liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Koppel, Lina
Publications (4 of 4) Show all publications
ODonnell, M., Nelson, L. D., Ackermann, E., Aczel, B., Akhtar, A., Aldrovandi, S., . . . Zrubka, M. (2018). Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 268-294
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998)
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Perspectives on Psychological Science, ISSN 1745-6916, E-ISSN 1745-6924, Vol. 13, no 2, p. 268-294Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (professor) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence (soccer hooligans). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the professor category and those primed with the hooligan category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2018
Keywords
priming; replication; intelligence
National Category
Applied Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-147817 (URN)10.1177/1745691618755704 (DOI)000429909000026 ()29463182 (PubMedID)
Note

Funding Agencies|Association for Psychological Science; Arnold Foundation

Available from: 2018-05-14 Created: 2018-05-14 Last updated: 2019-02-27
Verschuere, B., Meijer, E. H., Jim, A., Hoogesteyn, K., Orthey, R., McCarthy, R. J., . . . Yıldız, E. (2018). Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008). Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 299-317
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Registered Replication Report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008)
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, Vol. 1, no 3, p. 299-317Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The self-concept maintenance theory holds that many people will cheat in order to maximize self-profit, but only to the extent that they can do so while maintaining a positive self-concept. Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008, Experiment 1) gave participants an opportunity and incentive to cheat on a problem-solving task. Prior to that task, participants either recalled the Ten Commandments (a moral reminder) or recalled 10 books they had read in high school (a neutral task). Results were consistent with the self-concept maintenance theory. When given the opportunity to cheat, participants given the moral-reminder priming task reported solving 1.45 fewer matrices than did those given a neutral prime (Cohen’s d = 0.48); moral reminders reduced cheating. Mazar et al.’s article is among the most cited in deception research, but their Experiment 1 has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the aggregated result of 25 direct replications (total N = 5,786), all of which followed the same preregistered protocol. In the primary meta-analysis (19 replications, total n = 4,674), participants who were given an opportunity to cheat reported solving 0.11 more matrices if they were given a moral reminder than if they were given a neutral reminder (95% confidence interval = [−0.09, 0.31]). This small effect was numerically in the opposite direction of the effect observed in the original study (Cohen’s d = −0.04).

National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-154892 (URN)10.1177/2515245918781032 (DOI)
Available from: 2019-03-04 Created: 2019-03-04 Last updated: 2019-03-04
McCarthy, R. J., Skowronski, J. J., Verschuere, B., Meijer, E. H., Jim, A., Hoogesteyn, K., . . . Yıldız, E. (2018). Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979). Paper presented at 2019/03/04. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 321-336
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Registered Replication Report on Srull and Wyer (1979)
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, ISSN 2515-2459, Vol. 1, no 3, p. 321-336Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Srull and Wyer (1979) demonstrated that exposing participants to more hostility-related stimuli caused them subsequently to interpret ambiguous behaviors as more hostile. In their Experiment 1, participants descrambled sets of words to form sentences. In one condition, 80% of the descrambled sentences described hostile behaviors, and in another condition, 20% described hostile behaviors. Following the descrambling task, all participants read a vignette about a man named Donald who behaved in an ambiguously hostile manner and then rated him on a set of personality traits. Next, participants rated the hostility of various ambiguously hostile behaviors (all ratings on scales from 0 to 10). Participants who descrambled mostly hostile sentences rated Donald and the ambiguous behaviors as approximately 3 scale points more hostile than did those who descrambled mostly neutral sentences. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 26 independent replications (N = 7,373 in the total sample; k = 22 labs and N = 5,610 in the primary analyses) of Srull and Wyer?s Experiment 1, each of which followed a preregistered and vetted protocol. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that the protagonist was seen as 0.08 scale points more hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% confidence interval, CI = [0.004, 0.16]). The ambiguously hostile behaviors were seen as 0.08 points less hostile when participants were primed with 80% hostile sentences than when they were primed with 20% hostile sentences (95% CI = [?0.18, 0.01]). Although the confidence interval for one outcome excluded zero and the observed effect was in the predicted direction, these results suggest that the currently used methods do not produce an assimilative priming effect that is practically and routinely detectable.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SAGE Publications Inc, 2018
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-154897 (URN)10.1177/2515245918777487 (DOI)
Conference
2019/03/04
Available from: 2019-03-04 Created: 2019-03-04 Last updated: 2019-03-04
Västfjäll, D., Paul, S., Burns, W., Erlandsson, A., Koppel, L., Asutay, E. & Tinghög, G. (2016). The Arithmetic of Emotion: Integration of Incidental and Integral Affect in Judgments and Decisions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 325
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The Arithmetic of Emotion: Integration of Incidental and Integral Affect in Judgments and Decisions
Show others...
2016 (English)In: Frontiers in Psychology, ISSN 1664-1078, E-ISSN 1664-1078, Vol. 7, p. 325-Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Research has demonstrated that two types of affect have an influence on judgment and decision making: incidental affect (affect unrelated to a judgment or decision such as a mood) and integral affect (affect that is part of the perceiver’s internal representation of the option or target under consideration). So far, these two lines of research have seldom crossed so that knowledge concerning their combined effects is largely missing. To fill this gap, the present review highlights differences and similarities between integral and incidental affect. Further, common and unique mechanisms that enable these two types of affect to influence judgment and choices are identified. Finally, some basic principles for affect integration when the two sources co-occur are outlined. These mechanisms are discussed in relation to existing work that has focused on incidental or integral affect but not both.

Keywords
emotions, incidental affect, integral affect, judgment, decision making
National Category
Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-126557 (URN)10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00325 (DOI)000443481400001 ()27014136 (PubMedID)
Funder
Ragnar Söderbergs stiftelse
Available from: 2016-03-30 Created: 2016-03-30 Last updated: 2018-12-10
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications