RP3qOGCO5j4z6RmF0kiGFuI)’, You et al. 2016; correlational design, n=10,569 [citation=172(GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Hiver and Al-Hoorie 2020](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lang.12371?casa_token=4hWn0YZ4iY0AAAAA%3AMgGv_gnZp3nF2x--g-XUQUbKy5ZtFXDTnihF-_2aiBC4R7oBIyi7w4o8a8Iu5yPNPCjqgWnwyZtzMgI) [n=1297, citations=36(GS, Oct 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Motivation, vision and gender](https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12140)’, You et al. 2016; correlational design, n=10,569 [citation=172(GS, October 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Hiver and Al-Hoorie 2020](https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12371) [n=1297, citations=36(GS, Oct 2022)]. * Original effect size: _η2_ =0.08. -* Replication effect size: [Hiver and Al-Hoorie](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lang.12371?casa_token=4hWn0YZ4iY0AAAAA%3AMgGv_gnZp3nF2x--g-XUQUbKy5ZtFXDTnihF-_2aiBC4R7oBIyi7w4o8a8Iu5yPNPCjqgWnwyZtzMgI): Model 1 - Ideal L2 self on grades (β=0.38) and intended effort (β=0.75), Outght-to-L2 self on grades (β=-0.11) and intended effort (β=0.21); Model 2 - Ideal L2 self on grades (β=0.44), Outght-to-L2 self on grades (β=-0.10). +* Replication effect size: [Hiver and Al-Hoorie](https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12371): Model 1 - Ideal L2 self on grades (β=0.38) and intended effort (β=0.75), Outght-to-L2 self on grades (β=-0.11) and intended effort (β=0.21); Model 2 - Ideal L2 self on grades (β=0.44), Outght-to-L2 self on grades (β=-0.10). {{< /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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jee.20293) 2019 [n=5329, citation=43(GS, January 2022)]. [Shi et al.](https://link.springer.com/article/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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/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://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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -3611,8 +3611,8 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Mindsets**. People’s beliefs about whether their talents and abilities are subject to growth and improvement. In recent years, mindset proponents have argued that interventions work but only for low SES populations or low-performing students. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition](https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x?casa_token=Ni1cDqz-fsUAAAAA%3AhVt-ToNF1zme1Q8iVKNKkbUCnMsOuZlJ59ePmSuaeU7PKBEGVE1PZDI0pkB3gEcx_AkJm-7yMvPgHpA)’, Blackwell et al.2007; Study 1: longitudinal study, n=373; Study 2: n=99. [citation=4643(GS, October 2021)]​. -* Critiques: [Foliano et al. 2019](https://www.niesr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Changing_Mindsets-5.pdf) [n=4,454, citation=45(GS, October 2022)].[Li and Bates 2017](https://mrbartonmaths.com/resourcesnew/8.%20Research/Mindset/Mindset%20replication.pdf) [Study 1: n=190, Study 2: n=222, Study 3: n=212, citation=30 (GS, January 2023)]. [Macnamara and Burgoyne 2022](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/bul0000352) [meta-analysis of 63 studies, n = 97,672; citations=2(GS, January 2023)]. [Sisk et al. 2018](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617739704?casa_token=-RR4RSU-NewAAAAA%3ATpX_-Z-Y_hcn1MWoN7dWPJaW0YvOvLUYBwGk4Zq0fTt4FhtKewegFkV_Pr-2dDUG05NFLjLfY632&journalCode=pssa) [two meta-analyses, _k_ = 273, N = 365,915 and _k_ = 43, N = 57,155, citation=837(GS, April 2023)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x)’, Blackwell et al.2007; Study 1: longitudinal study, n=373; Study 2: n=99. [citation=4643(GS, October 2021)]​. +* Critiques: [Foliano et al. 2019](https://www.niesr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Changing_Mindsets-5.pdf) [n=4,454, citation=45(GS, October 2022)].[Li and Bates 2017](https://mrbartonmaths.com/resourcesnew/8.%20Research/Mindset/Mindset%20replication.pdf) [Study 1: n=190, Study 2: n=222, Study 3: n=212, citation=30 (GS, January 2023)]. [Macnamara and Burgoyne 2022](https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000352) [meta-analysis of 63 studies, n = 97,672; citations=2(GS, January 2023)]. [Sisk et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704) [two meta-analyses, _k_ = 273, N = 365,915 and _k_ = 43, N = 57,155, citation=837(GS, April 2023)]​. * Original effect size: (between growth mindset and achievement) β=.10-.70, _r_=.12-.20. * Replication effect size: Foliano et al.: found no effect of mindset intervention on school grades (NA = 0). Li and Bates: no effect of growth mindset on grades in all three studies. Macnamara and Burgoyne: significant effect: _d_=0.033-1.51; significant but opposite direction: _d_=-0.98- -0.68; non-significant: _d_=-0.56-1.39; overall effect non-significant after correcting for publication bias. Sisk et al.: The relationship between mindsets and academic achievement is weak: Of the 129 studies that they analysed, only 37% found a positive relationship between mindset and academic outcomes. Furthermore, 58% of the studies found no relationship and 6% found a negative relationship between mindset and academic outcomes. Evidence on the efficacy of mindset interventions is not promising: of the 29 studies reviewed, only 12% had a positive effect, 86% of the studies found no effect of the intervention and 2% found a negative effect of the intervention. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3620,7 +3620,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **First instinct fallacy**, the false belief that one’s initial thoughts/ideas/answers are right and closer to the truth than revised thoughts/ideas/answers. Surveys have shown that students generally believe that changing answers on a multiple-choice test lowers test scores, but research seems to show that most people who change their answers usually improve their test scores. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Counterfactual thinking and the first instinct fallacy](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.725)’, Kruger et al. 2005; Study 1: compared the anticipated and actual outcome of sticking versus switching, n=1561; Studies 2-4: tested the counterfactual thinking interpretation of the first instinct fallacy, total N=118. [citation=183(GS, November 2022)]​. +* Original paper: ‘[Counterfactual thinking and the first instinct fallacy](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.725)’, Kruger et al. 2005; Study 1: compared the anticipated and actual outcome of sticking versus switching, n=1561; Studies 2-4: tested the counterfactual thinking interpretation of the first instinct fallacy, total N=118. [citation=183(GS, November 2022)]​. * Critiques: [Couchman et al. 2016](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276422547_The_instinct_fallacy_the_metacognition_of_answering_and_revising_during_college_exams) [n=62, citations=11 (GS, March 2023)]. * Original effect size: Study 1 (that answer changes from wrong to right outnumber changes from right to wrong, changing benefits; not provided in paper, [calculated here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JNLLKBldi2wvc-Yej1N4HBeibdop5SuycgOjl6Cts9I/edit?usp=sharing)): Comparing changes from right to wrong and wrong to right: _d_ ≈ 0.25, Comparing changes from right to wrong and wrong to wrong: _d_ ≈ 0.64; Study 3 (analysing discrepancy between actual outcomes and participants' memory of those outcomes): Consequences of switching vs. sticking: _η_ ² = .22, Memory consequences: _η_ ² = .31. * Replication effect size: Couchman et. al.: _d_=0.58. Students who were confident in their first answers were usually right, and those who were not confident were usually wrong. They also found that changing answers from low to high confidence improved scores, and changing from high to low confidence lowered scores. They said that metacognition, or thinking about one’s own thinking, helped students decide when to change answers, and that the first instinct fallacy depended on how confident students were in their first answers. Additionally shows that although participants were generally better at answering questions when they were confident in their first instinct, revising answers can still lead to improved performance, especially when participants are less confident in their initial response. @@ -3630,15 +3630,15 @@ 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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00797308.1955.11822551?journalCode=upsc20) [n=1, citations=61(GS, March 2023)]. Original effect size: NA. +* 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. * Replication effect size: NA. {{< /spoiler >}} * **Pen mightier than the screen**. Learning for conceptual-application questions is more effective when taking longhand notes than with a laptop. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797614524581)’, Mueller and Oppenheimer 2014; Experiment 1, n = 65 participants after exclusions, Experiment 2, n = 149; Experiment 3, n = 109. [citation=1585 (GS, October 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Urry et al. 2021](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797620965541) [N =145, n=68 in laptop condition, n = 74 in longhand condition, citations = 12 (GS, October 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581)’, Mueller and Oppenheimer 2014; Experiment 1, n = 65 participants after exclusions, Experiment 2, n = 149; Experiment 3, n = 109. [citation=1585 (GS, October 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Urry et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620965541) [N =145, n=68 in laptop condition, n = 74 in longhand condition, citations = 12 (GS, October 2022)]. * Original effect size: Participants perform better on conceptual application questions when taking longhand notes compared to using a laptop, _d_ = .38, _p_ = .046 [calculated]. Experiment 2, Conceptual application questions, _d_ = .41 [calculated]. Experiment 3 assessed the interaction between note-taking medium (longhand vs. laptop) and studying: among students who had the opportunity to study, longhand note takers did significantly better than laptop note takers, _p_ = .024, _d_ = 0.64 on conceptual questions. Non-significant effects are reported for factual recall and therefore not reported here. * Replication effect size: Urry et al.: The effect in the replication study was negligible in the opposite direction (Hedges’s _g_ = −0.13 [−0.45, 0.20]), significantly different from the original effect, _t_(139.03) = −2.78, _p_ = .003; A mini-meta analysis of eight studies found that taking notes longhand as opposed to with a laptop boosted total quiz performance across factual and conceptual item types to a negligible degree (Hedges’s _g_ = 0.04 [−0.13, 0.20]); this effect was not statistically significant (_z_ = 0.46, _p_ = .645). {{< /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?casa_token=MbB79Z6mSVIAAAAA:9zFMef-2ExQYujFacwMoftHLSoJQO58ZRqraPBcwKVJa2csVQm_kIfgOSGc5DfCq-7_4ENOcJQ) [n=3,379, citations=188(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)]. * 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 >}} @@ -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?casa_token=PpkAvpS3j4cAAAAA:HrGOhpsIQPGXESn11rzEQIhdzXwWYNBUjFMdf04YW5q-ELdKUlUQ81Zml_aCZaoBhEpyZZGs4Q) [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://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)].​ * 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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00120.x) [N=132, citation=192(GS, October 2022)]​. [ Hogue and Yoder 2003](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/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://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)]​ * 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 >}} @@ -3728,7 +3728,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< 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)]. -* Critiques: [van Oosten et al. 2023](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41269-022-00279-y) [meta-analysis, n = 253627, citations = 0 (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). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3753,8 +3753,8 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Backfire**. Being confronted with corrections of previously held political misconceptions can lead to an even increased alignment with those misperceptions. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misconceptions](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2)’, Nyhan and Reifler 2010; 2 studies with different news piece stimuli and moderator variables, study 2 was divided into 3 parts (1: moderator = mortality salience, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; 2: moderator = media source, A: weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, B: tax cuts increase government revenue, C: President Bush bans stem cell research), study 1: n=130, study 2: n=197. [citation=2,683 (GS, June 2022)]​. -* Critiques: [Wood and Porter 2019 ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y)[n=10,100, citations=564 (GS, June 2022)]. +* Original paper: ‘[When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misconceptions](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2)’, Nyhan and Reifler 2010; 2 studies with different news piece stimuli and moderator variables, study 2 was divided into 3 parts (1: moderator = mortality salience, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; 2: moderator = media source, A: weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, B: tax cuts increase government revenue, C: President Bush bans stem cell research), study 1: n=130, study 2: n=197. [citation=2,683 (GS, June 2022)]​. +* Critiques: [Wood and Porter 2019 ](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y)[n=10,100, citations=564 (GS, June 2022)]. * Original effect size: _b_ = .198 to _b_ = 0.359​. * Replication effect size: Wood and Porter: _b_=3.5 to _b_=9.7. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3762,8 +3762,8 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Conspiracy mentality and political extremism.** Refers to a positive relationship between** **the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories (i.e., conspiracy mentality) and the political ideologies at either side of the political spectrum (i.e., extreme political ideologies). {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550614567356)’, Van Prooijen et al. 2015; cross-sectional design, Study 1 n=207, Study 2a n=1,010, Study 2b n=1,297, Study 3 n=268. [citations=525 (GS, January 2023)].​ -* Critiques: [Bartlett and Miller](http://westernvoice.net/Power%20of%20Unreason.pdf) 2010 [theoretical paper, n=NA, citations = 248 (GS, January 2023)]. [Imhoff](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315746838-10/beyond-right-wing-authoritarianism-roland-imhoff) 2015 [book, n=NA citations = 61 (GS, January 2023)]. [Van der Linden](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12681) et al.2021 [total N = 5049, citations = 183(GS, April 2023)]. [Van et al. 2015](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167215569706)[ n=7,553. citations = 147 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories](https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614567356)’, Van Prooijen et al. 2015; cross-sectional design, Study 1 n=207, Study 2a n=1,010, Study 2b n=1,297, Study 3 n=268. [citations=525 (GS, January 2023)].​ +* Critiques: [Bartlett and Miller](http://westernvoice.net/Power%20of%20Unreason.pdf) 2010 [theoretical paper, n=NA, citations = 248 (GS, January 2023)]. [Imhoff](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315746838-10/beyond-right-wing-authoritarianism-roland-imhoff) 2015 [book, n=NA citations = 61 (GS, January 2023)]. [Van der Linden](https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12681) et al.2021 [total N = 5049, citations = 183(GS, April 2023)]. [Van et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215569706)[ n=7,553. citations = 147 (GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: Study 1 (n=207 US citizens, β = .58, p = .04); Study 2a (n=1010 Dutch citizens, _β_ = .35, _p_ = .005); Study 2b (n=1297 Dutch sample, _β_ = .53, _p_ < .001); and Study 3 (n= 268 Dutch sample, _β_ = 0.70, _p_ = 0.01), all evidenced quadratic relationship between political ideology and conspiracy beliefs. * Replication effect size: Imhoff et al.: Study 1 (_β_ = 0.062, s.e. 0.017, _p_ = 0.001 [0.029–0.095]), Study 2 (_β_ = 0.220, s.e. 0.031, _p_ < 0.001, [0.160–0.281]). Hence, in a large-scale, cross-sectional study, performed across 26 countries (_N_=104,253), the authors showed that the predicted quadratic relationship between political orientation and conspiracy mentality was indeed significant. Van der Linden et al.: highlight the asymmetric relationship, reporting that US conservatives (rather than US liberals) are more likely to endorse specific conspiracy theories, and they were also more likely to espouse conspiratorial worldviews in general (_r_ = .27 [0.24, 0.30]). Importantly, extreme conservatives were significantly more likely to engage in conspiratorial thinking than extreme liberals (Hedges' _g_ = .77, _SE_ = .07, _p_ < .001). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3772,7 +3772,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< 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)]. -* Critiques: [Button 2017](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1091142117721739) [N = 915, citations = 3 (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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3781,7 +3781,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< 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)). -* Critiques: [Ludeke and Rasmussen 2016](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188691630232X?casa_token=sguKWmdCuDkAAAAA:lM21JAyYT9zpe63zAXuLI7ED3HZ_vEnGirlFWj_HmySqlZNCbSbPC4Bq8LFV387o2PEcIS_oDQ) [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)]. +* 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). {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3803,7 +3803,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: [‘Use of experimenter-given cues 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://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1#Sec5) [systematic review, 24 studies on different species, citations=468 (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 effect size: not reported. * Replication effect size: Kumashiro et al.: not reported. Miklosi & Soproni: not reported. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3811,8 +3811,8 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Gaze following in nonhuman primates**. Nonhuman primates fail to follow the gaze of another agent, using the object choice task. ​ {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed -* Original paper: ‘[Chimpanzee gaze following in an object-choice task](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100710050013)’, Call et al. 1998; experimental design, n = 6 (same chimpanzees for both studies). [citation = 317(GS, June 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Itakura (2004)](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-5584.2004.00253.x) [review, no n of studies reported, citations=87 (GS, June 2023)]. [Kano et al. 2018](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-018-1205-z) [n=29 in experiment 1, n=18 in experiment 2, n=38, citations= 29 (GS, June 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Chimpanzee gaze following in an object-choice task](https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710050013)’, Call et al. 1998; experimental design, n = 6 (same chimpanzees for both studies). [citation = 317(GS, June 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Itakura (2004)](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5584.2004.00253.x) [review, no n of studies reported, citations=87 (GS, June 2023)]. [Kano et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-018-1205-z) [n=29 in experiment 1, n=18 in experiment 2, n=38, citations= 29 (GS, June 2023)]. * Original effect size: not reported. * Replication effect size: Itakura: not reported (review). Kano et al.: Experiment 1 – main effect of phase: _ηp2 _=.71. Experiment 2– main effect of phase: _ηp2_=.71. Main effect of condition: _ηp2_=.58. Main effect of phase with additional factor group: _ηp2_=.67. First-look-responses: Main effect of AOI and Condition: _ηp2_=.30 and .17 respectively. Viewing-time-responses: Main effect of AOI and Condition: _ηp2_=.15 and .45 respectively. Main effect of group: _ηp2_=.24. Interaction group and condition: _ηp2_=.18. Experiment 3– Main effect of phase: _ηp2_=.64. First-look-responses: main effect of condition: _ηp2_=.27. Viewing-time-responses: Main effect of condition: _ηp2_=.59. Main effect of group: _ηp2_=.31. Interaction group and condition: _ηp2_=.57. {{< /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://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1#Sec5). [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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763419300831) [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 >}} @@ -3830,7 +3830,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed * Original paper: [‘Domestic dogs (canis familiaris) use human and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food’](https://evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu/sites/evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu/files/site-images/HareTomasello1999_DomesticDogsUseCues%20.pdf), Hare and Tomasello 1999; experimental design, dogs were exposed to local enhancement cues and to gaze and pointing cues, n=10. [citations=469 (GS, June 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Itakura 2004](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-5584.2004.00253.x) [review, no n of studies reported, citations=87 (GS, June 2023)]. [Teglas et al. 2012](https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(11)01393-5.pdf) [n= 16, citations=252 (GS, June 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Itakura 2004](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5584.2004.00253.x) [review, no n of studies reported, citations=87 (GS, June 2023)]. [Teglas et al. 2012](https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(11)01393-5.pdf) [n= 16, citations=252 (GS, June 2023)]. * Original effect size: NA. * Replication effect size: Itakura: NA. Teglas et al.: NA. {{< /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://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100710050046)[n=16 domesticated dogs, citations= 303 (GS, June 2023)]. [Miklosi and Soproni 2005](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1#Sec5) [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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763419300831) [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 >}} @@ -3929,7 +3929,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: mixed. * Original paper: ‘[Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.05.008)’, Kaminski et al. 2005; experiment, experiment 2: n=23. [citations=392(GS, January 2023)]. -* Critiques: [Nawroth et al. 2015](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-014-0777-5#Sec2) [n=11, citations=40(GS, January 2023)]. [Nawroth et al. 2020](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00915/full) [n=9, citations=14(GS, January 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Nawroth et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0777-5) [n=11, citations=40(GS, January 2023)]. [Nawroth et al. 2020](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00915/full) [n=9, citations=14(GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: not reported. * Replication effect size: Nawroth et al.: not reported. Nawroth et al.: not reported. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3974,7 +3974,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: replicated * Original paper: ‘[Chimpanzee Hand Preference in Throwing and Infant Cradling: Implications for the Origin of Human Handedness](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/52399276.pdf)’, Hopkins et al. 1993; observational study in captive primates with respect to throwing and cradling behaviour, n = 36. [citations=139 (GS, January 2023)]​. -* Critiques: [Corballis 2003](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/657F6F79618ECC914719F0511B21F84B/S0140525X03000062a.pdf/div-class-title-from-mouth-to-hand-gesture-speech-and-the-evolution-of-right-handedness-div.pdf) [review article, n=NA, citations=792 (GS, January 2023)]. [Hopkins et al. 1994](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/dev.420270607?casa_token=rK23E3wdlksAAAAA:-kO-sFN5l2nyVuxaOCFB0Wm7WEfMrQqouJ50aUXRSy6nCdHIBHF_7DJBmYc4TcIR7R_CiVLW86_5mSo) [experiment, n 140, citations = 138 (GS, January 2023)]. [Palmer 2002](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.10063?casa_token=XB7ABqbn5m4AAAAA:bPVyA7Jx05mmPrmnpbwBBPAS6CWYHE4eSr_SYfUai2qzXbotPl4-PmPyiLllyvr_U28oKBkf0wEDNJI) [reexamination of within-population variation from Hopkins 1994, n= 140 individual captive chimpanzees, citations=140 (GS, April 2023)]. +* Critiques: [Corballis 2003](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/657F6F79618ECC914719F0511B21F84B/S0140525X03000062a.pdf/div-class-title-from-mouth-to-hand-gesture-speech-and-the-evolution-of-right-handedness-div.pdf) [review article, n=NA, citations=792 (GS, January 2023)]. [Hopkins et al. 1994](https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.420270607) [experiment, n 140, citations = 138 (GS, January 2023)]. [Palmer 2002](https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10063) [reexamination of within-population variation from Hopkins 1994, n= 140 individual captive chimpanzees, citations=140 (GS, April 2023)]. * Original effect size: _d_ = 0.69 to 0.97​. * Replication effect size: Hopkins et al.: _d_ = 0.52, n = 434, replication in three different colonies of chimpanzees. Corballis: population level asymmetries in handedness are a uniquely human feature. Palmer: right-sided asymmetries might have been statistical artefacts from animals with few observations, only from a single population. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -3982,7 +3982,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research * **Cache protection in Eurasian jays (_Garrulus glandarius_)**. Eurasian jays may opt to cache in out-of-view locations to reduce the likelihood of conspecifics pilfering their caches. {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: not replicated -* Original paper: ‘[Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius) conceal caches from onlookers](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-014-0743-2#Sec2)’, Legg and Clayton 2014; experiment, n = 8. [citations = 42 (GS, January 2023)]. +* Original paper: ‘[Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius) conceal caches from onlookers](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0743-2)’, Legg and Clayton 2014; experiment, n = 8. [citations = 42 (GS, January 2023)]. * Critiques: [Amodio et al. 2022](https://elifesciences.org/articles/69647#s4) [n = 14, citations = 2 (GS, January 2023)]. * Original effect size: not reported. * Replication effect size: Amodio et al.: not reported. @@ -4072,7 +4072,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< spoiler text="Statistics" >}} * Status: NA * Original paper: ‘[The effects of bilingualism on stuttering during late childhood](https://adc.bmj.com/content/94/1/42.long)’, Howell et al. 2009; quasi-experimental design, n= 317. [citations = 122, (GS, February 2022)]. -* Critiques: [Packman et al. 2009](https://adc.bmj.com/content/94/3/248.1?casa_token=tWybp6zg6vYAAAAA%3AwcQ__U2i5AhHMBedCuvKE7eJxHyw8bO-S-Ff_iLmWstZmogE54bKixRqI_HuRCCOPo97g8NxfIZQ) [citations =23 (GS, February 2022)]. +* Critiques: [Packman et al. 2009](https://adc.bmj.com/content/94/3/248.1) [citations =23 (GS, February 2022)]. * Original effect size: Cramer’s _V_ = 0.34. * Replication effect size: 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://link.springer.com/article/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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X20300826) [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 >}} @@ -4099,7 +4099,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< 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?casa_token=naiQDfpKSIAAAAAA%3ABNuORrMXy9y0vUgi9KsBfiNvN7ufu5u4FJ_D6CkulqF7nQJxDJWZntkGUqEvUyAWnHsrbmumBEvn-w) [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)]. +* 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 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 >}} @@ -4108,7 +4108,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< 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?casa_token=aqXatN6TZnUAAAAA%3A5UXw6E0ONA54UvYhneuSXouO1-1gI9cVTzOfAcSDsDjv7Ja8gJ232pM0A_OFxBS6JZAA3a6OJvRBag) [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)]. +* 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 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 >}} @@ -4126,7 +4126,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< 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)]. -* Critiques: [Choo et al. (2022)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00222194221095265?casa_token=JHVdj50CeQQAAAAA%3A09S85hYvXft7G9yRc-mGLEr_ztytMhuFcAaQo08teFJ5V-UBccQqMFK656L9TxntGSnf07-blaVj) [Adults struggling readers:: n = 98, Adults struggling readers who stutter: n = 22; citations=0(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. {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -4135,7 +4135,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< 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)]. -* Critiques: [Choo et al. (2022)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00222194221095265?casa_token=JHVdj50CeQQAAAAA%3A09S85hYvXft7G9yRc-mGLEr_ztytMhuFcAaQo08teFJ5V-UBccQqMFK656L9TxntGSnf07-blaVj) [Adults struggling readers: n = 98, Adults struggling readers who stutter: n = 22; citations=0(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 {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -4144,7 +4144,7 @@ Critiques: [Gelman and Loken 2013](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research {{< 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)]. -* Critiques: [Choo et al. (2022)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00222194221095265?casa_token=JHVdj50CeQQAAAAA%3A09S85hYvXft7G9yRc-mGLEr_ztytMhuFcAaQo08teFJ5V-UBccQqMFK656L9TxntGSnf07-blaVj) [Adults struggling readers: n = 98, Adults struggling readers who stutter: n = 22; citations=0(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 {{< /spoiler >}} @@ -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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2167702614535914) (n=236 , citations=33, GS, January 2023); Haaker et al. 2015; [Sperl et al. 2016](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/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://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). * 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886908003310) [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 >}} diff --git a/layouts/_default/index.json b/layouts/_default/index.json index e8a67e4acab..0e285e4d6be 100644 --- a/layouts/_default/index.json +++ b/layouts/_default/index.json @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ {{- $.Scratch.Add "index" slice -}} {{- range .Site.RegularPages -}} - {{- $.Scratch.Add "index" (dict "title" .Title "subtitle" .Params.subtitle "description" .Params.description "tags" .Params.tags "image" .Params.image "content" .Plain "permalink" .Permalink .Creators ".Params.Creators") -}} + {{- $creators := index .Params "Creators" | default (index .Params "creators") -}} + {{- $.Scratch.Add "index" (dict "title" .Title "subtitle" .Params.subtitle "description" .Params.description "tags" .Params.tags "image" .Params.image "content" .Plain "permalink" .Permalink "creators" $creators) -}} {{- end -}} {{- $.Scratch.Get "index" | jsonify -}} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/layouts/partials/toc.html b/layouts/partials/toc.html index c67149371e2..a8e433df32f 100644 --- a/layouts/partials/toc.html +++ b/layouts/partials/toc.html @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ - {{ $summaries := getJSON "data/summaries.json" }} + {{ $summaries := site.Data.summaries }}