A meta‐analytic investigation of contrast effects in decision making

Abstract

Several theoretical perspectives and numerous experiments illustrate the influence of context on social judgment. Debate ensues, however, when researchers attempt to describe mechanisms that lead persons to contrast current decisions with prior judgments. The purpose of this study is to summarize and qualify prior analyses of the influences of context on judgment. Procedural conditions, stimuli type, and priming conditions are implicated as factors that moderate the main effect of extremity on contrastive judgments. Meta-analytical methods assess the main effect and moderators of contrastive judgments. Discussion of the results focuses on the implications of the study for theory of contrastive judgments and strategy. ᭧

Romance, risk, and replication: Can consumer choices and risk-taking be primed by mating motives?

“…For example, Nieuwenstein et al (2015) described a meta-analysis of studies on the 'unconscious thought' effect and concluded that, despite many positive findings (e.g., Dijksterhuis, Bos, Nordgren, & van Baaren, 2006), the true effect size after correcting for publication bias is negligible. Renkewitz, Fuchs, and Fiedler (2011) reanalyzed a meta-analysis by Dato-on and Dahlstrom (2003) on priming effects in decision making and found evidence of publication bias, leading them to conclude that Dato-on and Dahlstrom had overestimated the true effect size. And Carter and McCullough (2014) reported a meta-analysis which implied that -after correcting for publication bias -the tendency for acts of self-control to cause 'depletion' of a common resource has an effect size that is no greater than zero.…”