Is there a Primary, Acquired Hemolytic Jaundice?

Kirkegaard, Aage; Kirkegaard, G

doi:10.1111/j.0954-6820.1945.tb03993.x

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted by Bryan et al (2019), replication researchers also have degrees of freedom in deciding how they want to replicate the original studies. Such degrees of freedom can make it easy to come up with false-negative replication results, and such failures to replicate have been argued to be more easily published than successful replications, creating a reverse publication bias that favors null effects among replication studies (Kirkegaard, 2020; Neuroskeptic, 2012). The bottom line is that several replication failures by themselves are not necessarily indications that the effect is not “real.” The replication failures may be due to differences in the methods, the spatial and historic context, the sample, and replication degrees of freedom, the impact of which needs to be addressed through future meta-analysis and well-powered registered experiments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Priming behavior: A meta-analysis of the effects of behavioral and nonbehavioral primes on overt behavioral outcomes.

Dai¹,

Yang²,

White³

et al. 2023

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past meta-analyses of the effects of priming on overt behavior have not examined whether the effects and processes of priming behavioral or nonbehavioral concepts (e.g., priming action through the word go and priming religion through the word church) differ, even though these possibilities are important to our understanding of concept accessibility and behavior. Hence, we meta-analyzed 351 studies (224 reports and 862 effect sizes) involving incidental presentation of behavioral or nonbehavioral primes, a neutral control group, and at least one behavioral outcome. Our random-effects analyses, which used the correlated and hierarchical effects model with robust variance estimation (Pustejovsky & Tipton, 2021; Tanner-Smith et al., 2016), revealed a moderate priming effect (d = 0.37) that remained stable across behavioral and nonbehavioral primes and across different methodological procedures and adjustments for possible inclusion/publication biases (e.g., sensitivity analyses from Mathur & VanderWeele, 2020; sensitivity analyses from Vevea & Woods, 2005). Although the findings suggest that associative processes explain both the effects of behavioral and nonbehavioral primes, lowering the value of a behavior weakened the effect only when the primes were behavioral. These findings support the possibility that even though both types of primes activate associations that promote behavior, behavioral (vs. nonbehavioral) primes may provide a greater opportunity for goals to control the effect of the primes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%