A Social Priming Data Set With Troubling Oddities

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 3-18

  Pashler, Harold ^a   Rohrer, Doug ^b   Abramson, Ian ^a   Wolfson, Tanya ^c   Harris, Christine R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957805991     PISSN: 01973533     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01973533.2015.1124767     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. P.Chatterjee,, R.L.Rose,, & J.Sinha, (2013). Why money meanings matter in decisions to donate time and money. Marketing Letters, 21(2), 1–10.
2. H.Chen,, P.Cohen,, & S.Chen, (2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation, 39, 860–864. doi:10.1080/03610911003650383
3. L.K.John,, G.Loewenstein,, & D.Prelec, (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. doi:10.1037/e632032012-001.0956797611430953.
4. E.Kemps,, M.Tiggemann,, & S.Hollitt, (2014). Exposure to television food advertising primes food-related cognitions and triggers motivation to eat. Psychology & Health, 29, 1192–1205. doi:10.1080/08870446.2014.918267
5. C.A.J.Klaassen, (2015). Evidential value in ANOVA-regression results in scientific integrity studies, 1–12. arXiv:1405.4540 [stat.ME]
6. W.J.Levelt,, P.J.D.Drenth,, & E.Noort, (2012). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. Retrieved from https://www.commissielevelt.nl/wp-content/uploads_per_blog/commissielevelt/2013/01/finalreportLevelt1.pdf
7. J.Lobbestael,, A.Arntz,, & R.W.Wiers, (2008). How to push someone’s buttons: A comparison of four anger-induction methods. Cognition & Emotion, 22, 353–373. doi:10.1080/02699930701438285
8. C.M.MacLeod, (1989). Word context during initial exposure influences degree of priming in word fragment completion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(3), 398–406. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.15.3.398
9. C.M.MacLeod,, & K.E.Kampe, (1996). Word frequency effects on recall, recognition, and word fragment completion tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 132–142. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.22.1.132
10. S.Rajaram,, & H.L.Roediger, (1993). Direct comparison of four implicit memory tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 765–776. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.19.4.765
11. F.D.Richard,, C.F.Bond,, Jr., & J.J.Stokes-Zoota, (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
12. H.L.Roediger,, & T.A.Blaxton, (1987). Effects of varying modality, surface features, and retention interval on priming in word-fragment completion. Memory & Cognition, 15(5), 379–388.
13. J.P.Simmons,, L.D.Nelson,, & U.Simonsohn, (2013, January). Life after P-Hacking. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2205186. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2205186
14. U.Simonsohn, (2013). Just post it: The lesson from two cases of fabricated data detected by statistics alone. Psychological Science, 24, 1875–1888. doi:10.1177/0956797613480366
15. F.van Kolfschooten, (2014). Fresh misconduct charges hit Dutch social psychology. Science, 344, 566–567. doi:10.1126/science.344.6184.566
16. J.Westfall, (2015, June 16). Don’t fight the power (analysis) [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.jakewestfall.org
17. J.M.Wicherts,, & M.Bakker, (2012). Publish (your data) or (let the data) perish! Why not publish your data too? Intelligence, 40, 73–76. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.004
18. J.M.Wicherts,, D.Borsboom,, J.Kats,, & D.Molenaar, (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61, 726–728. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.61.7.726