CS.rep.table.csv

target.effect,orig.study.number,rep.study.number,orig.N,orig.ES.type,orig.ES,orig.ES.CI,rep.N,rep.ES.type,rep.ES,rep.ES.CI,rep.outcome,IVs,DVs,rep.type,rep.effort.type,rep.method.differences,rep.active.sample.evidence,other.outcomes,ES.description,EC.URL,orig.study.article.URL,orig.study.article.DOI,rep.study.article.URL,rep.pre.reg.URL,rep.open.materials.URL,rep.open.data.URL,orig.open.data.URL,orig.open.materials.URL,orig.pre.reg.URL,rep.population,discipline,orig.study.pub.year,reporting.standard.used,effect.description,design,statistical.effect.type,orig.test.statistic,orig.pvalue,rep.outcome.bayesian,orig.article.title,RPP.orig.untransformed.ES,RPP.rep.untransformed.ES,RPP.interpretation,RPP.study.number,study.order.CS,rep.num.in.set,social.priming,include.in.HTML.table,rep.num
rebel vs obedient liking effect,Monin et al. (2008) Study 4,Holubar & Frank (2015),67,r,.35,.22,75,r,.16,.22,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #1,,,,,,http://www.ask-force.org/web/Discourse/Monin-Rejection-Moral-Rebels-2008.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.76,https://osf.io/a4fmg/,,https://osf.io/pz0my/,https://osf.io/pz0my/,,,,,social,2008,,Decreased liking for rebels compared to obedient confederates (in non-self-affirmed control condition) eliminated in self-affirmed condition,"ANOVA, omnibus",main effect,"F(2, 64) = 10.17",<.01,,The rejection of moral rebels: Resenting those who do the right thing.,η²(N=67) = .241,η²(N=75) = .052,unsuccessful,43,1,1,,yes,1
implicit-explicit correspondence effect,Payne et al. (2008) Study 4,Vianello (2015),70,r,.35,.22,180,r,.15,.14,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",,,very close,RPP #2,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0b28/0b8e08cd35cce13fc6cca1a25dc2b9a7e696.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.16,https://osf.io/79y8g/,,https://osf.io/rc6mv/,https://osf.io/rc6mv/,,,,,social,2008,,Positive relation between indirect ratings (AMP) and direct ratings (of Black vs. White faces) stronger in low (compared to high) pressure to respond in socially desirable manner conditions.,hierarchical multiple linear regression,correlation,t(67) = 3.08,<.01,,Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit.,R²(N=70) = .09,R²(N=180) = .016,successful,44,2,2,,yes,2
young acquiescent variability effect,"Soto, John et al. (2008) Study 1",Soderberg (2015),230047,r,.02,0,455326,r,.02,0,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #3,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0f4f/d4199114ba21c832edc1800d92fd5c5f4034.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.718,https://osf.io/6zdct/,,https://osf.io/kez47/,https://osf.io/kez47/,,,,,social,2008,,Younger respondents show greater variability (variance) in acquiescent response tendencies than older respondents.,Levene's test for equality of variance,main effect,"F(21, 230025) = 118.15",<.001,,"The developmental psychometrics of big five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20.","F(21, 230025)(N=230047) = 118.15","F(21, 455304)(N=455326) = 261.93",successful,46,3,3,,yes,3
anxious attachment mortality effect,"Cox, Arndt et al. (2008) Study 6","Wissink, Zeelenberg et al. (2015)",100,r,.23,.19,200,r,-.05,.14,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #4,,,,,,,,https://osf.io/uhnd2/,,https://osf.io/5tbxf/,https://osf.io/5tbxf/,,,,,social,2008,,Increased relative preference for parent among mortality-salience induced Ps scoring low on avoidance but high on anxiety compared to control conditions (dental pain),independent samples t-test,main effect,t(92)= -2.22,0.03,,Terror management and adults' attachment to their parents: The safe haven remains.,f²(N=100) = .289,f²(N=200) = .05,unsuccessful,48,4,4,,yes,4
action priming boosts cognitive performance,Albarracin  et al. (2008) Study 5,"Kim, Frank et al. (2015)",36,r,.38,.30,88,r,-.03,.21,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #5,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dac5/23772e965444540d31e0fb743464fbb56b0e.pdf?_ga=2.187221102.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/a0012833,https://osf.io/2pbaf/,,https://osf.io/vy1bc/,https://osf.io/vy1bc/,,,,,social,2008,,Ps primed with action words correctly solved higher number of SAT-type verbal and math problems than Ps primed with inaction words.,ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 34) = 5.68",0.02,,Increasing and decreasing motor and cognitive output: A model of general action and inaction goals.,η²(N=36) = .143,η²(N=88) = .001,unsuccessful,49,5,5,yes,yes,5
action priming boosts # of thoughts effect,Albarracin  et al. (2008) Study 7,Voracek & Sonnleitner (2015),98,r,.21,.19,109,r,.16,.19,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #6,German instead of English language,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dac5/23772e965444540d31e0fb743464fbb56b0e.pdf?_ga=2.187221102.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/a0012833,https://osf.io/xbyqd/,,https://osf.io/rgm6p/,https://osf.io/rgm6p/,,,,,social,2008,,"Action-word primed Ps completing an inactive task generated a greater number of thoughts compared to inaction-primed Ps completing an active task, with no difference in thoughts in control conditions. ",between ANOVA,interaction,"F(2, 92) = 4.36",0.02,,Increasing and decreasing motor and cognitive output: A model of general action and inaction goals.,η²(N=98) = .087,η²(N=105) = .049,unsuccessful,50,6,6,yes,yes,6
affective incoherence effect,"Centerbar, Schnall et al. (2008) Study 5","Humphries, Brown et al. (2015)",133,r,.21,.16,113,r,.09,.18,no signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #7,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f67/facff28bac9ae369ec0e635863c25fa147e3.pdf?_ga=2.187221102.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.560,https://osf.io/wcgx5/,,https://osf.io/l8srm/,https://osf.io/l8srm/,,,,,social,2008,,Affective coherence increased cognitive complexity in participant-generated narratives compared to affective incoherence.,RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 131) = 5.79",<.02,,Affective incoherence: When affective concepts and embodied reactions clash.,η²(N=133) = .040,η²(N=113) = .014,unsuccessful,52,7,7,,yes,7
intergroup bias regulation effect,"Amodio, Devine et al. (2008) Study 2","Johnson, Graham et al. (2015)",48,r,.38,.25,75,r,.08,.23,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #8,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f071/dae9159b3f93e540c928692dfbd6097bc1bf.pdf?_ga=2.187221102.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.60,https://osf.io/ysxmf/,,https://osf.io/wkgpq/,https://osf.io/wkgpq/,,,,,social,2008,,Low-prejudice Ps whose non-prejudiced responses were motivated by internal (but not external) factors exhibited better control on a stereotype-inhibition task than did Ps motivated by a combination of internal and external factors.,mixed ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 31) = 5.14",0.03,,Individual differences in the regulation of intergroup bias: The role of conflict monitoring and neural signals for control.,η²(N=48) = .16,η²(N=75) = .006,unsuccessful,53,8,8,,yes,8
action-oriented mindset dissonance effect,Harmon-Jones et al. (2008) Study 2,Gable & Mechin (2015),57,r,.23,.26,71,r,.07,.24,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/df6f/78f60a3aef237604e02636657343f0e4e974.pdf?_ga=2.227535963.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.1,https://osf.io/zpwne/,,https://osf.io/su6bm/,https://osf.io/su6bm/,,,,,social,2008,,"Action-oriented mindset caused attitude changes from pre- to post-decision to both chosen and rejected alternatives, whereas positive-nonaction and neutral mindsets caused attitude changes solely to rejected alternative. ",RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(2, 54) = 3.19",<.05,,Left frontal cortical activation and spreading of alternatives: Tests of the action-based model of dissonance.,η²(N=57) = .11,η²(N=71) = .01,unsuccessful,55,9,9,,yes,9
anger communication bargaining effect,"van Dijk, van Kleef et al. (2008) Study 3",Voracek & Slowik (2015),103,r,.38,.17,83,r,-.04,.22,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/16af/db45ada4a1951aa464be49ef82ac6eebf0c1.pdf?_ga=2.227535963.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.600,https://osf.io/2idfu/,,https://osf.io/xtsq6/,https://osf.io/xtsq6/,,,,,social,2008,,"Ps made lower bargaining offers to angry (compared to happy) recipients than happy, but only when consequences of rejection were low. ",ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 99) = 16.62",<.0001,,A social functional approach to emotions in bargaining: when communicating anger pays and when it backfires.,η²(N=103) = .143,d(N=83) = .082,unsuccessful,56,10,10,,yes,10
walking on eggshells effect,Lemay & Clark (2008a) Study 5,Baranski (2015),186,r,.17,.14,280,r,.04,.12,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #11,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7d50/911e5a1e8199449e74e82ab7515c33695ff8.pdf?_ga=2.227535963.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.420,https://osf.io/efjn3/,,https://osf.io/ke43j/,https://osf.io/ke43j/,,,,,social,2008,,"Ps believed confederate's expressions were happier than their private feelings, but only in vulnerable conditions. ",RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 182) = 5.24",<.05,,Walking on eggshells: How expressing relationship insecurities perpetuates them.,η²(N=186) = .028,η²(N=280) = .001,unsuccessful,58,11,11,,yes,11
head liberates heart effect,Lemay & Clark (2008b) Study 5,"Marigold, Forest et al. (2015)",153,R²,.68,,216,b,.72,,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #12,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b10/2f1d04ba874821f66569d41683070b783bd5.pdf?_ga=2.227535963.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.647,https://osf.io/mv3i7/,,https://osf.io/h84qd/,https://osf.io/h84qd/,,,,,social,2008,,Ps own responsiveness was a significant predictor of their perception of their partners' responsiveness.,multilevel model,regression,b = .68,<.001,,How the head liberates the heart: Projection of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion.,level 1 R²(N=153) = .68,b(N=216) = .72,successful,59,12,12,,yes,12
poignancy effect,Ersner-Hershfield et al. (2008) Study 2,"Talhelm, Eggleston, & Lee (2015a)",110,r,.22,.18,222,r,.00,.14,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #13,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/72a0/2b6869a1330a4090a9ddfb21674c6a0e21fe.pdf?_ga=2.139570293.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.158,https://osf.io/fw6hv/,,https://osf.io/sq8k9/,https://osf.io/sq8k9/,,,,,social,2008,,Ps (college seniors) reminded they were experiencing their last day as students at graduation reported fewer mixed emotions than Ps not reminded.,independent-samples t-test,main effect,t(108) = -2.34,<.05,,Poignancy: Mixed emotional experience in the face of meaningful endings.,d(N=110) = +.45,d(N=222) = -.01,unsuccessful,61,13,13,,yes,13
modulation of 1/f noise racial bias emission effect,Correll (2008) Study 2,LeBel (2015) Study 1,71,r,.27,.22,148,r,.07,.16,no signal - inconsistent,avoid/use race information vs. control instructions,1/f noise (weapon identification task),very close,RPP #14,Canadian rather than US undergraduates; keyboard used instead of response box;,Racial bias (in terms of RT) higher in use and avoid race (compared to control) conditions (d = .34 ± .35); 1/f noise observed within each of the 3 conditions (p<.0001),,,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/correll(2008).pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.48,https://osf.io/hzka3/,,https://osf.io/fejxb/,https://osf.io/fejxb/,,,,,social,2008,,Ps in use-race or avoid-race instruction conditions exhibited less 1/f noise (as reflected in PSD slopes) on WIT than Ps in a control condition.,between ANOVA using planned orthogonal contrasts,contrast,"F(1, 68) = 5.52",<.02,,1/f noise and effort on implicit measures of bias.,d(N=71) = +.59 ± .51,d(N=148) = +.16 ± .34,unsuccessful,63,14,14,,yes,14
aggression priming perceptual effect,"Forster, Liberman et al. (2008) Study 1",Reinhard (2015),82,r,.43,.18,71,r,.11,.24,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #15,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4643/46b57725371f6d93e625699667ad784cb3bd.pdf?_ga=2.197004522.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.579,https://osf.io/sxnu6/,,https://osf.io/mxryb/,https://osf.io/mxryb/,,,,,social,2008,,Aggression priming increased perceptions of aggression (assimilation effect) among Ps whose processing style induced to be global (or control) whereas it decreased perceptions of aggression (contrast effect) among Ps whose processing style induced to be local.,ANOVA,interaction,"F(2, 76) = 21.57",<.0001,,The effect of global versus local processing styles on assimilation versus contrast in social judgment.,η²(N=82) = .362,η²(N=71) = .026,unsuccessful,64,15,15,,yes,15
not so innocent effect,"Exline, Baumeister et al. (2008) Study 7",Lin & Frank (2015),45,r,.43,.25,135,r,.01,.17,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #16,,,,,,,,https://osf.io/es7ub/,,https://osf.io/imrx2/,https://osf.io/imrx2/,,,,,social,2008,,Subtly asking Ps questions about their empathic understanding and capability of exhibiting similar transgressions reduced male (but not female) Ps' feelings of vengefulness.,ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 41) = 9.40",<.01,,Not so innocent: Does seeing one's own capacity for wrongdoing predict forgiveness?,η²(N=45) = .186,η²(N=135) = .001,unsuccessful,65,16,16,,yes,16
tempting fate effect,Risen & Gilovich (2008) Study 6,Mathur & Frank (2015),122,r,.19,.17,226,r,.00,.13,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #17,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d828/30e4f7686ca44031a62d002bb9349ce6d5be.pdf?_ga=2.160491515.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.293,https://osf.io/nwua6/,,https://osf.io/sg3su/,https://osf.io/sg3su/,,,,,social,2008,,Tempting fate effect (tempting fate increases perceived likelihood of negative outcomes) amplified under cognitive load compared to a control condition.,ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 116) = 4.15",<.05,,Why people are reluctant to tempt fate.,η²(N=122) = .035,η²(N=226) = .000,unsuccessful,68,17,17,,yes,17
cross-cultural nonverbal pride expression effect,Tracy & Robins (2008) Study 4,Sullivan (2015),211,Propor,.78,,333,Propor,.77,,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #18,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2acf/75b16de98f1e49b8d62dcaddc0e8193488f8.pdf?_ga=2.233351384.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.516,https://osf.io/9uqxr/,,https://osf.io/qthf2/,https://osf.io/qthf2/,,,,,social,2008,,"Ps recognized conveyed emotions as pride at an above chance level, no matter what culture target represented. ",binomial test,binomial test,X,<.05,,The nonverbal expression of pride: Evidence for cross-cultural recognition.,Av. Proportion(N=211) = .78,Av. proportion(N=333) = .77,successful,69,18,18,,yes,18
Wason task performance and cognitive ability correlation,Stanovich & West (2008) Study 8,Baranski (2015),375,r,.22,.10,177,r,.07,.15,no signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #19,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/372b/31dd367450ee278ebc6bfe2d50287f893c7d.pdf?_ga=2.233351384.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672,https://osf.io/p3gz2/,,https://osf.io/7ux8p/,https://osf.io/7ux8p/,,,,,social,2008,,Ps correctly answering Wason's four-card selection task exhibited higher cognitive ability (SAT scores) than Ps answering card task incorrectly.,independent samples t-test,main effect,t(373) = 4.40,<.001,,On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability.,d(N=375) = +.493,d(N=177) = +.15,unsuccessful,71,19,19,,yes,19
closed open mind effect,Blankenship & Wegener (2008) Study 5a,Lemm (2015),261,r,.21,.12,251,r,.04,.12,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #20,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f853/aa287ee48bcfcfcc1f807fa10faeccc04d0f.pdf?_ga=2.233351384.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.94.2.196,https://osf.io/v3e2z/,,https://osf.io/2gx4k/,https://osf.io/2gx4k/,,,,,social,2008,,"Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments among Ps forced to focus on important values in the messages, but no argument strength effect among Ps forced to focus on unimportant values. ",ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 257) = 11.58",0.002,,Opening the mind to close it: Considering a message in light of important values increases message processing and later resistance to change.,η²(N=261) = .042,η²(N=251) = .002,unsuccessful,72,20,20,,yes,20
descriptive deviant popularity effect,Morrison & Miller (2008) Study 3,Motyl (2015),37,r,.32,.30,120,r,.20,.18,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #21,,,,,,,,https://osf.io/2jwi6/,,https://osf.io/nhwv5/,https://osf.io/nhwv5/,,,,,social,2008,,Bumper stickers of descriptive deviants rated as more popular than bumper stickers of prescriptive deviants.,Pearson's Chi-squared test,main effect,"X^2(1, N=37) = 3.85",<.05,,Distinguishing between silent and vocal minorities: Not all deviants feel marginal.,Φ (phi)(N=37) = .32,Φ (phi)(N=120) = .20,successful,73,21,21,,yes,21
(un)accomplished goal action effect,Koo & Fishbach (2008) Study 4,Kidwell & Dodson (2015),246,η²,.041,,768703,OR,.159,,no signal,,,very close,RPP #22,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/430d/1ea2b5233cb303dfa5eb39d8e67bd5c84e42.pdf?_ga=2.228124123.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.183,https://osf.io/68m2c/,,https://osf.io/nr7d9/,https://osf.io/nr7d9/,,,,,social,2008,,"Increased donations to HIV/AIDS initiative when emphasizing ""to-date"" information among Ps who hadn't yet donated, but emphasizing ""to-go"" information among Ps who had. ",ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 242) = 10.47",<.01,,Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un) accomplished goal actions affect motivation.,η²(N=246) = .041,OR(N=768703) = .159,unsuccessful,77,22,22,,yes,22
implemental mind-set attitude strength effect,"Henderson, de Liver et al. (2008) Study 5",Lane & Gazarian (2015),46,r,.26,.28,70,r,.16,.24,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #23,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/aa89/13651dae184a14a3186c74a9570b80a9ce1a.pdf?_ga=2.38709349.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.396,https://osf.io/cjr7d/,,https://osf.io/79dey/,https://osf.io/79dey/,,,,,social,2008,,Ps in one-sided focus condition exhibited less ambivalence than participants in two-sided focus condition.,ANOVA,main effect,"F(2, 43) = 3.36",<.05,,The effects of an implemental mind-set on attitude strength.,η²(N=46) = .135,η²(N=70) = .048,unsuccessful,80,23,23,,yes,23
need for acceptance reconcialiation effect,Shnabel & Nadler (2008) Study 4,E. Gilbert (2015),94,r,.27,.19,141,r,-.10,.16,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #24,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9e10/97af99a1b9d8e2e178170bf700feed1fd1d8.pdf?_ga=2.38709349.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116,https://osf.io/fuj2c/,,https://osf.io/xse7q/,https://osf.io/xse7q/,,,,,social,2008,,"Ps in perpetrator condition reported higher need for social acceptance and reconciliation after moral acceptance was restored, whereas Ps in victim condition reported higher need for power and reconciliation after sense of power was restored.",between ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 90) = 6.98",<.05,,A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation.,η²(N=94) = .07,η²(N=141) = .010,unsuccessful,81,24,24,,yes,24
face of success effect,Rule & Ambady (2008) Study 1,"Talhelm, Eggleston, & Lee (2015b)",50,r,.30,.26,50,r,.27,.27,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #25,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/71d5/3c7980b9561ffd56e6012b2bbb6685209df3.pdf?_ga=2.38709349.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02054.x,https://osf.io/4peq6/,,https://osf.io/r5gpv/,https://osf.io/r5gpv/,,,,,social,2008,,"Composite ratings of perceived power and leadership positively correlated with company profits, even after controlling for CEO age, CEO attractiveness, and affect CEOs displayed in photo. ",partial correlation,correlation,r(41) = .30,<.05,,The face of success: inferences from chief executive officers' appearance predict company profits.,r(N=50) = +.30,r(N=50) = +.27,unsuccessful,82,25,25,,yes,25
selective exposure information quantity effect,"Fischer, Schulz-Hardt et al. (2008) Study 4",Ratliff (2015),52,r,.50,.21,150,r,.22,.16,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",,,very close,RPP #26,,,,,,,,https://osf.io/5afur/,,https://osf.io/v8vft/,https://osf.io/v8vft/,,,,,social,2008,,"Decision-makers prefer inconsistent information when choosing between two pieces of information, but prefer consistent information when choosing between more pieces of information. ",Pearson's Chi-squared test,interaction,"X^2(1, N=52) = 13.18",0.001,,Selective exposure and information quantity: How different information quantities moderate decision makers' preference for consistent and inconsistent information.,d(N=52) = +1.17,d(N=150) = +.46,successful,84,26,26,,yes,26
ego depletion confirmatory bias effect,"Fischer, Greitemeyer et al. (2008) Study 2",Galliani (2015),85,r,.21,.20,140,r,.12,.16,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #27,,,,,,,,https://osf.io/9pnct/,,https://osf.io/j8bpa/,https://osf.io/j8bpa/,,,,,social,2008,,Ps whose self-regulation resources depleted exhibited increased biases in confirmatory information processing compared to non-depleted and ego-threatened condition Ps,between ANOVA,main effect,"F(2, 82) = 4.05",0.02,,Self-regulation and selective exposure: The impact of depleted self-regulation resources on confirmatory information processing.,η²(N=85) = .09,η²(N=140) = .03,unsuccessful,86,27,27,,yes,27
stereotype threat interaction distance effect,"Goff, Steele et al. (2008) Study 4","Kelso, Gampa, Wright et al. (2015)",55,r,.40,.23,51,r,.01,.28,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #28,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e2d7/50c087773d3d19b488007b16e70aef0a1ce4.pdf?_ga=2.159777915.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.91,https://osf.io/7q5us/,,https://osf.io/abxcj/,https://osf.io/abxcj/,,,,,social,2008,,"When learning goals absent, Ps sat closer to each other when they discussed love and relationships compared to when they discussed racial profiling. ",between ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 51) = 9.46",<.01,,The space between us: Stereotype threat and distance in interracial contexts.,η²(N=55) = .16,η²(N=51) = .002,unsuccessful,87,28,28,,yes,28
generalized earning prospect predicts romantic interest effect,Eastwick & Finkel (2008) Study 1,"Selterman, Chagnon et al. (2015)",163,r,.14,.16,304,r,.03,.11,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #29,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ec64/e26322c7fdbf9e54981a07693974423f3031.pdf?_ga=2.159777915.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245,https://osf.io/5pjsn/,,https://osf.io/ng6cc/,https://osf.io/ng6cc/,,,,,social,2008,,Perceived earning prospects significantly positively predicted romantic interest in speed-dating situation for both men and women (absence of evidence for interaction effect).,Meta-analytic summary of interaction effects in 14 multilevel models,interaction,t(26) = 0.72,0.48,,Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?,r(N=163) = +.04,r(N=304) = +.01,successful,89,29,29,,yes,29
approach priming partner criticism effect,"Murray, Derrick et al. (2008) Study 8","Sinclair, Goldberg et al. (2015)",91,r,.32,.18,76,r,-.14,.22,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #30,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jaye_Derrick/publication/5568464_Balancing_Connectedness_and_Self-Protection_Goals_in_Close_Relationships_A_Levels-of-Processing_Perspective_on_Risk_Regulation/links/0912f50eb380ee6584000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.429,https://osf.io/3hndq/,,https://osf.io/cxmf6/,https://osf.io/cxmf6/,,,,,social,2008,,"When primed with approach goals, low self-esteem Ps in partner criticism condition believed their partner regarded them significantly more negatively than did controls. ",hierarchical regression analyses,interaction,t(83) = 3.05,<.01,,Balancing connectedness and self-protection goals in close relationships: A levels-of-processing perspective on risk regulation.,sr²(N=91) = +.07,beta(N=76) = -.231,unsuccessful,93,30,30,yes,yes,30
math self-handicapping effect,McCrea (2008) Study 5,Chartier (2015),28,r,.34,.35,61,r,.29,.24,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #31,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1724/262903b5e1164bf55c1bf263d05761516b68.pdf?_ga=2.159777915.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.274,https://osf.io/ytxgr/,,https://osf.io/mua6d/,https://osf.io/mua6d/,,,,,social,2008,,Self-handicap condition Ps performed worse on mathematical questions task than control condition Ps.,independent samples t-test,main effect,t(26) = 1.87,<.05,,"Self-handicapping, excuse making, and counterfactual thinking: Consequences for self-esteem and future motivation.",d(N=28) = +.736,d(N=61) = +.197,successful,94,31,31,,yes,31
social identity contingencies effect,Purdie-Vaughns  et al. (2008) Study 2,Schmidt (2015),90,r,.38,.18,1490,r,-.04,.05,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #32,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/95f9/403e6b658714ddfdca17ac94b5274cf8f81f.pdf?_ga=2.128443466.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.615,https://osf.io/3rxvs/,,https://osf.io/etg7c/,https://osf.io/etg7c/,,,,,social,2008,,"Among Black, but not White professionals, high (compared to low) fairness cue lowered expectations of threatening identity contingencies and increased trust. ",ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 73) = 12.19",0.001,,social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions.,η²(N=90) = .143,η²(N=1490) = .001,unsuccessful,97,32,32,,yes,32
fluency priming on psychological distance effect,Alter & Oppenheimer (2008) Study 2,Foster (2015),236,r,.13,.12,1146,r,.02,.06,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #33,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/75b8/524267afcc74aa0d317689c8b6d28bb3d3f0.pdf?_ga=2.128443466.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02062.x,https://osf.io/jym7h/,,https://osf.io/kegmc/,https://osf.io/kegmc/,,,,,social,2008,,"Conceptually-fluent primed Ps reported increased preference for concrete descriptions of the prime later, compared to conceptually-disfluent primed Ps. ",Pearson's Chi-squared test,main effect,"X^2(1, N=236) = 3.83",0.05,,"Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle).",Φ (phi)(N=236) = .13,Φ (phi)(N=1146) = .02,unsuccessful,104,33,33,yes,yes,33
goal priming boosts learning effect,"Eitam, Hassin et al. (2008) Study 2",Prenoveau & Kirkhart (2015),86,r,.22,.20,158,r,.10,.16,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #34,,,,,,http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~mschul/yaacov_schul_files/2008-eitam%26hassin%26schul-psych-science.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02078.x,https://osf.io/x75fq/,,https://osf.io/edcr7/,https://osf.io/edcr7/,,,,,social,2008,,Goal primed Ps learned more on an incidental-learning task (serial reaction time task; SRT) than control-group Ps.,independent samples t-test,main effect,t(84) = 2.09,prep = .92,,Nonconscious goal pursuit in novel environments: The case of implicit learning.,d(N=86) = +.45,d(N=158) = -.21,unsuccessful,107,34,34,yes,yes,34
sex difference in perceived sexual interest effect,"Farris, Treat et al. (2008) Study 1","Attwood, Easey, & Munafo (2015)",280,r,.55,.08,144,r,.09,.16,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #35,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7506/0955a43d0c40d1e10ffee2f66b23c4f912fe.pdf?_ga=2.160367867.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02092.x,https://osf.io/5u4km/,,https://osf.io/7dyp5/,https://osf.io/7dyp5/,,,,,social,2008,,Male Ps exhibited less sensitivity in distinguishing friendliness versus sexual interest compared to women (supporting a male perceptual insensitivity account).,general linear model,interaction,"F(1, 278) = 123.38",<.001,,Perceptual mechanisms that characterize gender differences in decoding women's sexual intent,η²(N=280) = .326,η²(N=144) = .008,unsuccessful,110,35,35,,yes,35
prescribed optimism effect,"Armor, Massey et al. (2008) Study 1","Lassetter, Brandt et al. (2015)",126,r,.68,.10,177,r,.76,.06,"signal - inconsistent, larger",,,very close,RPP #36,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebcb/12ed8b27bfe3588e8f9b994f4acc914f050e.pdf?_ga=2.160367867.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02089.x,https://osf.io/8u5v2/,,https://osf.io/qlzap/,https://osf.io/qlzap/,,,,,social,2008,,"Among accurate, optimistic, or pessimistic predictions, Ps most likely to recommend optimistic predictions. ",single sample t-test,main effect,t(124) =10.36,prep > .99,,Prescribed optimism: Is it right to be wrong about the future?,d(N=125) = +.93,d(N=177) = +1.18,successful,113,36,36,,yes,36
age-related episodic memory effect,"Addis, Wong et al. (2008) Study 1",Vasquez (2015),32,r,.57,.26,32,r,.65,.22,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #37,,,,,,http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/schacterlab/files/addiswongschacter2008.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02043.x,https://osf.io/9ayxi/,,https://osf.io/yaeu7/,https://osf.io/yaeu7/,,,,,social,2008,,"Older adults produced fewer internal details, but more external details compared to young adults. ",RM ANOVA,main effect,"F(1,30) = 14.49",prep = .99,,Age-related changes in the episodic simulation of future events,η²(N=32)= .326,η²(N=32) = .426,successful,114,37,37,,yes,37
ego depletion boosts attraction effect,Masicampo & Baumeister (2008) Study 1,"Osborne, Vuu, & Henninger (2015)",115,r,.21,.18,166,r,-.05,.16,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #38,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2820/47d5641dcba11516a64d6f082154c0ab79a9.pdf?_ga=2.228131675.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02077.x,https://osf.io/897ew/,,https://osf.io/3h29d/,https://osf.io/3h29d/,,,,,social,2008,,"Ps in depletion/placebo group exhibited larger attraction effect compared to Ps in other three conditions (depletion with sugar, no depletion with sugar, no depletion with placebo). ",ANOVA,focused interaction contrast,"F(1, 111) = 5.311",prep = .92,,"Toward a physiology of dual-process reasoning and judgment: lemonade, willpower, and expensive rule-based analysis.",η²(N=115) = .045,η²(N=166) = .002,unsuccessful,118,38,38,,yes,38
aversive errors effect,Hajcak & Foti (2008) Study 1,Lewis & Pitts (2015),31,r,-.38,.32,43,r,-.25,.29,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #39,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4909/934881166b7b8e4c35c6f059bf2cf3952dcb.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02053.x,https://osf.io/82bwv/,,https://osf.io/73pnd/,https://osf.io/73pnd/,,,,,social,2008,,Startle response magnitude following an error negatively correlated to Error-Related Negativity (ERN) amplitude.,zero-order correlation,correlation,r = -.38,<.05,,Errors Are Aversive: Defensive Motivation and the Error-Related Negativity,r(N=31) = -.38,r(N=43) = -.25,unsuccessful,120,39,39,,yes,39
sunny side of fairness effect,"Tabibnia, Satpute et al. (2008) Study 2","Beer, Rigney, & Flagan (2015)",12,r,.85,.24,24,r,.83,.15,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #40,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2275/5d2aeb2f4f1216ffa0f829e4cf31141c79f9.pdf?_ga=2.228131675.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02091.x,https://osf.io/nxp9w/,,https://osf.io/94j6h/,https://osf.io/94j6h/,,,,,social,2008,,Accepting unfair offers increased activation in right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex compared to baseline,dependent samples t-test,main effect,t(11) = 5.39,prep = .99,,The sunny side of fairness: Preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry),d(N=12) = +3.25,d(N=24) = +2.22,successful,121,40,40,,yes,40
loving woman who justify inequality effect,"Lau, Kay & Spencer (2008) Study 1",Stieger (2015),36,r,.38,.30,70,r,-.03,.24,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #41,,,,,,https://u.osu.edu/spencerlab/files/2017/02/j2E1467-92802E20082E020402Ex-ov88xp.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02040.x,https://osf.io/42hgf/,,https://osf.io/fxqsk/,https://osf.io/fxqsk/,,,,,social,2008,,Male Ps whose faith in economic system was threatened reported greater romantic interest in women who embody (versus did not embody) benevolent sexist ideals,ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 34) = 5.89",prep = .93,,Loving those who justify inequality: the effects of system threat on attraction to women who embody benevolent sexist ideals.,η²(N=36) = .147,η²(N=70) = .001,unsuccessful,124,41,41,,yes,41
threat of appearing prejudiced attentional bias effect,Richeson & Trawalter (2008) Study 1,Lai (2015),28,r,.37,.34,66,r,.02,.24,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #42,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d43/78b38e48bbfaa4ea06765f14709abb5ac39b.pdf?_ga=2.198763753.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02052.x,https://osf.io/phwi4/,,https://osf.io/c5fza/,https://osf.io/c5fza/,,,,,social,2008,,"Ps with high ""external motivation"" (EM) to be non-prejudiced exhibited attentional biases for neutral, but not happy Black faces. ",mixed ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 26) = 4.17",prep = .92,,The threat of appearing prejudiced and race-based attentional biases.,d(N=28) = +.80,η²(N=66) = .00,unsuccessful,129,42,42,,yes,42
offensive behavior looking effect,"Crosby, Monin et al. (2008) Study 1",Skorinko & Jonas (2015),25,r,.25,.40,30,r,.18,.36,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #43,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5458/e25a697d427d5647dda42fa4989188894d2f.pdf?_ga=2.198763753.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02072.x,https://osf.io/nkaw4/,,https://osf.io/b98zw/,https://osf.io/b98zw/,,,,,social,2008,,"When White man made potentially offensive comment in presence of Black man, Ps who could hear interaction looked at Black man for a longer compared to when Ps couldnt hear interaction. ",mixed ANOVA,interaction,"F(3, 69) = 5.15",<.005,,Where do we look during potentially offensive behavior?,η²(N=25) = .18,η²(N=30) = .048,unsuccessful,132,43,43,,yes,43
having what you want happiness effect,Larsen & McKibban (2008) Study 2,"Seibel, Vermue et al. (2015)",119,r,.21,.18,238,r,.50,.09,"signal - inconsistent, larger",,,very close,RPP #44,,,,,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1027.2039&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02095.x,https://osf.io/h4cbg/,,https://osf.io/5dx4v/,https://osf.io/5dx4v/,,,,,social,2008,,"People who had what they wanted were happier than others, even after controlling for the degree to which they wanted what they had. ",Partial correlation,correlation,pr = .21,prep = .92,,"Is happiness having what you want, wanting what you have, or both?",pr(N=119) = +.21,pr(N=238) = +.497,successful,134,44,44,,yes,44
implicit attitude generalization occurs immediately effect,Ranganath & Nosek (2008) Study 1,Cohn (2015),684,r,.00,.08,3597,r,.11,.04,"signal - inconsistent, larger",,,very close,RPP #45,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9259/4542085ad219d5a5c611c16a8cd62c06785d.pdf?_ga=2.167774311.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02076.x,https://osf.io/9xt25/,,https://osf.io/2gkjt/,https://osf.io/2gkjt/,,,,,social,2008,,Information about original individuals automatically influenced Ps' implicit responses toward new individuals from same social category.,t-test,main effect,t(562) = -0.11,prep = .18,,Implicit attitude generalization occurs immediately; explicit attitude generalization takes time,d(N=564) = -.004,d(N=3597) = +.21,unsuccessful,135,45,45,,yes,45
anti-free-will boosts cheating effect,Vohs & Schooler (2008) Study 1,"Giner-Sorolla, Embley et al. (2015)",30,r,.50,.30,58,r,.10,.26,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #46,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a20c/fba85021eabd83780f3042636e8a3de8e58a.pdf?_ga=2.167774311.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02045.x,https://osf.io/2nf3u/,,https://osf.io/i29mh/,https://osf.io/i29mh/,,,,,social,2008,,Ps who read anti-free-will essay cheated more often that Ps who read a control essay.,independent samples t-test,main effect,t(28) = 3.04,<.01,,The value of believing in free will: Encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating.,d(N=30) = +.88,d(N=58) = +.20,unsuccessful,136,46,46,,yes,46
distance priming boosts psychological closeness effect,Williams & Bargh (2008) Study 4,"Joy-Gaba, Clay, & Cleary (2015)",84,r,.23,.20,125,r,.04,.18,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #47,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e63b/2302efaa97ed0909dd5a42221e6b6524a28d.pdf?_ga=2.167774311.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02084.x,https://osf.io/7uh8g/,,https://osf.io/vnsqg/,https://osf.io/vnsqg/,,,,,social,2008,,Distance-primed Ps reported higher levels of closeness toward one's family members and hometown compared to control condition Ps.,ANOVA,main effect,"F(2, 81) = 4.97",prep = .95,,Keeping one's distance: The influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation.,η²(N=84) = .11,η²(N=125) = .03,unsuccessful,140,47,47,,yes,47
hedonic anger regulation effect,"Tamir, Mitchell et al. (2008) Study 1",Masicampo (2015),82,r,.59,.14,88,r,.61,.13,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #48,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/774a/37707de80f2a062f4833b8f01dc4257bd7ec.pdf?_ga=2.167774311.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02088.x,https://osf.io/7i2tf/,,https://osf.io/k4y9i/,https://osf.io/k4y9i/,,,,,social,2008,,"When Ps anticipated playing confrontational games, Ps preferred anger-inducing activities more so than exciting and neutral activities. ",RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(2, 162) = 192.89",<.001,,Hedonic and instrumental motives in anger regulation.,"F(2,162)(N=82) = 192.9","ηp²(N=88) = .74 [F(2,174) = 252.8]",successful,142,48,48,,yes,48
social disconnection boosts supernatural agent beliefs effect,"Epley, Akalis et al. (2008) Study 3",Sandstrom & Dunn (2015),57,r,.17,.26,78,r,.06,.23,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #49,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3be8/050244871a888256d769ab247639de174a72.pdf?_ga=2.239477829.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x,https://osf.io/m5a2c/,,https://osf.io/yuybh/,https://osf.io/yuybh/,,,,,social,2008,,socially disconnected condition Ps reported stronger beliefs in supernatural agents and events (and attributed more social traits to pets) compared to control condition Ps.,mixed ANOVA,interaction,"F(4, 108) = 3.67",0.01,,"Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds.",η²(N=57) = .12,η²(N=78) = .02,unsuccessful,143,49,49,,yes,49
intergroup prisoners dilemma-maximizing difference effect,"Halevy, Bornstein et al. (2008) Study 1","Thomae, Woo, & Immelman (2015)",80,r,.77,.09,40,r,.65,.20,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #50,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f74/6a26fc71e57ab3733b079ba005dcca25321a.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02100.x,https://osf.io/sjwcd/,,https://osf.io/76qc5/,https://osf.io/76qc5/,,,,,social,2008,,Ps in an intergroup prisoners dilemma-maximizing difference (IPD-MD) game contributed fewer tokens than Ps in an intergroup prisoners dilemma (IPD) game.,t-test,main effect,"F(1, 76) = 109.74",0,,ÏIn_Group Love? and ÏOut_Group Hate? as Motives for Individual Participation in Intergroup Conflict: A New Game Paradigm,η²(N=240) = .59,η²(N=120) = .426,successful,145,50,50,,yes,50
ovulation boosts attraction to single men effect,Bressan & Stranieri (2008) Study 2,Frazier & Hasselman (2015) Study 1,208,r,.19,.14,263,r,-.03,.12,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #51,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40064685.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02060.x,https://osf.io/7vriw/,,https://osf.io/blcj6/,https://osf.io/blcj6/,,,,,social,2008,,"Attached women are more attracted to single men when they're ovulating (compared to not ovulating), but are more attracted to attached men when they're not ovulating (compared to ovulating). ",RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 194) = 7.16",0.008,,The Best Men Are (Not Always) Already Taken: Female Preference for Single Versus Attached Males Depends on Conception Risk,f(N=208) = .19,η²(N=263) = .001,unsuccessful,148,51,51,,yes,51
ovulation boosts attraction to single men effect,Bressan & Stranieri (2008) Study 2,Frazier & Hasselman (2015) Study 2,208,r,.19,.14,318,r,.02,.11,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #52,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40064685.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02060.x,https://osf.io/7vriw/,,https://osf.io/blcj6/,https://osf.io/blcj6/,,,,,social,2008,,"Attached women are more attracted to single men when they're ovulating (compared to not ovulating), but are more attracted to attached men when they're not ovulating (compared to ovulating). ",RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 194) = 7.16",0.008,,The Best Men Are (Not Always) Already Taken: Female Preference for Single Versus Attached Males Depends on Conception Risk,f(N=208) = .19,η²(N=318) = 0.000,unsuccessful,149,52,52,,yes,52
cleanliness priming,"Schnall, Benton & Harvey (2008) Study 2",Cheung et al. (2015) Study 2,43,r,-.40,.26,126,r,.00,.18,no signal - inconsistent,hand washing vs. control condition,moral wrongness (6 moral dilemmas),very close,RPP #53,US rather than UK undergraduates,α = .62 on private body consciousness (PBC) subscale,,,collections/cleanliness-priming.html,https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1335179.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x,https://osf.io/2dem3/,,https://osf.io/apidb/,https://osf.io/apidb/,,,,,social,2008,,"After experiencing disgust, Ps who washed their hands judged questionable behaviors as less morally wrong than Ps who did not wash their hands. ",between ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 41) = 7.81",prep = .97,,With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments.,d(N=43) = -.85 ± .62,d(N=126) = +.02 ± .35,unsuccessful,151,53,53,yes,yes,53
conscientiousness validity correlation,"Heine, Buchtel et al. (2008) Study 1",Lazarevic & Knezevic (2015),70,r,-.43,.20,16,r,-.11,.53,no signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #54,,,,,,http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~heine/docs/2008Mccrae-rejoinder.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02085.x,https://osf.io/g4hn3/,,https://osf.io/siaqe/,https://osf.io/siaqe/,,,,,social,2008,,Perceptions of National Characters (PNC) measure negatively correlated with behavioural and demographic measures of conscientiousness (validity criteria).,correlation,correlation,r = -0.43,X,,What Do Cross_National Comparisons of Personality Traits Tell Us? The Case of Conscientiousness,r(N=70) = -.43,r(N=16) = -.11,successful,154,54,54,,yes,54
social dominance verticality embodiment effect,"Moeller, Robinson et al. (2008) Study 2",Levitan & Fernandez-Castilla (2015),53,r,-.31,.25,72,r,.03,.24,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #55,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02093.x,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02093.x,https://osf.io/7dybc/,,https://osf.io/tg2wd/,https://osf.io/tg2wd/,,,,,social,2008,,"Ps scoring high in dominance exhibited faster RTs to vertical compare to horizontal stimuli, unlike Ps scoring low in dominance ",correlation,correlation,r = -.31,<.05,,Personality dominance and preferential use of the vertical dimension of space,r(N=53) = -.31,r(N=72) = +.034,unsuccessful,155,55,55,yes,yes,55
conflict-triggered goal shielding effect,Goschke & Dreisbach (2008) Study 1,Costantini & Perugini (2015),40,r,.37,.28,95,r,.41,.17,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #56,,,,,,http://www.uni-regensburg.de/psychologie-paedagogik-sport/psychologie-dreisbach/medien/goschkedreisbachpssc08.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02042.x,https://osf.io/pnius/,,https://osf.io/bk53t/,https://osf.io/bk53t/,,,,,social,2008,,Interaction between Perspective Memory (PM) cue dimension and compatibility on mean proportion of errors (missed PM cues).,ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 38) = 6.21",prep = .927,,Conflict-triggered goal shielding: Response conflicts attenuate background monitoring for prospective memory cues.,η²(N=40) = .14,η²(N=95) = .17,successful,158,56,56,,yes,56
relative frequency value heuristic effect,"Dai, Wertenbroch et al. (2008) Study 1","Fuchs, Estel, & Goellner (2015)",56,r,.28,.24,51,r,-.18,.28,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #57,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b84f/8d58d35b9df66ef16e5c65405ecac636a32c.pdf?_ga=2.197521257.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02039.x,https://osf.io/js7gd/,,https://osf.io/q7f6w/,https://osf.io/q7f6w/,,,,,social,2008,,Ps underestimated number of pictures belonging to category for which they expected to be paid compared to control pictures in non-endowed category.,Pearson's Chi-squared test,main effect,"X^2(1, N=56) = 4.51",0.037,,The value heuristic in judgments of relative frequency.,w(N=56) = .339,w(N=51) = .19,unsuccessful,165,57,57,,yes,57
tracing attention effect,Roelofs (2008) Study 3,van Rijn (2015),24,r,.59,.29,29,r,.15,.38,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #58,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d87e/e3b2481809ec84244a42e53cea179e443b83.pdf?_ga=2.197521257.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.353,https://osf.io/janu3/,,https://osf.io/qwkum/,https://osf.io/qwkum/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"Effect of relation between target and distractor was present for picture naming, but absent for word reading.",RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 13) = 7.11",0.02,,Tracing attention and the activation flow in spoken word planning using eye movements.,η²(N=24) = 0.354,η²(N=29) = .02,unsuccessful,1,58,58,,yes,58
repetition blindness for nonwords effect,Morris & Still (2008) Study 6,Goodbourn (2015),24,r,.61,.28,24,r,.23,.40,no signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #59,,,,,,,,https://osf.io/5f42t/,,https://osf.io/rmvk5/,https://osf.io/rmvk5/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Repetition blindness (RB) effect observed for nonwords.,RM ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 23) = 13.71",<0.005,,"Now you see it, now you don't: repetition blindness for nonwords",η²(N=24) = .374,η²(N=24) = .051,unsuccessful,2,59,59,,yes,59
working memory task switching costs effect,"Liefooghe, Barouillet et al. (2008) Study 4","Plessow, Moschl, & Pavel (2015)",25,r,.42,.35,32,r,-.22,.35,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #60,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e6af/57197bd1fdb085be8e0301cb60a399c9e87c.pdf?_ga=2.233351384.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.478,https://osf.io/2h4vx/,,https://osf.io/4dvzb/,https://osf.io/4dvzb/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Lower recall for low-switch lists with degraded stimuli compared to low-switch lists with normal (non-degraded) stimuli.,MANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 24) = 5.29",<0.05,,Working memory costs of task switching.,η²(N=25) = .181,η²(N=32) = .046,unsuccessful,3,60,60,,yes,60
retrieval-induced forgetting effect,"Storm, Bjork & Bjork (2008) Study 1",Callahan (2015),240,r,.23,.12,270,r,-.01,.12,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #61,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae64/a52dac69038be1691e31913e7fe7d4f19986.pdf?_ga=2.233351384.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.230,https://osf.io/4m3py/,,https://osf.io/8j9cg/,https://osf.io/8j9cg/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Larger relearning effect for non-practiced items from practiced categories than non-practiced items from non-practiced categories.,mixed ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 190) = 10.49",<0.001,,Accelerated relearning after retrieval-induced forgetting: The benefit of being forgotten.,η²(N=240) = .052,η²(N=270) = .00003,unsuccessful,4,61,61,,yes,61
intermixed-blocked effect revisited,"Mitchell, Nash & Hall (2008) Study 2",Lakens (2015),32,r,.46,.30,48,r,.13,.28,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #62,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b618/a19f7652f6177b15c1f497c5efc24e821798.pdf?_ga=2.233351384.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.237,https://osf.io/beckg/,,https://osf.io/4xdkk/,https://osf.io/4xdkk/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Intermixed–blocked effect: Intermixed pre-exposure to stimuli lead to better  performance (perceptual learning) compared to non-intermixed pre-exposure.,RM ANOVA,main effect,"F(1,31) = 8.38",X,,The intermixed-blocked effect in human perceptual learning is not the consequence of trial spacing.,dz(N=32) = +.51,ηp²(N=48) = .02,unsuccessful,5,62,62,,yes,62
independent memory sources for priming & recognition effect,"Berry, Shanks & Henson (2008) Study 1",Meixner & Bruning (2015),24,r,.59,.29,32,r,.40,.31,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #63,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4cb1/b8dbbf9f8192c06acf571382c3540d252054.pdf?_ga=2.37610470.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.97,https://osf.io/87gna/,,https://osf.io/atgp5/,https://osf.io/atgp5/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Faster RTs to misses compared to correct rejections (suggesting memory sources for priming and recognition are independent).,dependent samples t-test,main effect,t(23) = 3.55,0.002,,"A single-system account of the relationship between priming, recognition, and fluency.",dz(N=24) = +.724,dz(N=32) = +.424,successful,6,63,63,,yes,63
enhanced memory for word order effect,"Beaman, Neath et al. (2008) Study 2",Kleinberg & Kunkels (2015),100,r,.72,.10,15,r,.13,.55,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #64,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1804/b24bd7241a64200b824b088d7fd6980da00f.pdf?_ga=2.37610470.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.219,https://osf.io/a6mje/,,https://osf.io/6n3bm/,https://osf.io/6n3bm/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Enhanced memory for order of words when word lists contained only short words compared to when word lists only contained long words.,dependent samples t-test,main effect,t(99) = 10.18,<0.05,,Modeling distributions of immediate memory effects: No strategies needed?,d(N=100) = +1.02,d(N=15) = +.13,unsuccessful,7,64,64,,yes,64
retrieval-provoked illusory source recollection effect,"Dodson, Darragh et al. (2008) Study 3",Calhoun-Sauls (2015),48,r,.56,.20,33,r,-.11,.36,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #65,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chad_Dodson/publication/5407191_Stereotypes_and_Retrieval-Provoked_Illusory_Source_Recollections/links/5416ea210cf2788c4b35f3d4/Stereotypes-and-Retrieval-Provoked-Illusory-Source-Recollections.pdf,10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.460,https://osf.io/b9dpu/,,https://osf.io/c5pbg/,https://osf.io/c5pbg/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Higher number of incorrect judgments observed for schema-consistent attributions in neutral proportion condition and schema-inconsistent attributions in conflicting proportion condition.,ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 37) = 17.03",<.001,,Stereotypes and retrieval-provoked illusory source recollections.,η²(N=39) = .32,η²(N=33) = .012,unsuccessful,8,65,65,,yes,65
comparative distance effect revisited,Ganor-Stern & Tzelgov (2008) Study 2,Shaki (2015),32,r,.70,.20,32,r,.78,.16,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #66,,,,,,,,https://osf.io/7mgwh/,,https://osf.io/vmipw/,https://osf.io/vmipw/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Comparative distance effect observed when task required numerical matching.,mixed ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 28) = 26.69",<.001,,Across-notation automatic numerical processing.,ηp²(N=32) = .488,ηp²(N=32) = .55,successful,10,66,66,,yes,66
semantic neighborhood density effect,Mirman & Magnuson (2008) Study 2,Bosco & Field (2015),22,r,.67,.26,30,r,.47,.30,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #67,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ef29/60a55152ec7e7ea07792496896f777110169.pdf?_ga=2.207086421.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.65,https://osf.io/r57hu/,,https://osf.io/rvkc5/,https://osf.io/rvkc5/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"Words with many near neighbors (e.g., chicken) associated with increased level of processing (i.e., categorized more slowly) compared to words with few near neighbors (e.g., hyena)",RM ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 21) = 17.3",<.001,,Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors.,η²(N=22) = .452,η²(N=30) = .218,successful,11,67,67,,yes,67
between-sequence phonological similarity effect,"Marsh, Vachon, & Jones (2008) Study 1",Bell (2015),48,r,.18,.29,118,r,.08,.18,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #68,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2504/8cee5e5e2526ab16d707eec83f7b6daa3e9c.pdf?_ga=2.207086421.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.243,https://osf.io/sqcwk/,,https://osf.io/7rtcz/,https://osf.io/7rtcz/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Pronounced disruptive effect of between-sequence phonological similarity on free recall of lists of end rhyming words.,mixed ANOVA,interaction,"F(2, 92) = 3.13",<.05,,When does between-sequence phonological similarity promote irrelevant sound disruption?,d(N=48) = +.52,η²(N=118) = .014,unsuccessful,12,68,68,,yes,68
bidirectional association in multiplication memory,Campbell & Robert (2008) Study 3,Ricker (2015),36,r,.52,.25,36,r,.52,.25,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #69,,,,,,,,https://osf.io/bux7k/,,https://osf.io/gxvd3/,https://osf.io/gxvd3/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"RTs faster when participants were given the same mathematical operation to practice and to test, relative to operational change or a new problem.",mixed ANOVA,interaction,"F(2, 68) = 41.59",<.001,,Bidirectional associations in multiplication memory: Conditions of negative and positive transfer.,η²(N=36) = .550,η²(N=36) = .55,successful,13,69,69,,yes,69
contingency Stroop effect,Schmidt & Besner (2008) Study 2,Cloud (2015),95,r,.20,.20,242,r,.25,.12,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #70,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d41/5a1655f7b5831d3bacded6ee54184b33bd8c.pdf?_ga=2.207086421.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.514,https://osf.io/bskwq/,,https://osf.io/bscfe/,https://osf.io/bscfe/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Higher number of errors on low contingency trials compared to medium contingency trials.,dependent samples t-test,main effect,t(94) = 1.929,0.028,,The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency.,d(N=95) = +.198,d(N=242) = +.255,successful,15,70,70,,yes,70
ultimate sampling dilemma effect,Fiedler (2008) Study 2,Glockner & Jekel (2015),39,r,.30,.30,47,r,.43,.24,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #71,,,,,,http://paulallen.ca/documents/2016/01/fiedler-k-the-ultimate-sampling-dilemma-in-experience-based-decision-making-2008.pdf,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.186,https://osf.io/vtz2i/,,https://osf.io/hp27x/,https://osf.io/hp27x/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Tendency to underestimate (overestimate) frequency of positive (negative) observations increased from provider with smallest to provider with highest overall frequency.,RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(2, 76) = 8.67",<.001,,The ultimate sampling dilemma in experience-based decision making.,η²(N=39) = .186,η²(N=47) = .28,successful,17,71,71,,yes,71
how to say no effect,Oberauer (2008) Study 3,"Bosch, Neijenhuijs et al. (2015)",32,r,.56,.26,21,r,.40,.40,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #72,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Klaus_Oberauer/publication/5407190_How_to_Say_No_Single-_and_Dual-Process_Theories_of_Short-Term_Recognition_Tested_on_Negative_Probes/links/55f2bef508ae0960a389770b/How-to-Say-No-Single-and-Dual-Process-Theories-of-Short-Term-Recognition-Tested-on-Negative-Probes.pdf,10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.439,https://osf.io/n32zj/,,https://osf.io/gcj7x/,https://osf.io/gcj7x/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Higher new probe accuracy for short compared to long lists.,RM ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 31) = 14.2",<.001,,How to say no: Single-and dual-process theories of short-term recognition tested on negative probes.,η²(N=32) = .31,η²(N=21) = .162,unsuccessful,19,72,72,,yes,72
intentional forgetting effect revisited,"Sahakyan, Delaney et al. (2008) Study 3",Fiedler & May (2015),96,r,.22,.19,108,r,.02,.19,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #73,,,,,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.690.2906&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.408,https://osf.io/kcwfa/,,https://osf.io/bzdr2/,https://osf.io/bzdr2/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Directed forgetting effect observed for spaced but not grouped (massed) items.,mixed ANOVA,interaction,"F(1,94) = 4.97",<.05,,"Intentional forgetting is easier after two ""shots"" than one.",η²(N=96) = .05,η²(N=108) = .0004,unsuccessful,20,73,73,,yes,73
bilingualism executive control effect,"Colzato, Bajo et al. (2008) Study 3",Kappes (2015),18,r,.22,.48,32,r,.06,.36,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #74,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/58cf/daeeb1b63540aee243ae494dcdc17f9f0440.pdf?_ga=2.167758968.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.302,https://osf.io/a5ukz/,,https://osf.io/p9thw/,https://osf.io/p9thw/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"Bilingual Ps less successful than monolinguals at reporting T2 target when it lagged a successfully identified T1 target by 2 items (i.e., at lag 3).",RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(3, 93) = 5.23",0.002,,How does bilingualism improve executive control? A comparison of active and reactive inhibition mechanisms.,MSE(N=18) = .009,η²(N=32) = .01,unsuccessful,22,74,74,,yes,74
addition facts priming effect,"Bassok, Pedigo et al. (2008) Study 1","Hung, Lin, & Tsang (2015)",154,r,.36,.14,49,r,.28,.26,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #75,,,,,,,,https://osf.io/irgbs/,,https://osf.io/sqim7/,https://osf.io/sqim7/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,RT difference between sum and neutral targets larger when cue digits primed with categorical (compared to unrelated or functionally related) primes.,RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 152) = 23.176",<.001,,Priming addition facts with semantic relations.,"F(1,152)(N=154) = 23.2","F(1,48)(N=49) = 4.2 [MSE=9999]",successful,24,75,75,,yes,75
Hebb repetition effect revisited,"Couture, Lafond, & Tremblay (2008) Study 1",Roebke & Penna (2015),24,r,.35,.38,63,r,.27,.24,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #76,,,,,,,,https://osf.io/qm5n6/,,https://osf.io/k9gp6/,https://osf.io/k9gp6/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"Likelihood of producing a given response increased as a function of the number of times same response had previously been recalled, even for errors.",mixed ANOVA,main effect,"F(3, 48) = 9.14",<.001,,Learning correct responses and errors in the Hebb repetition effect: two faces of the same coin.,d(N=24) = +1.51,η²(N=63) = .224,successful,25,76,76,,yes,76
reading aloud contextual effect,Reynolds & Besner (2008) Study 5,Lai & Simpson (2015),16,r,.16,.52,20,r,.14,.46,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #77,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Derek_Besner/publication/5657620_Contextual_Effects_on_Reading_Aloud_Evidence_for_Pathway_Control/links/0c9605281090c9dd59000000/Contextual-Effects-on-Reading-Aloud-Evidence-for-Pathway-Control.pdf,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.50,https://osf.io/fkcn5/,,https://osf.io/hasfu/,https://osf.io/hasfu/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,No delay in response when switching between pronouncing regular words and nonwords.,mixed ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 94) = 2.5",>0.1,,Contextual effects on reading aloud: Evidence for pathway control.,η²(N=16) = .026,η²(N=20) = .021,successful,26,77,77,,yes,77
stimulus quality word frequency effect,"Yap, Balota et al. (2008) Study 4",Chartier (2015),32,r,.38,.32,71,r,.38,.20,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #78,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e4d0/b0275069be7bcf79e517fc26502ac51d3372.pdf?_ga=2.201189864.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.495,https://osf.io/dh4jx/,,https://osf.io/ahpik/,https://osf.io/ahpik/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Larger frequency effect for degraded compared to non-degraded words (interaction between stimulus quality and word frequency).,RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 31) = 5.17",0.03,,On the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency in lexical decision: Evidence for opposing interactive influences revealed by RT distributional analyses.,η²(N=32) = .143,η²(N=71) = .144,successful,27,78,78,,yes,78
semantic interference in naming task revisited,"Janssen, Schirm et al. (2008a) Study 1",Galak (2015),32,r,.34,.32,91,r,.10,.21,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #79,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3954/63e228d592bb930be8169e25b69fd36cef98.pdf?_ga=2.201189864.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.249,https://osf.io/5p7i6/,,https://osf.io/uhpyr/,https://osf.io/uhpyr/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,RTs slower for semantically-related compared to semantically unrelated word-picture pairs in a delayed picture naming task.,RM ANOVA,main effect,"F(1,31) = 4.1",<.06,,Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: Evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis.,d(N=32) = +.74,η²(N=91) = .011,unsuccessful,28,79,79,,yes,79
multidimensional visual statistical learning effect,"Turk-Brown, Isola et al. (2008) Study 4b",Ostkamp & Jakel (2015),8,r,.74,.54,15,r,.70,.32,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #80,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a572/71eaf9e300f638c69611ec69c81c2d95971b.pdf?_ga=2.201189864.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.399,https://osf.io/ktnmc/,,https://osf.io/ujhlw/,https://osf.io/ujhlw/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Above-chance recall rate on real-triplet test trials compared to familiarization phase (can visual statistical learning be feature-based over colors of objects?).,dependent samples t-test,main effect,t(7) = 2.892,0.023,,Multidimensional visual statistical learning.,d(N=8) = +1.02,d(N=15) = +.957,successful,29,80,80,,yes,80
contingency information in causal judgments effect,White (2008) Study 3,Muller & Renkewitz (2015),37,r,.62,.21,38,r,.48,.26,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #81,,,,,,http://psych.cf.ac.uk/home2/white/white%20jeplmc%202008.pdf,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.204,https://osf.io/x7c9i/,,https://osf.io/rhbqj/,https://osf.io/rhbqj/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,A+ instances raised judgment of A and lowered judgment of B as causes for outcome.,RM ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 36) = 22.88",<.001,,Accounting for occurrences: A new view of the use of contingency information in causal judgment.,η²(N=37) = .427,η²(N=38) = .15,successful,32,81,81,,yes,81
short-term memory temporal gap effect,Farrell (2008) Study 2,Olsson & Saxe (2015),40,r,.52,.24,40,r,.32,.30,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #82,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Farrell/publication/5657625_Multiple_Roles_for_Time_in_Short-Term_Memory_Evidence_From_Serial_Recall_of_Order_and_Timing/links/53fc51590cf2364ccc04870d.pdf,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.128,https://osf.io/tqf2u/,,https://osf.io/swrhy/,https://osf.io/swrhy/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"Ps instructed to group items induced temporal gap between groups, both when trying to recall order of items and when trying to recall timing of items.",paired sample t-test,main effect,t(39) = 3.77,0.001,,Multiple roles for time in short-term memory: Evidence from serial recall of order and timing.,d(N=40) = +.60,d(N=40) = +.37,successful,33,82,82,,yes,82
dependency learning effect,Pacton & Perruchet (2008) Study 4b,Jahn (2015),24,r,.71,.22,24,r,.68,.25,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #83,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3eb6/a98229c292e16a04a9eef6afa29a22e6c235.pdf,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.80,https://osf.io/asn7w/,,https://osf.io/vmz2e/,https://osf.io/vmz2e/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Number of correct responses differed only as a function of the type of dependency.,mixed ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 20) = 20.79",<.01,,An attention-based associative account of adjacent and nonadjacent dependency learning.,η²(N=24) = .51,η²(N=24) = .46,successful,36,83,83,,yes,83
visual working memory orienting attention effect,"Makovski, Sussman et al. (2008) Study 3",Moore (2015),12,r,.55,.49,18,r,.35,.45,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #84,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cb5a/78af4f032bdaa0eb1a5547c8b7a244be5233.pdf?_ga=2.169274343.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.369,https://osf.io/xtcuv/,,https://osf.io/0pxro/,https://osf.io/0pxro/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"For both shape and color conditions, better recall for retro(active) compared to simultaneous cue at all set sizes (except set size = 1).",RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(1,11) = 4.8",<.05,,Orienting attention in visual working memory reduces interference from memory probes.,η²(N=12) = .304,η²(N=18) = .122,successful,37,84,84,,yes,84
learning on risky decision making effect,Pleskac (2008) Study 1,"Forsell, Dreber et al. (2015)",68,r,.37,.21,153,r,.10,.16,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #85,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ab7/5e6684f2d9006b5ccde6c17a79a1f678b49e.pdf?_ga=2.131006537.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.167,https://osf.io/gyn9e/,,https://osf.io/38ges/,https://osf.io/38ges/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Comparison of correlations between ART and drug use in sunny versus cloudy conditions.,Test of contrast of 4 correlated correlations.,main effect,z = 3.10,<.05,,Decision making and learning while taking sequential risks.,z(N=68) = 3.10,z(N=153) = 1.25,unsuccessful,39,85,85,,yes,85
directional language feature binding effect,Dessalegn & Landau (2008) Study 4,Fitneva (2015),36,r,.38,.30,47,r,-.22,.28,no signal - inconsistent,,,very close,RPP #86,,,,,,,,https://osf.io/83n4z/,,https://osf.io/iajp5/,https://osf.io/iajp5/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"Directional language (e.g., ""to the left"") helps children bind color and shape information to a greater extent than relational language alone (e.g., ""next to"").",ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 34) = 5.8",<.05,,More than meets the eye: the role of language in binding and maintaining feature conjunctions.,d(N=36) = +.82,d(N=47) = +.48,unsuccessful,106,86,86,,yes,86
anchor precision anchoring effect,Janiszewski & Uy (2008) Study 4,Chandler (2015),59,r,.33,.24,120,r,.23,.17,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #87,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d5eb/5e12b79ac605770778af40195ff105458691.pdf?_ga=2.131006537.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02057.x,https://osf.io/ehjdm/,,https://osf.io/aaudl/,https://osf.io/aaudl/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"More precise (e.g., $9.99) compared to less price (e.g., $10) anchors decreased (anchoring effect) adjustment.",ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 55) = 6.88",prep = .947,,Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment.,ηp²(N=59) = .02,ηp²(N=120) = .05,successful,111,87,87,,yes,87
sample entropy decision making effect,"McKinstry, Dale, & Spivey (2008) Study 1","Saxe, Velez, & Feather (2015)",141,r,-.70,.09,51,r,-.75,.13,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #88,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e293/11600a720040ea3b39821f17e23c50da30fe.pdf?_ga=2.131006537.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02041.x,https://osf.io/pu9nb/,,https://osf.io/d0n81/,https://osf.io/d0n81/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Sample entropy was higher for middle-truth-value questions than for low- and high-truth-value questions.,ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 9) = 8.7",<.05,,Action dynamics reveal parallel competition in decision making,r(N=141) = -.70,r(N=51) = -.75,successful,112,88,88,,yes,88
perspective taking in word learning effect,Nurmsoo & Bloom (2008) Study 1,"Brown, Kleinberg et al. (2015)",32,r,.50,.28,8,r,-.45,.72,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #89,,,,,,https://minddevlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Preschoolers'%20perspective%20taking%20in%20word%20learning.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02069.x,https://osf.io/ictp5/,,https://osf.io/aczvt/,https://osf.io/aczvt/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"Older children selected correct object more frequently than would be expected by chance on ""where"" trials.",dependent samples t-test,main effect,t(31) = 3.23,prep = .97,,Preschoolers' perspective taking in word learning: do they blindly follow eye gaze?,d(N=32) = +.571,d(N=8) = +.286,unsuccessful,115,89,89,,yes,89
crowd within effect,Vul & Pashler (2008) Study 1,"Steegen, Vanpaemel et al. (2015)",173,r,.29,.14,140,r,.32,.15,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #90,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ada7/7b14a18daaef0e4c5a30d77f9ed0b64a9777.pdf?_ga=2.193375083.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02136.x,https://osf.io/7kimb/,,https://osf.io/ivfu6/,https://osf.io/ivfu6/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Averaging two guesses within one person provides a more accurate answer than either guess alone.,dependent samples t-test,main effect,t(172) = 3.94,<.01,,Measuring the crowd within: Probabilistic representations within individuals.,d(N=173) = +.47,d(N=140) = +.34,successful,116,90,90,,yes,90
temporal selection in attentional blink effect,"Vul, Nieuwenstein et al. (2008) Study 1",Barnett-Cowan (2015),12,r,.13,.62,12,r,.12,.62,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #91,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f6c4/cf2339c229a2462de88634b14748a1bd286d.pdf?_ga=2.193375083.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02046.x,https://osf.io/jupew/,,https://osf.io/rzjvn/,https://osf.io/rzjvn/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"Selection is (a) suppressed (efficacy), (b) delayed (latency), and (c) diffused (precision) in time during the attentional blink.",ANOVA,interaction,"F(18, 660) = 16.31",<.00001,,"Temporal selection is suppressed, delayed, and diffused during the attentional blink.",η²(N=12) = .308,η²(N=12) = .261,successful,117,91,91,,yes,91
representation of ensemble visual features effect,Alvarez & Oliva (2008) Study 3,Schlegelmilch et al. (2015),8,r,-.72,.55,17,r,-.92,.09,"signal - inconsistent, larger",,,very close,RPP #92,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d507/c3ff9dc42d1755b8dbce306b7088af959ab2.pdf?_ga=2.193375083.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02098.x,https://osf.io/dm2kj/,,https://osf.io/dnaxe/,https://osf.io/dnaxe/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Fewer localization errors for targets compared to distractors in the centroid condition.,dependent samples t-test,main effect,t(7) = 2.76,0.028,,The representation of simple ensemble visual features outside the focus of attention,dz(N=8) = -.976,dz(N=17) = -2.33,successful,122,92,92,,yes,92
motion affereffect effect,"Winawer, Huk, & Boroditsky (2008) Study 3","Levitan, Errington & Gampa (2015)",32,r,-.69,.20,26,r,-.53,.30,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #93,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91ff/99e3c012ac0f4f301bf083673bc0815973fb.pdf?_ga=2.193375083.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02080.x,https://osf.io/ertbg/,,https://osf.io/mjasz/,https://osf.io/mjasz/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Motion aftereffects were present following the presentation of a still photograph depicting motion,paired sample t-test,main effect,t(28) = -4.978,0.00003,,A motion aftereffect from still photographs depicting motion,d(N=29) = -.94,d(N=26) = -.62,successful,127,93,93,,yes,93
survival words memory boost effect,"Nairne, Pandeirada et al. (2008) Study 2",Muller & Renkewitz (2015),24,r,.45,.35,38,r,.42,.28,signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #94,,,,,,http://www.psych.purdue.edu/~nairne/pdfs/46.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02064.x,https://osf.io/v4d2b/,,https://osf.io/jhkpe/,https://osf.io/jhkpe/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Higher recall for words rated for survival relevance compared to control words.,RM ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 23) = 5.7","""significant""",,Adaptive memory: The comparative value of survival processing.,η²(N=24) = .20,η²(N=38) = .18,successful,133,94,94,,yes,94
auditory change detection effect,"Demany, Trost et al. (2008) Study 5",Snyder & Irsik (2015),4,r,.50,1.00,5,r,.51,.94,no signal - consistent,,,very close,RPP #95,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0ba5/24a25a76a642543d8a972882fe6fd1f57a98.pdf?_ga=2.38129637.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02050.x,https://osf.io/wx74s/,,https://osf.io/ta3j8/,https://osf.io/ta3j8/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Auditory memory makes change detection easier in audition than in vision.,ANOVA,main effect,"F(3, 9) = 8.5",0.005,,Auditory change detection: simple sounds are not memorized better than complex sounds,η²(N=4) = .74,η²(N=5) = .76,successful,139,95,95,,yes,95
word-order constraint effect,"Janssen, Alario et al. (2008b) Study 2",Melinger (2015),30,r,.65,.23,24,r,.50,.34,signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #96,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8c7c/6aa1f0c83cc434dfab69c1fe70d21cc61eec.pdf?_ga=2.38129637.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02070.x,https://osf.io/e3ry5/,,https://osf.io/dncxa/,https://osf.io/dncxa/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"Color and object naming times in congruent condition faster than in incongruent condition in color and object naming tasks, respectively.",t-test,main effect,t(14) = 3.2,<.007,,A word-order constraint on phonological activation,dz(N=15) = +1.71,dz(N=12) = +.548,unsuccessful,146,96,96,,yes,96
object viewpoint sensitivity effect,Forti & Humphreys (2008) Study 1,Dorrough & Fiedler (2015),14,r,.72,.33,19,r,.21,.46,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #97,,,,,,,,https://osf.io/nhqgs/,,https://osf.io/tf8ky/,https://osf.io/tf8ky/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Significant interaction between viewpoint (prototypical or non-prototypical) and visual field (upper visual field or lower visual field) on the probability of the first fixation being on the target.,RM ANOVA,interaction,"F(1, 13) = 14.2",prep = .99,,Sensitivity to object viewpoint and action instructions during search for targets in the lower visual field,η²(N=14) = .522,η²(N=19) = .0065,unsuccessful,150,97,97,,yes,97
extremal edge effect,Palmer & Ghose (2008) Study 2,"Saxe, Velez, & Johnston (2015)",8,r,.86,.38,8,r,.12,.78,no signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #98,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/17f9/dcd45045b540ee254936d7ba258a67a282a3.pdf?_ga=2.234735064.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02049.x,https://osf.io/27cmh/,,https://osf.io/0aifq/,https://osf.io/0aifq/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Surfaces with a single EE (EE1) along the shared contour were perceived as closer than surfaces with two EE's orthogonal to the shared contour (Convex2),single sample t-test,trend,t(7) = 4.45,<.001,,Extremal edge: a powerful cue to depth perception and figure-ground organization,d(N=8) = +1.573,d(N=8) = +.11,unsuccessful,153,98,98,,yes,98
snake in the grass detection effect,Lobue & DeLoache (2008) Study 3,"Cramblet, Alvarez et al. (2015)",48,r,.48,.23,48,r,.18,.29,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #99,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ffad/209c5b2ecbf260e242fa7af1c848cd96350b.pdf?_ga=2.234735064.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02049.x,https://osf.io/5ygej/,,https://osf.io/sd7kg/,https://osf.io/sd7kg/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,"Faster identification RTs for fear-relevant compared to fear-irrelevant stimuli, in both children and adults.",between ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 44) = 13.42",<.01,,Detecting the snake in the grass: attention to fear-relevant stimuli by adults and young children.,η²(N=48) = . 23,η²(N=48) = .032,unsuccessful,161,99,99,,yes,99
head up foot down effect,"Estes, Verges, & Barsalou (2008) Study 1",Renkewitz & Muller (2015),18,r,.60,.35,22,r,.25,.42,no signal - consistent (imprecise),,,very close,RPP #100,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e2b5/8b38a61c6f08de528fdeeee1909a4b0a5205.pdf?_ga=2.234735064.756229126.1510337183-1264817730.1510337183,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02049.x,https://osf.io/b7zek/,,https://osf.io/vwnit/,https://osf.io/vwnit/,,,,,cognitive,2008,,Attentional effect of object words interfered with the visual perception of a target in the typical location of the object.,RM ANOVA,main effect,"F(1, 17) = 9.33",prep = .97,,"Head up, foot down: Object words orient attention to the objects' typical location.",η²(N=18) = .70,η²(N=22) = .065,unsuccessful,167,100,100,,yes,100
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",30,d,.77,.74,87,d,-.26,.42,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #1,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,yes,yes,101
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Cheong (2014,Help)",30,d,.77,.74,102,d,-.24,.39,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #2,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,yes,yes,102
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Devos (2014,SDSU)",30,d,.77,.74,162,d,-.21,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #3,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,yes,yes,103
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Swol (2014,Wisc)",30,d,.77,.74,96,d,-.20,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #4,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,yes,yes,104
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",30,d,.77,.74,87,d,-.19,.42,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #5,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,yes,yes,105
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Kappes (2014,LSE)",30,d,.77,.74,277,d,-.16,.39,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #6,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,yes,yes,106
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",30,d,.77,.74,187,d,-.16,.24,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #7,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,yes,yes,107
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",30,d,.77,.74,127,d,-.15,.35,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #8,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,yes,yes,108
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Vranka (2014,Charles)",30,d,.77,.74,84,d,-.14,.43,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #9,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,yes,yes,109
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Packard (2014,Laurier)",30,d,.77,.74,112,d,-.14,.37,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #10,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,yes,yes,110
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",30,d,.77,.74,113,d,-.13,.36,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #11,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,yes,yes,111
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",30,d,.77,.74,169,d,-.12,.30,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #12,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,yes,yes,112
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",30,d,.77,.74,146,d,-.07,.33,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #13,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,yes,yes,113
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",30,d,.77,.74,1000,d,-.06,.12,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #14,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,yes,yes,114
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",30,d,.77,.74,108,d,-.05,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #15,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,yes,yes,115
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",30,d,.77,.74,144,d,-.04,.34,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #16,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,yes,yes,116
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",30,d,.77,.74,1329,d,-.03,.11,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #17,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,yes,yes,117
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Bernstein (2014,abington)",30,d,.77,.74,84,d,.00,.43,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #18,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,yes,yes,118
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",30,d,.77,.74,90,d,.01,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #19,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,yes,yes,119
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",30,d,.77,.74,96,d,.01,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #20,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,yes,yes,120
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",30,d,.77,.74,95,d,.01,.42,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #21,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,yes,yes,121
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",30,d,.77,.74,103,d,.03,.36,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #22,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,yes,yes,122
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Levitan (2014,Oxy)",30,d,.77,.74,123,d,.03,.39,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #23,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,yes,yes,123
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Smith (2014,OSU)",30,d,.77,.74,107,d,.10,.38,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #24,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,yes,yes,124
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Kurtz (2014,JMU)",30,d,.77,.74,174,d,.11,.30,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #25,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,yes,yes,125
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",30,d,.77,.74,86,d,.13,.43,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #26,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,yes,yes,126
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Wichman (2014,WKU)",30,d,.77,.74,103,d,.18,.26,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #27,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,yes,yes,127
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",30,d,.77,.74,225,d,.18,.36,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #28,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,yes,yes,128
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Pilati (2014,brasilia)",30,d,.77,.74,120,d,.18,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #29,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,yes,yes,129
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",30,d,.77,.74,85,d,.19,.43,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #30,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,yes,yes,130
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",30,d,.77,.74,80,d,.21,.44,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #31,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,yes,yes,131
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",30,d,.77,.74,79,d,.21,.45,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #32,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,yes,yes,132
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Nier (2014,Conncoll)",30,d,.77,.74,95,d,.23,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #33,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,yes,yes,133
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Woodzicka (2014,WL)",30,d,.77,.74,90,d,.24,.41,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #34,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,yes,yes,134
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",30,d,.77,.74,81,d,.30,.44,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #35,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,yes,yes,135
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,"Morris (2014,McDaniel)",30,d,.77,.74,98,d,.40,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,ML1 #36,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,yes,yes,136
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 1,Rohrer et al. (2015) Study 1,30,d,.77,.74,136,d,-.07,.34,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),system justification scale,very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f0a7/3c08049f86b20d83b52635ee651d2fffe859.pdf,,http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles/Pashler%20Rohrer%20Harris_JESP2013.pdf,,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,137
money priming (scrambled sentence),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 2,Rohrer et al. (2015) Study 2,168,d,.43,.30,420,d,.06,.19,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (scrambled sentence),belief in a just world scale,very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f0a7/3c08049f86b20d83b52635ee651d2fffe859.pdf,,http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles/Pashler%20Rohrer%20Harris_JESP2013.pdf,,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,138
money priming (scrambled sentence),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 2,Schuler & Wänke (in press) Study 2,168,d,.43,.30,115,d,-.09,.39,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),exposure to money vs. control (scrambled sentence),belief in a just world scale,very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/money-priming/Schuler%20%26%20Wanke%20(in%20press%2C%20SPPS)%20replication%20%26%20extension.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,139
money priming (scrambled sentence),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 3,Rohrer et al. (2015) Study 3,80,d,.49,.44,156,d,-.06,.31,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (scrambled sentence),social dominance orientation scale,very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f0a7/3c08049f86b20d83b52635ee651d2fffe859.pdf,,http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles/Pashler%20Rohrer%20Harris_JESP2013.pdf,,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,140
money priming (instruction background),Caruso et al. (2013) Study 4,Rohrer et al. (2015) Study 4,48,d,.69,.58,116,d,.13,.37,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to money vs. control (instruction background),Fair Market Ideology scale,very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Caruso%20Vohs%20et%20al%202013%20JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0029288,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f0a7/3c08049f86b20d83b52635ee651d2fffe859.pdf,,http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles/Pashler%20Rohrer%20Harris_JESP2013.pdf,,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,141
money priming (scrambled sentence),Vohs et al. (2006) Study 3,Grenier et al. (2012),39,d,.65,.65,40,d,.07,.62,no signal - consistent,exposure to money vs. control (scrambled sentence),helping others (coding sheets for RA),close,individual effort,,,,,collections/money-priming.html,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/money-priming/vohs%20et%20al%20(2006%2C%20science)The%20Psychological%20Consequences%20of%20Money.pdf,10.1126/science.1132491,https://web.archive.org/web/20170107095344/http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/files/8661358527290Vohs%20-%20Final%20report_Grenier%2012.pdf,,https://web.archive.org/web/20170107095344/http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/files/8661358527290Vohs%20-%20Final%20report_Grenier%2012.pdf,,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,142
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Bernstein (2014,abington)",66,d,.50,.50,83,d,.07,.44,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #37,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,yes,yes,143
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Pilati (2014,brasilia)",66,d,.50,.50,120,d,.00,.36,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),close,ML1 #38,non-US sample,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,yes,yes,144
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Vranka (2014,Charles)",66,d,.50,.50,84,d,-.03,.43,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),close,ML1 #39,non-US sample,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,yes,yes,145
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Nier (2014,Conncoll)",66,d,.50,.50,94,d,-.45,.42,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #40,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,yes,yes,146
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",66,d,.50,.50,94,d,-.07,.41,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #41,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,yes,yes,147
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Cheong (2014,Help)",66,d,.50,.50,102,d,-.11,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),close,ML1 #42,non-US sample,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,yes,yes,148
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",66,d,.50,.50,89,d,-.17,.42,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #43,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,yes,yes,149
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Kurtz (2014,JMU)",66,d,.50,.50,172,d,.04,.30,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #44,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,yes,yes,150
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",66,d,.50,.50,110,d,.14,.38,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),close,ML1 #45,non-US sample,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,yes,yes,151
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Packard (2014,Laurier)",66,d,.50,.50,111,d,.04,.38,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),close,ML1 #46,non-US sample,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,yes,yes,152
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Kappes (2014,LSE)",66,d,.50,.50,275,d,.04,.24,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),close,ML1 #47,non-US sample,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,yes,yes,153
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",66,d,.50,.50,145,d,.06,.32,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #48,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,yes,yes,154
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Morris (2014,McDaniel)",66,d,.50,.50,98,d,.09,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #49,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,yes,yes,155
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",66,d,.50,.50,85,d,.09,.43,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),close,ML1 #50,non-US sample,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,yes,yes,156
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",66,d,.50,.50,982,d,.09,.12,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #51,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,yes,yes,157
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Smith (2014,OSU)",66,d,.50,.50,97,d,.27,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #52,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,yes,yes,158
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Levitan (2014,Oxy)",66,d,.50,.50,121,d,-.01,.36,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #53,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,yes,yes,159
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",66,d,.50,.50,1320,d,.03,.11,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #54,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,yes,yes,160
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",66,d,.50,.50,91,d,.02,.42,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #55,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,yes,yes,161
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",66,d,.50,.50,99,d,-.22,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #56,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,yes,yes,162
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",66,d,.50,.50,85,d,.02,.43,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #57,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,yes,yes,163
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Devos (2014,SDSU)",66,d,.50,.50,160,d,-.11,.32,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #58,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,yes,yes,164
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",66,d,.50,.50,78,d,.19,.45,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),close,ML1 #59,non-US sample,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,yes,yes,165
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",66,d,.50,.50,169,d,-.22,.30,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),close,ML1 #60,non-US sample,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,yes,yes,166
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",66,d,.50,.50,182,d,-.27,.30,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #61,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,yes,yes,167
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",66,d,.50,.50,86,d,.27,.43,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #62,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,yes,yes,168
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",66,d,.50,.50,218,d,-.03,.27,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #63,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,yes,yes,169
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",66,d,.50,.50,79,d,.21,.44,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),close,ML1 #64,non-US sample,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,yes,yes,170
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",66,d,.50,.50,126,d,-.11,.36,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #65,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,yes,yes,171
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",66,d,.50,.50,142,d,.49,.34,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),close,ML1 #66,non-US sample,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,yes,yes,172
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",66,d,.50,.50,80,d,-.15,.44,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #67,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,yes,yes,173
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",66,d,.50,.50,105,d,-.07,.39,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #68,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,yes,yes,174
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Swol (2014,Wisc)",66,d,.50,.50,95,d,-.03,.41,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #69,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,yes,yes,175
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Wichman (2014,WKU)",66,d,.50,.50,99,d,.11,.40,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #70,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,yes,yes,176
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","Woodzicka (2014,WL)",66,d,.50,.50,89,d,-.09,.42,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #71,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,yes,yes,177
flag priming,"Carter, Ferguson, & Hassin (2011) Study 2","John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",66,d,.50,.50,86,d,.08,.43,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to US flag vs. control (photos),political views (8-issues),very close,ML1 #72,,,,,,http://travisjcarter.org/Files/Carter-etal-Long%20Term%20Flag%20Prime-PS-2011.pdf,10.1177/0956797611414726,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,yes,yes,178
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Bernstein (2014,abington)",33,d,.86,.74,84,d,.11,.44,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #73,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,yes,179
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Pilati (2014,brasilia)",33,d,.86,.74,120,d,.08,.36,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #74,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,180
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Vranka (2014,Charles)",33,d,.86,.74,84,d,-.01,.43,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #75,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,yes,181
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Nier (2014,Conncoll)",33,d,.86,.74,95,d,.21,.41,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #76,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,yes,182
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",33,d,.86,.74,96,d,.03,.40,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #77,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,183
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Cheong (2014,Help)",33,d,.86,.74,102,d,-.22,.39,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #78,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,184
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",33,d,.86,.74,90,d,.68,.43,signal - consistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #79,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,185
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Kurtz (2014,JMU)",33,d,.86,.74,174,d,.18,.30,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #80,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,186
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",33,d,.86,.74,113,d,-.16,.38,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #81,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,187
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Packard (2014,Laurier)",33,d,.86,.74,112,d,.02,.38,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #82,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,188
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Kappes (2014,LSE)",33,d,.86,.74,277,d,.18,.24,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #83,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,189
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",33,d,.86,.74,146,d,.15,.33,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #84,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,190
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Morris (2014,McDaniel)",33,d,.86,.74,98,d,.19,.40,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #85,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,191
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",33,d,.86,.74,85,d,.33,.44,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #86,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,yes,192
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",33,d,.86,.74,1000,d,.26,.12,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #87,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,193
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Smith (2014,OSU)",33,d,.86,.74,107,d,-.11,.38,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #88,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,194
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Levitan (2014,Oxy)",33,d,.86,.74,122,d,.29,.36,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #89,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,195
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",33,d,.86,.74,1328,d,.15,.11,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #90,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,196
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",33,d,.86,.74,95,d,.29,.41,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #91,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,197
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",33,d,.86,.74,101,d,-.29,.40,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #92,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,yes,198
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",33,d,.86,.74,85,d,.32,.44,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #93,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,yes,199
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Devos (2014,SDSU)",33,d,.86,.74,162,d,.30,.31,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #94,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,200
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",33,d,.86,.74,79,d,.35,.46,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #95,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,yes,201
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",33,d,.86,.74,168,d,.09,.30,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #96,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,202
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",33,d,.86,.74,187,d,-.09,.29,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #97,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,203
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",33,d,.86,.74,87,d,-.11,.43,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #98,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,yes,204
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",33,d,.86,.74,225,d,.31,.26,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #99,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,205
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",33,d,.86,.74,80,d,-.52,.45,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #100,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,yes,206
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",33,d,.86,.74,127,d,.12,.35,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #101,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,yes,207
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",33,d,.86,.74,143,d,.17,.33,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #102,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,,yes,208
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",33,d,.86,.74,81,d,.04,.44,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #103,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,,yes,209
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",33,d,.86,.74,107,d,.00,.38,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #104,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,yes,210
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Swol (2014,Wisc)",33,d,.86,.74,96,d,.08,.40,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #105,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,,yes,211
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Wichman (2014,WKU)",33,d,.86,.74,103,d,-.21,.40,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #106,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,,yes,212
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"Woodzicka (2014,WL)",33,d,.86,.74,90,d,.03,.42,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #107,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,,yes,213
imagined contact effect,Husnu & Crisp (2010) Study 1,"John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",33,d,.86,.74,87,d,.14,.43,no signal - inconsistent,imagined contact (Muslim) vs. control,willingness to interact with Muslim (4-items),close,ML1 #108,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110001307,10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,,yes,214
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Bernstein (2014,abington)",115,d,.23,.25,84,d,.54,.44,signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #109,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,215
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Pilati (2014,brasilia)",115,d,.23,.25,120,d,.24,.36,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #110,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,216
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Vranka (2014,Charles)",115,d,.23,.25,84,d,.46,.44,signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #111,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,217
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Nier (2014,Conncoll)",115,d,.23,.25,95,d,.41,.42,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #112,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,218
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",115,d,.23,.25,96,d,.53,.42,signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #113,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,no,219
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Cheong (2014,Help)",115,d,.23,.25,102,d,-.06,.39,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #114,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,220
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",115,d,.23,.25,90,d,.23,.42,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #115,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,no,221
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Kurtz (2014,JMU)",115,d,.23,.25,174,d,.57,.30,signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #116,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,222
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",115,d,.23,.25,113,d,.49,.38,signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #117,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,223
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Packard (2014,Laurier)",115,d,.23,.25,112,d,.45,.38,signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #118,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,224
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Kappes (2014,LSE)",115,d,.23,.25,276,d,.41,.24,signal - consistent,sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #119,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,225
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",115,d,.23,.25,146,d,.27,.33,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #120,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,226
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Morris (2014,McDaniel)",115,d,.23,.25,97,d,.15,.40,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #121,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,no,227
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",115,d,.23,.25,85,d,.33,.44,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #122,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,no,228
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",115,d,.23,.25,999,d,.31,.12,signal - consistent,sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #123,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,229
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Smith (2014,OSU)",115,d,.23,.25,107,d,.45,.39,signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #124,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,230
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Levitan (2014,Oxy)",115,d,.23,.25,122,d,.68,.37,signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #125,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,231
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",115,d,.23,.25,1323,d,.18,.10,signal - consistent,sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #126,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,232
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",115,d,.23,.25,95,d,.15,.41,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #127,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,no,233
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",115,d,.23,.25,102,d,-.08,.39,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #128,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,yes,234
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",115,d,.23,.25,86,d,.14,.43,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #129,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,no,235
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Devos (2014,SDSU)",115,d,.23,.25,162,d,.28,.32,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #130,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,236
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",115,d,.23,.25,79,d,-.07,.45,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #131,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,no,237
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",115,d,.23,.25,168,d,.12,.30,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #132,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,238
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",115,d,.23,.25,187,d,.35,.29,signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #133,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,239
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",115,d,.23,.25,87,d,.38,.43,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #134,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,no,240
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",115,d,.23,.25,225,d,.32,.26,signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #135,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,241
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",115,d,.23,.25,80,d,.50,.45,signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #136,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,no,242
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",115,d,.23,.25,127,d,.15,.35,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #137,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,yes,243
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",115,d,.23,.25,144,d,.46,.33,signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #138,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,,yes,244
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",115,d,.23,.25,81,d,.43,.44,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #139,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,,no,245
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",115,d,.23,.25,108,d,.33,.38,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #140,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,yes,246
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Swol (2014,Wisc)",115,d,.23,.25,96,d,.13,.40,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #141,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,,no,247
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Wichman (2014,WKU)",115,d,.23,.25,102,d,.05,.40,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #142,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,,no,248
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"Woodzicka (2014,WL)",115,d,.23,.25,89,d,.26,.43,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #143,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,,no,249
sunk cost effect (paid vs. free football ticket),Oppenheimer et al. (2009 ) Study 1,"John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",115,d,.23,.25,87,d,.42,.43,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sunk cost vs. control (paid vs. free football ticket),likelihood of attending rainy football game,very close,ML1 #144,,,,,,http://peoplescience.org/sites/default/files/OppenheimerMeyvisDavidenko.2009.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,,no,250
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Bernstein (2014,abington)",,d,.16,,84,d,.12,.44,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #145,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,251
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Pilati (2014,brasilia)",,d,.16,,120,d,.33,.36,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #146,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,252
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Vranka (2014,Charles)",,d,.16,,84,d,.36,.44,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #147,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,253
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Nier (2014,Conncoll)",,d,.16,,95,d,.11,.40,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #148,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,yes,254
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",,d,.16,,96,d,.12,.40,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #149,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,255
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Cheong (2014,Help)",,d,.16,,102,d,.14,.40,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #150,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,256
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",,d,.16,,90,d,.07,.42,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #151,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,no,257
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Kurtz (2014,JMU)",,d,.16,,174,d,.42,.30,signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #152,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,258
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",,d,.16,,113,d,-.07,.38,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #153,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,259
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Packard (2014,Laurier)",,d,.16,,112,d,.30,.38,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #154,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,260
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Kappes (2014,LSE)",,d,.16,,277,d,.20,.24,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #155,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,261
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",,d,.16,,146,d,.31,.33,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #156,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,262
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Morris (2014,McDaniel)",,d,.16,,98,d,.67,.42,"signal - inconsistent, larger",question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #157,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,no,263
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",,d,.16,,85,d,.19,.44,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #158,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,no,264
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",,d,.16,,1000,d,.46,.12,"signal - inconsistent, larger",question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #159,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,265
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Smith (2014,OSU)",,d,.16,,107,d,.66,.40,"signal - inconsistent, larger",question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #160,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,266
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Levitan (2014,Oxy)",,d,.16,,123,d,.14,.36,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #161,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,267
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",,d,.16,,1329,d,.22,.11,signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #162,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,268
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",,d,.16,,95,d,.64,.42,"signal - inconsistent, larger",question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #163,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,no,269
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",,d,.16,,103,d,.29,.39,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #164,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,yes,270
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",,d,.16,,86,d,-.10,.43,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #165,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,no,271
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Devos (2014,SDSU)",,d,.16,,162,d,.45,.32,signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #166,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,272
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",,d,.16,,79,d,.32,.45,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #167,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,no,273
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",,d,.16,,169,d,.27,.30,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #168,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,274
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",,d,.16,,187,d,.58,.29,"signal - inconsistent, larger",question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #169,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,275
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",,d,.16,,87,d,.11,.43,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #170,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,no,276
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",,d,.16,,225,d,.30,.26,signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #171,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,277
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",,d,.16,,80,d,.40,.45,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #172,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,no,278
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",,d,.16,,127,d,.25,.36,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #173,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,yes,279
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",,d,.16,,144,d,.01,.33,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #174,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,,yes,280
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",,d,.16,,81,d,.27,.44,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #175,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,,no,281
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",,d,.16,,108,d,.56,.39,"signal - inconsistent, larger",question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #176,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,yes,282
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Swol (2014,Wisc)",,d,.16,,96,d,.07,.40,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #177,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,,yes,283
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Wichman (2014,WKU)",,d,.16,,103,d,.50,.40,signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #178,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,,yes,284
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"Woodzicka (2014,WL)",,d,.16,,90,d,.04,.42,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #179,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,,no,285
reciprocity norm effect,Hyman & Sheatsley (1950),"John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",,d,.16,,87,d,.13,.43,no signal - consistent,question order (allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US first vs. vica versa),allow US/N. Korean reporter into N. Korea/US (2 binary choices),close,ML1 #180,,,,,,,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1950,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,,no,286
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Bernstein (2014,abington)",,d,NR,,84,d,.22,.44,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #181,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,287
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Pilati (2014,brasilia)",,d,NR,,119,d,.18,.36,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #182,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,288
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Vranka (2014,Charles)",,d,NR,,84,d,.29,.44,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #183,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,289
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Nier (2014,Conncoll)",,d,NR,,94,d,.14,.41,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #184,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,yes,290
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",,d,NR,,96,d,.79,.42,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #185,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,291
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Cheong (2014,Help)",,d,NR,,102,d,.19,.39,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #186,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,292
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",,d,NR,,90,d,.53,.42,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #187,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,293
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Kurtz (2014,JMU)",,d,NR,,174,d,.68,.30,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #188,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,294
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",,d,NR,,113,d,-.09,.37,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #189,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,295
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Packard (2014,Laurier)",,d,NR,,112,d,.29,.38,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #190,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,296
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Kappes (2014,LSE)",,d,NR,,277,d,.38,.24,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #191,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,297
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",,d,NR,,146,d,.41,.33,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #192,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,298
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Morris (2014,McDaniel)",,d,NR,,98,d,.09,.40,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #193,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,299
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",,d,NR,,84,d,-.03,.44,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #194,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,no,300
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",,d,NR,,999,d,.44,.12,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #195,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,301
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Smith (2014,OSU)",,d,NR,,107,d,.27,.38,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #196,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,302
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Levitan (2014,Oxy)",,d,NR,,122,d,.17,.36,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #197,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,303
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",,d,NR,,1322,d,.27,.10,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #198,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,304
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",,d,NR,,95,d,.43,.41,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #199,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,305
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",,d,NR,,101,d,.94,.42,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #200,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,yes,306
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",,d,NR,,85,d,.40,.44,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #201,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,no,307
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Devos (2014,SDSU)",,d,NR,,162,d,.41,.32,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #202,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,308
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",,d,NR,,79,d,-.01,.45,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #203,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,no,309
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",,d,NR,,167,d,.31,.31,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #204,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,310
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",,d,NR,,186,d,.34,.30,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #205,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,311
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",,d,NR,,87,d,.52,.44,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #206,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,no,312
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",,d,NR,,224,d,.38,.27,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #207,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,313
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",,d,NR,,80,d,.55,.45,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #208,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,no,314
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",,d,NR,,127,d,.50,.36,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #209,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,yes,315
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",,d,NR,,144,d,-.26,.33,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #210,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,,yes,316
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",,d,NR,,81,d,.16,.44,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #211,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,,no,317
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",,d,NR,,108,d,.31,.38,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #212,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,yes,318
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Swol (2014,Wisc)",,d,NR,,96,d,.22,.41,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #213,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,,yes,319
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Wichman (2014,WKU)",,d,NR,,103,d,.65,.40,signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #214,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,,yes,320
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"Woodzicka (2014,WL)",,d,NR,,90,d,-.36,.42,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #215,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,,yes,321
quote attribution (on attitudes) effect,Lorge & Curtiss (1936 ),"John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",,d,NR,,87,d,.23,.43,no signal,liked (G. Washington) vs. disliked (O. Bin Laden) individual,agreement with political quote,close,ML1 #216,,,,,,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891?journalCode=vsoc20,10.1080/00224545.1936.9919891,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1936,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,,no,322
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Bernstein (2014,abington)",132,d,.50,,84,d,.29,.44,no signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #217,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,323
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Pilati (2014,brasilia)",132,d,.50,,120,d,.96,.38,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #218,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,324
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Vranka (2014,Charles)",132,d,.50,,84,d,.54,.44,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #219,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,325
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Nier (2014,Conncoll)",132,d,.50,,95,d,.44,.41,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #220,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,yes,326
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",132,d,.50,,96,d,.54,.42,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #221,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,no,327
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Cheong (2014,Help)",132,d,.50,,102,d,.45,.40,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #222,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,328
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",132,d,.50,,90,d,.39,.42,no signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #223,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,no,329
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Kurtz (2014,JMU)",132,d,.50,,174,d,.44,.30,signal - consistent,low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #224,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,330
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",132,d,.50,,113,d,-.16,.38,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #225,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,331
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Packard (2014,Laurier)",132,d,.50,,112,d,.60,.38,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #226,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,332
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Kappes (2014,LSE)",132,d,.50,,277,d,.52,.24,signal - consistent,low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #227,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,333
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",132,d,.50,,146,d,.55,.33,signal - consistent,low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #228,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,334
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Morris (2014,McDaniel)",132,d,.50,,98,d,.63,.41,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #229,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,335
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",132,d,.50,,85,d,.47,.44,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #230,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,no,336
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",132,d,.50,,1000,d,.51,.13,signal - consistent,low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #231,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,337
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Smith (2014,OSU)",132,d,.50,,107,d,.43,.39,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #232,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,338
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Levitan (2014,Oxy)",132,d,.50,,123,d,.42,.36,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #233,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,339
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",132,d,.50,,1329,d,.48,.11,signal - consistent,low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #234,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,340
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",132,d,.50,,95,d,.42,.41,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #235,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,341
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",132,d,.50,,103,d,.61,.40,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #236,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,yes,342
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",132,d,.50,,86,d,.58,.44,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #237,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,no,343
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Devos (2014,SDSU)",132,d,.50,,162,d,.68,.32,signal - consistent,low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #238,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,344
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",132,d,.50,,79,d,.99,.48,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #239,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,no,345
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",132,d,.50,,169,d,.31,.30,signal - consistent,low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #240,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,346
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",132,d,.50,,187,d,.35,.30,signal - consistent,low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #241,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,347
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",132,d,.50,,87,d,.86,.45,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #242,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,no,348
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",132,d,.50,,225,d,.37,.26,signal - consistent,low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #243,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,349
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",132,d,.50,,80,d,.84,.46,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #244,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,no,350
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",132,d,.50,,127,d,.67,.36,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #245,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,yes,351
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",132,d,.50,,144,d,.72,.34,signal - consistent,low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #246,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,,yes,352
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",132,d,.50,,81,d,.27,.44,no signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #247,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,,no,353
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",132,d,.50,,108,d,.56,.39,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #248,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,yes,354
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Swol (2014,Wisc)",132,d,.50,,96,d,.41,.41,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #249,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,,yes,355
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Wichman (2014,WKU)",132,d,.50,,103,d,.74,.40,signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #250,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,,yes,356
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","Woodzicka (2014,WL)",132,d,.50,,90,d,.23,.42,no signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #251,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,,no,357
scale options anchoring effect,"Schwarz, Strack et al. (1985) Study 1","John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",132,d,.50,,87,d,.32,.43,no signal - consistent (imprecise),low vs. high category scales,self-reported TV watching,very close,ML1 #252,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/282f/cedfb267c6761902044c8ece9bd744c7b6bd.pdf,10.1086/268936,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1985,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,,no,358
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Bernstein (2014,abington)",91,d,1.01,,77,d,.74,.47,signal - consistent (imprecise),sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #253,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,359
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Pilati (2014,brasilia)",91,d,1.01,,113,d,.36,.38,no signal - inconsistent,sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #254,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,360
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Vranka (2014,Charles)",91,d,1.01,,80,d,.82,.46,signal - consistent (imprecise),sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #255,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,361
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Nier (2014,Conncoll)",91,d,1.01,,86,d,.46,.44,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #256,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,362
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",91,d,1.01,,88,d,.01,.42,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #257,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,no,363
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Cheong (2014,Help)",91,d,1.01,,97,d,.17,.40,no signal - inconsistent,sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #258,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,364
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",91,d,1.01,,88,d,.47,.43,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #259,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,no,365
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Kurtz (2014,JMU)",91,d,1.01,,167,d,.64,.31,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #260,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,366
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",91,d,1.01,,105,d,.84,.40,signal - consistent,sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #261,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,367
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Packard (2014,Laurier)",91,d,1.01,,108,d,.97,.40,signal - consistent,sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #262,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,368
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Kappes (2014,LSE)",91,d,1.01,,267,d,.74,.25,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #263,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,369
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",91,d,1.01,,141,d,.59,.34,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #264,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,370
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Morris (2014,McDaniel)",91,d,1.01,,91,d,.53,.42,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #265,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,371
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",91,d,1.01,,61,d,.28,.52,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #266,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,no,372
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",91,d,1.01,,894,d,.55,.14,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #267,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,373
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Smith (2014,OSU)",91,d,1.01,,90,d,.58,.42,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #268,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,374
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Levitan (2014,Oxy)",91,d,1.01,,117,d,.55,.37,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #269,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,375
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",91,d,1.01,,1236,d,.60,.12,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #270,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,376
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",91,d,1.01,,89,d,.42,.42,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #271,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,no,377
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",91,d,1.01,,93,d,.25,.42,no signal - inconsistent,sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #272,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,yes,378
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",91,d,1.01,,8,d,.70,1.79,no signal - consistent (imprecise),sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #273,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,no,379
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Devos (2014,SDSU)",91,d,1.01,,155,d,.39,.32,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #274,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,380
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",91,d,1.01,,76,d,.39,.46,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #275,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,no,381
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",91,d,1.01,,165,d,.55,.32,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #276,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,382
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",91,d,1.01,,179,d,.37,.30,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #277,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,383
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",91,d,1.01,,84,d,.51,.44,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #278,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,no,384
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",91,d,1.01,,208,d,.10,.28,no signal - inconsistent,sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #279,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,385
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",91,d,1.01,,78,d,.09,.45,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #280,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,no,386
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",91,d,1.01,,125,d,.61,.36,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #281,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,yes,387
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",91,d,1.01,,134,d,.72,.35,signal - consistent,sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #282,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,,yes,388
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",91,d,1.01,,81,d,1.04,.47,signal - consistent (imprecise),sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #283,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,,no,389
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",91,d,1.01,,101,d,.65,.40,signal - consistent,sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #284,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,yes,390
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Swol (2014,Wisc)",91,d,1.01,,91,d,.64,.43,signal - consistent,sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #285,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,,yes,391
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Wichman (2014,WKU)",91,d,1.01,,95,d,.30,.41,no signal - inconsistent,sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #286,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,,yes,392
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Woodzicka (2014,WL)",91,d,1.01,,90,d,.07,.42,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #287,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,,no,393
sex difference in implicit math attitudes,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",91,d,1.01,,84,d,.53,.44,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",sex (male vs. female),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),very close,ML1 #288,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,,no,394
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Bernstein (2014,abington)",307,d,1.20,.26,84,d,.55,.44,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #289,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,395
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Pilati (2014,brasilia)",307,d,1.20,.26,120,d,.53,.37,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #290,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,396
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Vranka (2014,Charles)",307,d,1.20,.26,84,d,.10,.44,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #291,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,397
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Nier (2014,Conncoll)",307,d,1.20,.26,95,d,.86,.43,signal - consistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #292,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,398
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",307,d,1.20,.26,96,d,.56,.41,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #293,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,no,399
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Cheong (2014,Help)",307,d,1.20,.26,102,d,.59,.40,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #294,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,no,400
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",307,d,1.20,.26,90,d,.72,.43,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #295,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,no,401
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Kurtz (2014,JMU)",307,d,1.20,.26,174,d,.74,.31,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #296,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,402
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",307,d,1.20,.26,113,d,.56,.38,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #297,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,403
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Packard (2014,Laurier)",307,d,1.20,.26,112,d,.82,.39,signal - consistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #298,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,404
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Kappes (2014,LSE)",307,d,1.20,.26,277,d,.73,.24,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #299,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,405
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",307,d,1.20,.26,146,d,.72,.34,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #300,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,406
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Morris (2014,McDaniel)",307,d,1.20,.26,98,d,.31,.40,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #301,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,no,407
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",307,d,1.20,.26,85,d,.54,.44,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #302,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,no,408
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",307,d,1.20,.26,1000,d,.62,.13,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #303,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,409
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Smith (2014,OSU)",307,d,1.20,.26,107,d,.67,.39,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #304,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,410
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Levitan (2014,Oxy)",307,d,1.20,.26,123,d,.26,.36,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #305,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,411
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",307,d,1.20,.26,1329,d,.57,.11,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #306,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,412
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",307,d,1.20,.26,95,d,.63,.42,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #307,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,no,413
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",307,d,1.20,.26,103,d,.69,.40,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #308,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,no,414
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",307,d,1.20,.26,86,d,.30,.43,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #309,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,no,415
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Devos (2014,SDSU)",307,d,1.20,.26,162,d,.42,.32,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #310,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,416
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",307,d,1.20,.26,79,d,.57,.46,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #311,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,no,417
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",307,d,1.20,.26,169,d,.52,.31,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #312,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,418
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",307,d,1.20,.26,187,d,.55,.30,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #313,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,419
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",307,d,1.20,.26,87,d,.48,.43,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #314,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,no,420
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",307,d,1.20,.26,225,d,.49,.26,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #315,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,421
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",307,d,1.20,.26,80,d,1.03,.47,signal - consistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #316,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,no,422
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",307,d,1.20,.26,127,d,1.17,.38,signal - consistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #317,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,yes,423
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",307,d,1.20,.26,144,d,.86,.34,signal - consistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #318,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,,yes,424
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",307,d,1.20,.26,81,d,.82,.46,signal - consistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #319,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,,no,425
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",307,d,1.20,.26,108,d,.32,.38,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #320,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,yes,426
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Swol (2014,Wisc)",307,d,1.20,.26,96,d,1.09,.44,signal - consistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #321,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,,no,427
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Wichman (2014,WKU)",307,d,1.20,.26,103,d,.70,.40,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #322,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,,no,428
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"Woodzicka (2014,WL)",307,d,1.20,.26,90,d,.49,.43,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #323,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,,no,429
gain versus loss framing (unusual disease),Tversky & Kahneman (1981) Study 1,"John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",307,d,1.20,.26,87,d,.67,.44,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",gain (saved) vs. loss (will die) framing,% Ps choosing risky choice (binary choice),close,ML1 #324,,,,,,https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/cognition/papers/tversky81.pdf,10.1126/science.7455683,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1981,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,,no,430
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Bernstein (2014,abington)",59,d,.69,.54,80,d,.60,.46,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #325,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,yes,431
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Pilati (2014,brasilia)",59,d,.69,.54,114,d,.36,.38,no signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #326,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,432
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Vranka (2014,Charles)",59,d,.69,.54,72,d,.87,.49,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #327,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,yes,433
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Nier (2014,Conncoll)",59,d,.69,.54,83,d,.62,.45,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #328,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,yes,434
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",59,d,.69,.54,92,d,.51,.42,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #329,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,435
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Cheong (2014,Help)",59,d,.69,.54,96,d,.52,.41,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #330,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,436
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",59,d,.69,.54,85,d,.77,.44,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #331,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,437
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Kurtz (2014,JMU)",59,d,.69,.54,164,d,.72,.32,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #332,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,438
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",59,d,.69,.54,104,d,.53,.40,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #333,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,439
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Packard (2014,Laurier)",59,d,.69,.54,106,d,.97,.40,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #334,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,440
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Kappes (2014,LSE)",59,d,.69,.54,255,d,.65,.26,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #335,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,441
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",59,d,.69,.54,142,d,.53,.34,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #336,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,442
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Morris (2014,McDaniel)",59,d,.69,.54,93,d,.50,.42,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #337,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,443
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",59,d,.69,.54,73,d,.34,.47,no signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #338,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,yes,444
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",59,d,.69,.54,981,d,.62,.13,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #339,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,445
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Smith (2014,OSU)",59,d,.69,.54,105,d,.11,.39,no signal - inconsistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #340,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,446
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Levitan (2014,Oxy)",59,d,.69,.54,102,d,1.16,.43,"signal - inconsistent, larger",three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #341,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,447
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",59,d,.69,.54,1204,d,.72,.12,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #342,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,448
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",59,d,.69,.54,93,d,.58,.42,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #343,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,449
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",59,d,.69,.54,93,d,.42,.42,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #344,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,yes,450
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",59,d,.69,.54,80,d,.34,.45,no signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #345,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,yes,451
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Devos (2014,SDSU)",59,d,.69,.54,159,d,.61,.32,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #346,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,452
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",59,d,.69,.54,78,d,.12,.45,no signal - inconsistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #347,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,yes,453
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",59,d,.69,.54,154,d,.59,.32,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #348,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,454
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",59,d,.69,.54,178,d,.74,.31,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #349,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,455
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",59,d,.69,.54,81,d,.74,.45,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #350,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,yes,456
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",59,d,.69,.54,214,d,.59,.28,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #351,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,457
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",59,d,.69,.54,74,d,.68,.48,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #352,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,yes,458
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",59,d,.69,.54,117,d,.38,.37,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #353,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,yes,459
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",59,d,.69,.54,126,d,.76,.37,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #354,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,,yes,460
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",59,d,.69,.54,77,d,1.12,.49,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #355,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,,yes,461
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",59,d,.69,.54,106,d,.72,.40,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #356,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,yes,462
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Swol (2014,Wisc)",59,d,.69,.54,94,d,.79,.42,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #357,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,,yes,463
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Wichman (2014,WKU)",59,d,.69,.54,97,d,.43,.41,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #358,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,,yes,464
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"Woodzicka (2014,WL)",59,d,.69,.54,86,d,.07,.43,no signal - inconsistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #359,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,,yes,465
retroactive gambler's fallacy effect,Oppenheimer & Monin (2009) Study 2a,"John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",59,d,.69,.54,84,d,.98,.46,signal - consistent,three 6s vs. two 6s & one 3 (rolling dice),# of (prior) times dice rolled (open-ended),very close,ML1 #360,,,,,,http://journal.sjdm.org/9609/jdm9609.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,,yes,466
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Bernstein (2014,abington)",91,d,.93,.44,84,d,.52,.45,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #361,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,467
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Pilati (2014,brasilia)",91,d,.93,.44,117,d,1.00,.41,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #362,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,468
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Vranka (2014,Charles)",91,d,.93,.44,84,d,.65,.46,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #363,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,469
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Nier (2014,Conncoll)",91,d,.93,.44,94,d,1.14,.48,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #364,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,470
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",91,d,.93,.44,95,d,.42,.42,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #365,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,471
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Cheong (2014,Help)",91,d,.93,.44,101,d,.63,.42,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #366,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,472
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",91,d,.93,.44,90,d,.87,.46,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #367,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,no,473
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Kurtz (2014,JMU)",91,d,.93,.44,172,d,1.14,.35,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #368,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,474
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",91,d,.93,.44,112,d,.65,.40,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #369,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,475
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Packard (2014,Laurier)",91,d,.93,.44,112,d,.80,.40,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #370,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,476
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Kappes (2014,LSE)",91,d,.93,.44,277,d,.84,.26,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #371,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,477
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",91,d,.93,.44,146,d,.99,.37,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #372,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,478
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Morris (2014,McDaniel)",91,d,.93,.44,95,d,.80,.44,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #373,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,479
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",91,d,.93,.44,68,d,.76,.52,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #374,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,no,480
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",91,d,.93,.44,973,d,.67,.13,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #375,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,481
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Smith (2014,OSU)",91,d,.93,.44,106,d,.53,.40,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #376,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,482
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Levitan (2014,Oxy)",91,d,.93,.44,120,d,.82,.39,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #377,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,483
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",91,d,.93,.44,1308,d,.71,.12,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #378,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,484
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",91,d,.93,.44,95,d,.98,.45,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #379,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,no,485
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",91,d,.93,.44,103,d,.85,.43,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #380,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,yes,486
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",91,d,.93,.44,20,d,.12,.97,no signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #381,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,no,487
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Devos (2014,SDSU)",91,d,.93,.44,162,d,.74,.33,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #382,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,488
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",91,d,.93,.44,79,d,.74,.48,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #383,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,no,489
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",91,d,.93,.44,167,d,.86,.33,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #384,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,490
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",91,d,.93,.44,187,d,.70,.30,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #385,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,491
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",91,d,.93,.44,87,d,.61,.45,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #386,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,no,492
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",91,d,.93,.44,222,d,.94,.30,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #387,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,493
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",91,d,.93,.44,80,d,.77,.48,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #388,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,no,494
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",91,d,.93,.44,127,d,1.47,.43,"signal - inconsistent, larger",implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #389,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,yes,495
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",91,d,.93,.44,140,d,1.13,.38,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #390,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,,yes,496
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",91,d,.93,.44,81,d,1.25,.52,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #391,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,,no,497
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",91,d,.93,.44,108,d,.98,.42,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #392,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,yes,498
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Swol (2014,Wisc)",91,d,.93,.44,94,d,1.15,.47,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #393,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,,no,499
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Wichman (2014,WKU)",91,d,.93,.44,102,d,.85,.43,signal - consistent,implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #394,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,,yes,500
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","Woodzicka (2014,WL)",91,d,.93,.44,90,d,.66,.45,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #395,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,,no,501
implicit-explicit math attitude correlation,"Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald (2002) Study 2","John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",91,d,.93,.44,86,d,.89,.47,signal - consistent (imprecise),implicit math attitudes (math vs. art IAT),explicit math attitudes (composite),close,ML1 #396,,,,,,http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec1-Banaji_Math-Not-Me.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,,no,502
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Bernstein (2014,abington)",156,d,.93,.33,75,d,2.90,.66,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #397,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,503
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Pilati (2014,brasilia)",156,d,.93,.33,58,d,2.34,.68,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #398,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,no,504
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Vranka (2014,Charles)",156,d,.93,.33,65,d,1.57,.56,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #399,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,505
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Nier (2014,Conncoll)",156,d,.93,.33,78,d,2.05,.56,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #400,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,506
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",156,d,.93,.33,86,d,2.50,.57,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #401,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,no,507
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Cheong (2014,Help)",156,d,.93,.33,82,d,2.78,.62,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #402,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,no,508
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",156,d,.93,.33,80,d,2.85,.63,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #403,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,no,509
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Kurtz (2014,JMU)",156,d,.93,.33,154,d,2.14,.40,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #404,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,510
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",156,d,.93,.33,74,d,2.00,.57,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #405,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,no,511
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Packard (2014,Laurier)",156,d,.93,.33,98,d,1.58,.46,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #406,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,512
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Kappes (2014,LSE)",156,d,.93,.33,223,d,1.90,.32,"signal - inconsistent, larger",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #407,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,513
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",156,d,.93,.33,122,d,1.70,.42,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #408,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,514
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Morris (2014,McDaniel)",156,d,.93,.33,84,d,1.79,.51,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #409,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,515
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",156,d,.93,.33,74,d,1.86,.56,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #410,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,no,516
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",156,d,.93,.33,872,d,1.68,.16,"signal - inconsistent, larger",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #411,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,517
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Smith (2014,OSU)",156,d,.93,.33,94,d,2.47,.54,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #412,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,no,518
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Levitan (2014,Oxy)",156,d,.93,.33,109,d,1.48,.42,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #413,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,519
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",156,d,.93,.33,1113,d,1.35,.13,"signal - inconsistent, larger",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #414,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,520
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",156,d,.93,.33,85,d,2.28,.55,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #415,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,no,521
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",156,d,.93,.33,84,d,1.98,.53,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #416,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,no,522
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",156,d,.93,.33,68,d,2.13,.60,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #417,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,no,523
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Devos (2014,SDSU)",156,d,.93,.33,150,d,2.05,.40,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #418,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,524
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",156,d,.93,.33,62,d,3.07,.75,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #419,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,no,525
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",156,d,.93,.33,126,d,1.81,.42,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #420,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,526
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",156,d,.93,.33,161,d,2.14,.39,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #421,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,527
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",156,d,.93,.33,72,d,2.47,.62,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #422,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,no,528
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",156,d,.93,.33,198,d,1.61,.32,"signal - inconsistent, larger",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #423,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,529
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",156,d,.93,.33,43,d,1.48,.70,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #424,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,no,530
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",156,d,.93,.33,118,d,2.59,.50,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #425,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,yes,531
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",156,d,.93,.33,77,d,1.38,.50,signal - consistent (imprecise),high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #426,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,,yes,532
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",156,d,.93,.33,75,d,2.11,.58,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #427,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,,no,533
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",156,d,.93,.33,100,d,2.02,.48,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #428,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,yes,534
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Swol (2014,Wisc)",156,d,.93,.33,88,d,1.96,.52,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #429,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,,yes,535
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Wichman (2014,WKU)",156,d,.93,.33,86,d,2.57,.58,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #430,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,,no,536
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"Woodzicka (2014,WL)",156,d,.93,.33,73,d,1.35,.52,signal - consistent (imprecise),high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #431,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,,yes,537
anchoring effect (population of Chicago),Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995),"John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",156,d,.93,.33,77,d,1.69,.53,"signal - inconsistent, larger (imprecise)",high vs. low anchor (population of Chicago),population estimate,very close,ML1 #432,,,"3 other anchoring DVs (babies, height of Everest, distance to NYC; similar results observed)",,,http://facweb.plattsburgh.edu/wendy.braje/students/psy205/JKarticle.pdf,10.1177/01461672952111004,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,cognitive,1995,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,,no,538
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Bernstein (2014,abington)",,d,.65,,84,d,1.92,.52,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #433,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,539
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Pilati (2014,brasilia)",,d,.65,,120,d,2.06,.45,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #434,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,no,540
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Vranka (2014,Charles)",,d,.65,,84,d,1.49,.49,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #435,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,541
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Nier (2014,Conncoll)",,d,.65,,95,d,2.30,.52,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #436,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,542
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Rutchick (2014,CSUN)",,d,.65,,96,d,1.54,.46,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #437,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,543
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Cheong (2014,Help)",,d,.65,,102,d,2.53,.53,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #438,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,no,544
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Vaughn (2014,Ithaca)",,d,.65,,90,d,1.51,.48,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #439,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,no,545
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Kurtz (2014,JMU)",,d,.65,,174,d,2.12,.38,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #440,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,546
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Cemalcilar (2014,KU)",,d,.65,,113,d,.07,.38,no signal - inconsistent,allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #441,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,547
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Packard (2014,Laurier)",,d,.65,,112,d,.94,.40,signal - consistent,allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #442,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,548
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Kappes (2014,LSE)",,d,.65,,277,d,1.69,.28,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #443,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,549
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Huntsinger & Mallett (2014,Luc)",,d,.65,,146,d,2.18,.42,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #444,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,550
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Morris (2014,McDaniel)",,d,.65,,98,d,2.21,.51,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #445,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,551
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Furrow & Thompson (2014,MSVU)",,d,.65,,85,d,1.91,.52,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #446,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,no,552
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Schmidt & Nosek (2014, MTURK)",,d,.65,,1000,d,2.44,.17,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #447,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,553
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Smith (2014,OSU)",,d,.65,,107,d,2.04,.47,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #448,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,no,554
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Levitan (2014,Oxy)",,d,.65,,123,d,4.27,.64,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #449,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,555
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,PI)",,d,.65,,1329,d,2.70,.15,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #450,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,556
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Adams & Nelson (2014,PSU)",,d,.65,,95,d,2.18,.52,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #451,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,no,557
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY) Study 1",,d,.65,,103,d,1.43,.44,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #452,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,no,558
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Brumbaugh & Storbeck (2014,QCCUNY2) Study 2",,d,.65,,86,d,1.59,.50,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #453,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,no,559
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Devos (2014,SDSU)",,d,.65,,162,d,2.43,.41,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #454,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,560
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPS) Study 1",,d,.65,,79,d,1.45,.50,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #455,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,no,561
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Bocian & Frankowska (2014,SWPSON) Study 2",,d,.65,,169,d,1.74,.36,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #456,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,562
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMU) Study 1",,d,.65,,187,d,1.48,.33,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #457,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,563
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Hunt & Krueger (2014,TAMUC)",,d,.65,,87,d,1.87,.52,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #458,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,no,564
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Davis & Hicks (2014,TAMUON) Study 2",,d,.65,,225,d,1.71,.31,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #459,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,565
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Brandt et al. (2014,Tilburg)",,d,.65,,80,d,1.22,.48,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #460,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,no,566
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Klein et al. (2014,UFL)",,d,.65,,127,d,2.29,.45,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #461,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,yes,567
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Vianello & Galliani (2014,UNIPD)",,d,.65,,144,d,.78,.34,signal - consistent,allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #462,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,,yes,568
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Schmidt & Nosek (2014,UVA)",,d,.65,,81,d,1.88,.53,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #463,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,,no,569
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Hovermale & Joy-Gaba (2014,VCU)",,d,.65,,108,d,1.58,.43,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #464,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,yes,570
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Swol (2014,Wisc)",,d,.65,,96,d,1.80,.48,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #465,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,,yes,571
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Wichman (2014,WKU)",,d,.65,,103,d,2.19,.50,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #466,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,34,,no,572
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"Woodzicka (2014,WL)",,d,.65,,90,d,2.35,.54,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #467,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,35,,yes,573
question phrasing effect,Rugg (1941),"John & Skorinko (2014,WPI)",,d,.65,,87,d,1.39,.48,"signal - inconsistent, larger",allowed vs. forbidden question framing,question endorsement (yes vs. no),close,ML1 #468,,,,,,https://web.archive.org/web/20160514100221/https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/suelima/labreport1/rugg1941.pdf,10.1086/265467,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178,https://osf.io/2gztr/,https://osf.io/xvpu3/,https://osf.io/pqf9r/,,,,,social,1941,,,,,,,,,,,,,,36,,no,574
primacy-of-warmth effect,Asch (1946) Study 1,"Nauts, Langner et al. (2014)",834,ES,NR,,1023,ES,?,,,warm vs. cold (warmth words) available in trait list,warmth vs. competence related personality judgements,close*,SP: Special Issue #1,mTurk (with no age restrictions) rather than student participants ,,,,,http://www.romolocapuano.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Asch-Forming-Impressions-Of-Personality.pdf,10.1037/h0055756,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000179,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/w2D4N/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/r6idy/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/r6idy/,,,,,social,1946,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,yes,575
deviation-rejection effect (sociometric test DV),Schachter (1951),"Wesselmann, Williams et al. (2014)",,d,1.84,,80,d,.39,,"signal - inconsistent, smaller","deviate vs. slider vs. mode (confederate behavior); time (5, 10, 15, 35, 40, 45 minutes from the beginning)",sociometric test,close,SP: Special Issue #2,"""Schachter (1951) reported only basic instructions given to each confederate. We developed confederate scripts based upon these instructions. Representative arguments were taken from Schachter’s reenactment in the documentary The Social Animal (Mayer & Norris, 1970) and other relevant topics (e.g., news or media events, book, or film examples).""",,"2 other DVs (communication, committee nomination; pattern of results inconsistent with original)",,,http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1951-08043-001,10.1037/h0062326,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000180,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/4yPsJ/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/s92i4/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/s92i4/,,,,,social,1951,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,576
Romeo & Juliet Effect (on love),Driscoll et al. (1972),"Sinclair, Hood, & Wright (2014)",,r,.34,.32,396,r,-.05,.10,no signal - inconsistent,increases in parental vs. friend interference,love (4 items); commitment to marrige (1 item),close*,SP: Special Issue #3,mTurk (with no age restrictions) rather than student participants ,"Parental interference negatively associated with partner trust, r = -.18, p < .001","2 other DVs (commitment, trust; also inconsistent with originally observed pattern of results)",,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/c5a7c68dac7ea9d99d43ed2605d0da62c4ba45f3/curated/driscoll-et-al(1972).pdf,10.1037/h0033373,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000181,http://www.openscienceframework.org/bQpy4/,https://osf.io/6wxgf/,https://osf.io/6wxgf/,,,,,social,1972,,Increases in parental interference positively associated with increases in love over time,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,yes,577
single-exposure musical conditioning effect,Gorn (1982) Study 1,"Vermeulen, Batenburg et al. (2014) Study 1",195,OR,7.69,"[4.26,13.86]",143,OR,1.25,"[.69,2.29]",no signal - inconsistent,liked vs. disliked music (playing while pen advertised),pen choice (advertised vs. non-advertised; binary choice),very close,SP: Special Issue #4,,,,OR = odds ratio (likelihood of choosing advertised vs. non-advertised pen),,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251163?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents,10.2307/1251163,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000182,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/Z6e8J/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/ietwv/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/ietwv/,,,,,social,1982,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,yes,578
single-exposure musical conditioning effect,Gorn (1982) Study 1,"Vermeulen, Batenburg et al. (2014) Study 2",195,OR,7.69,"[4.26,13.86]",160,OR,1.41,"[.8,2.5]",no signal - inconsistent,liked vs. disliked music (playing while pen advertised),pen choice (advertised vs. non-advertised; binary choice),very close,SP: Special Issue #5,,,,OR = odds ratio (likelihood of choosing advertised vs. non-advertised pen),,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251163?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents,10.2307/1251163,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000182,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/Z6e8J/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/ietwv/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/ietwv/,,,,,social,1982,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,579
single-exposure musical conditioning effect,Gorn (1982) Study 1,"Vermeulen, Batenburg et al. (2014) Study 3",195,OR,7.69,"[4.26,13.86]",72,OR,3.77,"[1.51,9.4]",signal - consistent,liked vs. disliked music (playing while pen advertised),pen choice (advertised vs. non-advertised; binary choice),close,SP: Special Issue #6,updated (modern) music rather than original music,,,OR = odds ratio (likelihood of choosing advertised vs. non-advertised pen),,https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251163?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents,10.2307/1251163,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000182,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/Z6e8J/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/ietwv/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/ietwv/,,,,,social,1982,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,580
automatic stereotype activation effect (response priming),Banaji & Hardin (1996) Study 1,Muller & Rothermund (2014),73,d,.45,.23,294,d,.51,.11,signal - consistent,male vs. female related primes (words); matching vs. not-matching target word,"gender categorization speed (male vs. female, binary)",close,SP: Special Issue #7,excluded control or nonword primes; a new set of prime and target stimuli,,additional semantic priming outcome (to rule out response priming alternative explanation); original pattern of results not replicated,,,http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~mrbworks/articles/1996_PsySci.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00346.x,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000183,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/82Qrv/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/tv8ai/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/tv8ai/,,,,,social,1996,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,581
stereotype susceptibility effect,"Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady (1999) Study 1","Gibson, Losee, & Vitiello (2014)",46,d,.73,.76,158,d,.27,.38,no signal - inconsistent,identity salience (Asian vs. control vs. female; answered questions about identity),math performance (12-questions; accuracy DV),very close,SP: Special Issue #8,,,,,,http://homepages.se.edu/cvonbergen/files/2013/01/Stereotype-Suscetability_Identity-Salience-and-Shifts-in-Quantitative-Performance.pdf,10.1111/1467-9280.00111,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000184,https://osf.io/jq54i/,https://osf.io/e69y4/,https://osf.io/eiuq6/,,,,,social,1999,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,582
stereotype susceptibility effect,"Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady (1999) Study 1",Moon & Roeder (2014),46,d,.73,.76,139,d,.17,.42,no signal - inconsistent,identity salience (Asian vs. control vs. female; answered questions about identity),math performance (12-questions; accuracy DV),very close,SP: Special Issue #9,,,,,,http://homepages.se.edu/cvonbergen/files/2013/01/Stereotype-Suscetability_Identity-Salience-and-Shifts-in-Quantitative-Performance.pdf,10.1111/1467-9280.00111,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000193,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/wJjXz/,https://osf.io/b9pkj/,https://osf.io/b9pkj/,,,,,social,1999,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,583
infidelity distress sex difference effect,Buss et al. (1999) Study 2 (Young),IJzerman et al. (2014) Study 1 (Young),234,d,1.30,.28,87,d,1.11,.50,signal - consistent (imprecise),sex (male vs. female),distress to sexual vs. emotional infidelity (8 dilemmas; binary choice),close,SP: Special Issue #10,different number of items (6 vs. 8),,,,,http://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Buss-PR-1999.pdf,10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00215.x,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000185,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/HQvmc/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/nrbjz/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/nrbjz/,,,,,social,1999,,Men are more distressed by sexual (cf. emotional) infidelity whereas women are more distressed by emotional (cf. sexual) infidelity,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,584
infidelity distress sex difference effect,Buss et al. (1999) Study 2 (Young),IJzerman et al. (2014) Study 2 (Young),234,d,1.30,.28,199,d,.30,.28,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),distress to sexual vs. emotional infidelity (8 dilemmas; binary choice),close,SP: Special Issue #11,,,,,,http://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Buss-PR-1999.pdf,10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00215.x,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000185,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/HQvmc/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/nrbjz/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/nrbjz/,,,,,social,1999,,Men are more distressed by sexual (cf. emotional) infidelity whereas women are more distressed by emotional (cf. sexual) infidelity,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,585
infidelity distress sex difference effect,Buss et al. (1999) Study 2 (Young),IJzerman et al. (2014) Study 4 (Young),234,d,1.30,.28,1221,d,.50,.12,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",sex (male vs. female),distress to sexual vs. emotional infidelity (8 dilemmas; binary choice),close,SP: Special Issue #12,mTurk sample; young (18–30 year olds) subset of Study 4,,,,,http://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Buss-PR-1999.pdf,10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00215.x,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000185,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/HQvmc/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/nrbjz/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/nrbjz/,,,,,social,1999,,Men are more distressed by sexual (cf. emotional) infidelity whereas women are more distressed by emotional (cf. sexual) infidelity,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,586
infidelity distress sex difference effect,Shackelford et al. (2004) (Old),IJzerman et al. (2014) Study 3 (Old),202,d,.57,.28,143,d,-.09,.34,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),sex (male vs. female),distress to sexual vs. emotional infidelity (8 dilemmas; binary choice),close,SP: Special Issue #13,,,,,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.387.7314&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1007/s12110-004-1010-z,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000185,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/HQvmc/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/nrbjz/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/nrbjz/,,,,,social,2004,,Men are more distressed by sexual (cf. emotional) infidelity whereas women are more distressed by emotional (cf. sexual) infidelity,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,587
infidelity distress sex difference effect,Shackelford et al. (2004) (Old),IJzerman et al. (2014) Study 4 (Old),202,d,.57,.28,245,d,.05,.28,no signal - inconsistent,sex (male vs. female),distress to sexual vs. emotional infidelity (8 dilemmas; binary choice),close,SP: Special Issue #14,mTurk sample; old (50–70 year olds) subset of Study 4,,,,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.387.7314&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1007/s12110-004-1010-z,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000185,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/HQvmc/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/nrbjz/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/nrbjz/,,,,,social,2004,,Men are more distressed by sexual (cf. emotional) infidelity whereas women are more distressed by emotional (cf. sexual) infidelity,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,yes,588
cleanliness priming effect (scrambled sentence),Schnall et al. (2008a) Study 1,Johnson et al. (2014a) Study 1,40,d,-.59,.55,208,d,-.01,.27,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to cleanliness-related vs. control words (scrambled sentence task),moral wrongness (6 moral dilemmas),close,SP: Special Issue #15,7 vs. 9 point scale; US rather than UK undergraduates,,,,collections/cleanliness-priming.html,https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1335179.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000186,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/NeSt8/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/zwrxc/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/zwrxc/,https://osf.io/4cs3k/,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,yes,yes,589
cleanliness priming effect (scrambled sentence),Schnall et al. (2008a) Study 1,"Johnson et al. (2014b,online)",40,d,-.59,.55,736,d,.05,.14,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to cleanliness-related vs. control words (scrambled sentence task),moral wrongness (6 moral dilemmas),close,SP: Special Issue #16,7 vs. 9 point scale; online instead of lab setting; US rather than UK undergraduates,,,,collections/cleanliness-priming.html,https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1335179.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/schnalletal2008a/johnson%20et%20al%20(2014b).pdf,https://osf.io/jxad3/,,https://osf.io/rbeqk/,https://osf.io/4cs3k/,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,yes,yes,590
cleanliness priming effect (hand washing),Schnall et al. (2008a) Study 2,Johnson et al. (2014a) Study 2,43,d,-.84,.62,126,d,.02,.35,no signal - inconsistent,hand washing vs. control condition,moral wrongness (6 moral dilemmas),close,SP: Special Issue #17,7 vs. 9 point scale; US rather than UK undergraduates,α = .62 on private body consciousness (PBC) subscale,,,collections/cleanliness-priming.html,https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1335179.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000186,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/NeSt8/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/zwrxc/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/zwrxc/,https://osf.io/bmwcq/,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,yes,yes,591
cleanliness priming effect (scrambled sentence),Schnall et al. (2008a) Study 1,Besman et al. (2013),40,d,-.59,.55,60,d,-.44,.50,no signal - consistent,exposure to cleanliness-related vs. control words (scrambled sentence task),moral wrongness (6 moral dilemmas),close,individual effort,7 vs. 9 point scale; different words used in scrambled sentence task; US rather than UK undergraduates,,,,collections/cleanliness-priming.html,https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1335179.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x,https://web.archive.org/web/20171108173034/http://psychfiledrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTQ5,,,,https://osf.io/4cs3k/,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,592
cleanliness priming effect (scrambled sentence),Schnall et al. (2008a) Study 1,Arbesfeld et al. (2014),40,d,-.59,.55,60,d,-.47,.51,no signal - consistent,exposure to cleanliness-related vs. control words (scrambled sentence task),moral wrongness (6 moral dilemmas),close,individual effort,7 vs. 9 point scale; different words used in scrambled sentence task; US rather than UK undergraduates,,,,collections/cleanliness-priming.html,https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1335179.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x,https://web.archive.org/web/20170923100418/http://psychfiledrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTc3,,,,https://osf.io/4cs3k/,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,593
cleanliness priming effect (scrambled sentence),Schnall et al. (2008a) Study 1,Lee et al. (2013),40,d,-.59,.55,90,d,-.10,.41,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to cleanliness-related vs. control words (scrambled sentence task),moral wrongness (6 moral dilemmas),close,individual effort,7 vs. 9 point scale; study administered on computer instead of paper-and-pencil; US rather than UK undergraduates,,,,collections/cleanliness-priming.html,https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1335179.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x,https://docs.google.com/document/d/16J_-O7OfAgh5mt8DPACEj0pAZ_1I0OrPOSJgTJV28qw/edit,,,http://www.stanford.edu/~mcfrank/lee_data.csv,https://osf.io/4cs3k/,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,594
cleanliness priming effect (scrambled sentence),Schnall et al. (2008a) Study 1,"Huang (2014,online) Study 1",40,d,-.59,.55,189,d,-.20,.29,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to cleanliness-related vs. control words (scrambled sentence task),moral wrongness (6 moral dilemmas),close,individual effort,7 vs. 9 point scale; study administered on computer instead of paper-and-pencil; US rather than UK undergraduates,,,,collections/cleanliness-priming.html,https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1335179.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x,https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01276/full,,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/schnalletal2008a/huang-2014-study1.sav,https://osf.io/4cs3k/,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,595
physical warmth boosts pro-sociality,Williams & Bargh (2008a) Study 2,"Lynott et al. (2014,Kenyon) Study 1",53,OR,3.52,"[1.06,11.73]",282,OR,.61,"[0.38, 0.98]","signal - inconsistent, opposite",evaluation of hot vs. cold instant therapeutic packs,reward choice (prosocial vs. selfish; binary),close,SP: Special Issue #18,different prosocial and selfish rewards,"hot pack rated as warmer than the cold pack, d = 2.50",,OR = odds ratio (likelihood of choosing pro-social vs. selfish reward),,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2737341/,10.1126/science.1162548,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000187,https://osf.io/dztne/,https://osf.io/e3wgy/,https://osf.io/r87hw/,,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,yes,yes,596
physical warmth boosts pro-sociality,Williams & Bargh (2008a) Study 2,"Lynott et al. (2014,MSU) Study 2",53,OR,3.52,"[1.06,11.73]",294,OR,.92,"[0.56, 1.53]",no signal - inconsistent,evaluation of hot vs. cold instant therapeutic packs,reward choice (prosocial vs. selfish; binary),close,SP: Special Issue #19,different prosocial and selfish rewards,"hot pack rated as warmer than the cold pack, d = 2.50",,OR = odds ratio (likelihood of choosing pro-social vs. selfish reward),,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2737341/,10.1126/science.1162548,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000187,https://osf.io/dztne/,https://osf.io/e3wgy/,https://osf.io/z45d9/,,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,yes,yes,597
physical warmth boosts pro-sociality,Williams & Bargh (2008a) Study 2,"Lynott et al. (2014,UK) Study 3",53,OR,3.52,"[1.06,11.73]",237,OR,.77,"[0.47, 1.26]",no signal - inconsistent,evaluation of hot vs. cold instant therapeutic packs,reward choice (prosocial vs. selfish; binary),close,SP: Special Issue #20,different prosocial and selfish rewards,"hot pack rated as warmer than the cold pack, d = 2.50",,OR = odds ratio (likelihood of choosing pro-social vs. selfish reward),,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2737341/,10.1126/science.1162548,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000187,https://osf.io/dztne/,https://osf.io/e3wgy/,https://osf.io/a73tm/,,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,yes,yes,598
psychological distance increases wrongness of immoral acts,"Eyal, Liberman, & Trope (2008) Study 2",Zezelj & Jokic (2015) Study 1,58,d,.66,.27,116,d,-.06,.37,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),temporally near vs. distant moral wrongnesses (imagining 3 descriptions of acts),wrongness (1 item),very close,SP: Special Issue #21,sample drawn from different culture,,,,,"http://www.psych.nyu.edu/trope/eyal%20et%20al.,%202008%20-%20morality.pdf",10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.012,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000188,https://osf.io/my6wv/,https://osf.io/6di7z/,https://osf.io/4qejs/,,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,yes,599
psychological distance increases wrongness of immoral acts,"Eyal, Liberman, & Trope (2008) Study 3 ",Zezelj & Jokic (2015) Study 2,40,d,.71,.17,105,d,.61,.14,signal - consistent,socially near vs. distant moral wrongnesses (imagining 3 descriptions of acts),wrongness (1 item),very close,SP: Special Issue #22,sample drawn from different culture,,,,,"http://www.psych.nyu.edu/trope/eyal%20et%20al.,%202008%20-%20morality.pdf",10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.012,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000188,https://osf.io/my6wv/,https://osf.io/afrdy/,https://osf.io/svqnc/,,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,600
psychological distance increases wrongness of immoral acts,"Eyal, Liberman, & Trope (2008) Study 4 ",Zezelj & Jokic (2015) Study 3,47,d,.80,.26,84,d,-.26,.26,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",temporally near vs. distant virtuous acts (imagining 3 descriptions of acts),virtuousness (1 item),very close,SP: Special Issue #23,sample drawn from different culture,,,,,"http://www.psych.nyu.edu/trope/eyal%20et%20al.,%202008%20-%20morality.pdf",10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.012,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000188,https://osf.io/my6wv/,https://osf.io/krgjd/,https://osf.io/mzjnr/,,,,,social,2008,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,yes,601
psychological distance increases wrongness of immoral acts,Gong & Medin (2012) Study 1,Zezelj & Jokic (2015) Study 4,34,d,-1.07,,48,d,-.68,.36,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",low vs. high construal primes,acceptability (1 item),very close,SP: Special Issue #24,sample drawn from different culture,,,,,http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/journal/12/12627/jdm12627.pdf,,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000188,https://osf.io/my6wv/,https://osf.io/fbmtg/,https://osf.io/5a8tm/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,602
moral licensing effect (donation amount),"Sachdeva, Iliev, & Medin (2009) Study 1",Blanken et al. (2014) Study 1,46,d,.62,.73,71,d,-.03,.48,no signal - inconsistent,writing stories with positive vs. neutral vs. negative trait words,donation amount,very close,SP: Special Issue #25,,,*additional negative trait (moral cleansing) condition; similar pattern of results observed,,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.296.4489&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000189,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/L8UPY/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/3cmz4/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/3cmz4/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,603
moral licensing effect (cooperative behavior),"Sachdeva, Iliev, & Medin (2009) Study 3",Blanken et al. (2014) Study 2,46,d,.59,.71,98,d,-.31,.39,no signal - inconsistent,writing stories with positive vs. neutral vs. negative trait words,co-operation (self-report),very close,SP: Special Issue #26,study ran in a laboratory at a Dutch instead of a USA university,,*additional negative trait (moral cleansing) condition; similar pattern of results observed,,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.296.4489&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000189,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/L8UPY/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/3cmz4/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/3cmz4/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,yes,604
moral licensing effect (donation amount),"Sachdeva, Iliev, & Medin (2009) Study 1",Blanken et al. (2014) Study 3 (online),46,d,.62,.73,632,d,.05,.20,no signal - inconsistent,writing stories with positive vs. neutral vs. negative trait words,donation amount,close*,SP: Special Issue #27,mTurk general sample; donating as part of potential winnings instead of money out-of-pocket,,*additional negative trait (moral cleansing) condition; similar pattern of results observed,,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.296.4489&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000189,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/L8UPY/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/3cmz4/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/3cmz4/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,605
superstition boosts performance effect,Damisch et al. (2010) Study 1,Calin-Jageman & Caldwell (2014) Study 1,28,d,.80,.75,116,d,.05,.40,no signal - inconsistent,lucky vs. neutral ball (labeled by the experimenter),golf task (10 putts),close,SP: Special Issue #28,used a putting distance of 150 cm rather than 100 cm,,,,,https://www.dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files/35aac7fd4d69aa2891ca9f87dc348c8c.pdf,10.1177/0956797610372631,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000190,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/jrwUz/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/fsadm/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/fsadm/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,yes,606
superstition boosts performance effect,Damisch et al. (2010) Study 1,Calin-Jageman & Caldwell (2014) Study 2,28,d,.80,.75,108,d,.04,.42,no signal - inconsistent,lucky vs. neutral ball (randomly chosen by the participants and labeled by the experimenter),golf task (10 putts),close,SP: Special Issue #29,,,,,,https://www.dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files/35aac7fd4d69aa2891ca9f87dc348c8c.pdf,10.1177/0956797610372631,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000190,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/jrwUz/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/fsadm/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/fsadm/,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,yes,607
unethicality darkens light perception (perceived brightness),Banerjee et al. (2012) Study 1,"Brandt, IJzerman, & Blanken (2014,online) Study 1a",40,d,.65,,475,d,.12,.18,no signal - inconsistent,recalling unethical vs. ethical behaviors ,perceived brightness,very close*,SP: Special Issue #30,mTurk general sample,,,,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.873.6702&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1177/0956797611432497,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000191,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/vKgm4/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/seqgd/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/seqgd/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,yes,yes,608
unethicality darkens light perception (lamp preference),Banerjee et al. (2012) Study 2,"Brandt, IJzerman, & Blanken (2014,online) Study 2a",74,d,1.23,,482,d,-.03,.18,no signal - inconsistent,recalling unethical vs. ethical behaviors ,estimated watts; lamp preference; candle preference; flashlight preference,very close*,SP: Special Issue #31,mTurk general sample,,"3 other DVs (estimated watts, candle preference, flashlight preference; same pattern of results observed)",,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.873.6702&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1177/0956797611432497,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000191,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/vKgm4/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/seqgd/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/seqgd/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,yes,yes,609
unethicality darkens light perception (perceived brightness),Banerjee et al. (2012) Study 1,"Brandt, IJzerman, & Blanken (2014) Study 1b",40,d,.65,,100,d,-.11,.40,no signal - inconsistent,recalling unethical vs. ethical behaviors ,perceived brightness,very close,SP: Special Issue #32,Dutch population,,,,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.873.6702&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1177/0956797611432497,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000191,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/vKgm4/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/seqgd/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/seqgd/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,yes,yes,610
unethicality darkens light perception (lamp preference),Banerjee et al. (2012) Study 2,"Brandt, IJzerman, & Blanken (2014) Study 2b",74,d,1.23,,121,d,-.11,.36,no signal - inconsistent,recalling unethical vs. ethical behaviors ,estimated watts; lamp preference; candle preference; flashlight preference,very close,SP: Special Issue #33,Dutch population,,"3 other DVs (estimated watts, candle preference, flashlight preference; same pattern of results observed)",,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.873.6702&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1177/0956797611432497,http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1864-9335/a000191,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/vKgm4/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/seqgd/,http://www.openscienceframework.org/project/seqgd/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33,yes,yes,611
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Bonfiglio et al. (2016, Ashland) ",100,dz,2.04,,84,dz,1.02,.49,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #1,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,612
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Hermann et al. (2016, Bradley) ",100,dz,2.04,,119,dz,.90,.40,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #2,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,613
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Capaldi et al. (2016, Carleton) ",100,dz,2.04,,44,dz,1.11,.70,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #3,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,614
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Vaughn (2016, Ithaca) ",100,dz,2.04,,91,dz,1.22,.49,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #4,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,615
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Belanger et al. (2016, Miami) ",100,dz,2.04,,96,dz,.80,.44,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #5,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,no,616
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Johnson et al. (2016, MichiganSU) ",100,dz,2.04,,318,dz,.70,.24,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #6,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,617
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Allen (2016, MontanaSU) ",100,dz,2.04,,124,dz,.99,.40,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #7,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,618
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Banks et al. (2016, NovaSU) ",100,dz,2.04,,131,dz,.89,.38,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #8,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,619
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Wirth (2016, OSUNewark)",100,dz,2.04,,158,dz,1.08,.36,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #9,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,620
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Grahe et al. (2016, PacificLU) ",100,dz,2.04,,101,dz,1.01,.44,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #10,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,no,621
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Bernstein (2016, PSAbington) ",100,dz,2.04,,117,dz,.82,.40,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #11,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,622
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Devos et al. (2016, SDSU) ",100,dz,2.04,,142,dz,.87,.36,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #12,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,623
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Davis & Hicks (2016, TexasA&M) ",100,dz,2.04,,178,dz,.88,.32,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #13,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,624
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"German et al. (2016, UCDavis) ",100,dz,2.04,,119,dz,.83,.40,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #14,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,yes,625
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Baranski et al. (2016, UCRiverside) ",100,dz,2.04,,242,dz,1.09,.29,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #15,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,626
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Brown et al. (2016, UofF) ",100,dz,2.04,,137,dz,.75,.37,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #16,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,627
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Fletcher et al. (2016, UofSM) ",100,dz,2.04,,89,dz,.90,.47,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #17,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,no,628
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Re et al. (2016, UofT) ",100,dz,2.04,,81,dz,.66,.47,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #18,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,no,629
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Ebersole et al. (2016, UofV) Study 1",100,dz,2.04,,194,dz,.87,.31,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #19,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,630
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Cairo et al. (2016, VirginiaCU) ",100,dz,2.04,,95,dz,.96,.45,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #20,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,no,631
Stroop effect,Stroop (1935) Study 2,"Ebersole et al. (2016, mTurk) Study 2",100,dz,2.04,,620,d,.81,.17,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",congruent vs. incongruent (color name-font word),reaction time (RT),close,ML3 #21,,,,dz = within-subjects Cohen's d,,http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2389918/component/escidoc:2389917/Stroop_1935_Studies.pdf,10.1037/h0054651,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1935,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,yes,632
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Bonfiglio et al. (2016, Ashland) ",56,d,.63,.56,44,d,.77,.66,signal - consistent (imprecise),ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #22,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,633
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Hermann et al. (2016, Bradley) ",56,d,.63,.56,58,d,.07,.53,no signal - inconsistent,ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #23,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,634
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Capaldi et al. (2016, Carleton) ",56,d,.63,.56,23,d,.09,.89,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #24,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,635
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Vaughn (2016, Ithaca) ",56,d,.63,.56,39,d,.58,.68,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #25,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,636
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Belanger et al. (2016, Miami) ",56,d,.63,.56,52,d,.08,.56,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #26,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,no,637
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Johnson et al. (2016, MichiganSU) ",56,d,.63,.56,159,d,.09,.31,no signal - inconsistent,ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #27,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,638
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Allen (2016, MontanaSU) ",56,d,.63,.56,64,d,.65,.53,signal - consistent,ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #28,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,639
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Banks et al. (2016, NovaSU) ",56,d,.63,.56,68,d,.68,.52,signal - consistent,ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #29,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,640
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Wirth (2016, OSUNewark)",56,d,.63,.56,73,d,.03,.47,no signal - inconsistent,ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #30,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,641
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Grahe et al. (2016, PacificLU) ",56,d,.63,.56,52,d,.64,.59,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #31,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,no,642
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Bernstein (2016, PSAbington) ",56,d,.63,.56,53,d,.42,.57,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #32,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,no,643
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Devos et al. (2016, SDSU) ",56,d,.63,.56,65,d,.54,.52,no signal - inconsistent,ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #33,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,644
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Davis & Hicks (2016, TexasA&M) ",56,d,.63,.56,109,d,.16,.38,no signal - inconsistent,ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #34,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,645
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"German et al. (2016, UCDavis) ",56,d,.63,.56,63,d,.42,.52,no signal - inconsistent,ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #35,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,yes,646
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Baranski et al. (2016, UCRiverside) ",56,d,.63,.56,110,d,.11,.38,no signal - inconsistent,ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #36,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,647
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Brown et al. (2016, UofF) ",56,d,.63,.56,72,d,.22,.48,no signal - inconsistent,ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #37,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,648
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Fletcher et al. (2016, UofSM) ",56,d,.63,.56,39,d,.05,.66,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #38,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,no,649
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Re et al. (2016, UofT) ",56,d,.63,.56,37,d,.49,.70,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #39,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,no,650
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Ebersole et al. (2016, UofV) Study 1",56,d,.63,.56,104,d,.04,.39,no signal - inconsistent,ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #40,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,651
metaphoric restructuring effect,Boroditsky (2000) Study 1,"Cairo et al. (2016, VirginiaCU) ",56,d,.63,.56,51,d,-.12,.57,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),ego-priming vs. control vs. object-priming,ambiguous temporal statement task,very close,ML3 #41,,,,,,http://people.csail.mit.edu/gremio/Grembrary/Winston-HIE/boroditsky.pdf,10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,2000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,no,652
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Bonfiglio et al. (2016, Ashland) ",152,d,.82,.35,77,d,-.29,.46,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #42,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,653
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Hermann et al. (2016, Bradley) ",152,d,.82,.35,112,d,.00,.38,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #43,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,654
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Capaldi et al. (2016, Carleton) ",152,d,.82,.35,37,d,.27,.68,no signal - consistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #44,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,655
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Vaughn (2016, Ithaca) ",152,d,.82,.35,86,d,-.23,.43,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #45,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,656
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Belanger et al. (2016, Miami) ",152,d,.82,.35,91,d,.42,.43,no signal - consistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #46,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,no,657
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Johnson et al. (2016, MichiganSU) ",152,d,.82,.35,303,d,-.01,.23,no signal - inconsistent,letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #47,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,658
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Allen (2016, MontanaSU) ",152,d,.82,.35,116,d,.07,.37,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #48,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,659
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Banks et al. (2016, NovaSU) ",152,d,.82,.35,122,d,-.03,.36,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #49,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,660
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Wirth (2016, OSUNewark)",152,d,.82,.35,148,d,-.05,.33,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #50,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,661
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Grahe et al. (2016, PacificLU) ",152,d,.82,.35,99,d,.35,.41,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #51,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,no,662
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Bernstein (2016, PSAbington) ",152,d,.82,.35,103,d,-.14,.39,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #52,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,no,663
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Devos et al. (2016, SDSU) ",152,d,.82,.35,133,d,.01,.34,no signal - inconsistent,letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #53,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,664
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Davis & Hicks (2016, TexasA&M) ",152,d,.82,.35,171,d,-.03,.30,no signal - inconsistent,letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #54,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,665
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"German et al. (2016, UCDavis) ",152,d,.82,.35,114,d,.39,.38,"signal - inconsistent, smaller (imprecise)",letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #55,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,yes,666
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Baranski et al. (2016, UCRiverside) ",152,d,.82,.35,217,d,.21,.27,no signal - inconsistent,letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #56,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,667
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Brown et al. (2016, UofF) ",152,d,.82,.35,129,d,-.08,.35,no signal - inconsistent,letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #57,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,668
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Fletcher et al. (2016, UofSM) ",152,d,.82,.35,80,d,.10,.45,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #58,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,no,669
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Re et al. (2016, UofT) ",152,d,.82,.35,78,d,.15,.46,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #59,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,no,670
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Ebersole et al. (2016, UofV) Study 1",152,d,.82,.35,190,d,.15,.29,no signal - inconsistent,letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #60,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,671
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Cairo et al. (2016, VirginiaCU) ",152,d,.82,.35,91,d,.24,.42,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #61,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,no,672
availability heuristic (word frequency),Tversky & Kahneman (1973) Study 3,"Ebersole et al. (2016, mTurk) Study 2",152,d,.82,.35,591,d,.18,.16,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",letters in first vs. third position,word frequency,very close,ML3 #62,,,,,,https://msu.edu/~ema/803/Ch11-JDM/2/TverskyKahneman73.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,cognitive,1973,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,yes,673
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Bonfiglio et al. (2016, Ashland) ",42,d,.77,.65,84,d,-.01,.45,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #63,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,yes,674
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Hermann et al. (2016, Bradley) ",42,d,.77,.65,112,d,-.41,.38,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #64,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,675
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Capaldi et al. (2016, Carleton) ",42,d,.77,.65,32,d,.28,.72,no signal - consistent (imprecise),high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #65,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,676
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Vaughn (2016, Ithaca) ",42,d,.77,.65,88,d,.23,.43,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #66,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,yes,677
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Belanger et al. (2016, Miami) ",42,d,.77,.65,89,d,.19,.42,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #67,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,678
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Johnson et al. (2016, MichiganSU) ",42,d,.77,.65,240,d,-.12,.26,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #68,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,679
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Allen (2016, MontanaSU) ",42,d,.77,.65,118,d,-.12,.37,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #69,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,680
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Banks et al. (2016, NovaSU) ",42,d,.77,.65,126,d,-.24,.36,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #70,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,681
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Wirth (2016, OSUNewark)",42,d,.77,.65,125,d,-.30,.36,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #71,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,682
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Grahe et al. (2016, PacificLU) ",42,d,.77,.65,96,d,.16,.41,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #72,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,683
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Bernstein (2016, PSAbington) ",42,d,.77,.65,100,d,.03,.40,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #73,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,684
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Devos et al. (2016, SDSU) ",42,d,.77,.65,133,d,.01,.34,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #74,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,685
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Davis & Hicks (2016, TexasA&M) ",42,d,.77,.65,170,d,-.07,.30,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #75,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,686
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"German et al. (2016, UCDavis) ",42,d,.77,.65,109,d,-.18,.38,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #76,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,yes,687
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Baranski et al. (2016, UCRiverside) ",42,d,.77,.65,232,d,-.02,.26,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #77,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,688
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Brown et al. (2016, UofF) ",42,d,.77,.65,129,d,-.21,.35,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #78,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,689
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Fletcher et al. (2016, UofSM) ",42,d,.77,.65,82,d,.39,.44,no signal - consistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #79,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,690
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Re et al. (2016, UofT) ",42,d,.77,.65,64,d,.11,.51,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #80,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,691
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Ebersole et al. (2016, UofV) Study 1",42,d,.77,.65,177,d,-.03,.30,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #81,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,692
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Cairo et al. (2016, VirginiaCU) ",42,d,.77,.65,91,d,-.20,.42,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #82,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,yes,693
power decreases perspective taking effect,Galinsky et al. (2006) Study 2a,"Ebersole et al. (2016, mTurk) Study 2",42,d,.77,.65,591,d,.06,.16,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low power (situation recall),perspective-taking (perceived sarcasm),very close,ML3 #83,,,,,,http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Power/Galinsky_et_al_Power-and-Perspectives-Not-Taken.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,yes,694
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Bonfiglio et al. (2016, Ashland) ",51,d,.59,.58,72,d,.12,.47,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #84,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,yes,yes,695
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Hermann et al. (2016, Bradley) ",51,d,.59,.58,109,d,.20,.38,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #85,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,yes,yes,696
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Capaldi et al. (2016, Carleton) ",51,d,.59,.58,39,d,-.10,.65,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #86,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,yes,no,697
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Vaughn (2016, Ithaca) ",51,d,.59,.58,64,d,.06,.50,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #87,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,yes,yes,698
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Belanger et al. (2016, Miami) ",51,d,.59,.58,82,d,.12,.44,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #88,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,yes,yes,699
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Johnson et al. (2016, MichiganSU) ",51,d,.59,.58,274,d,.02,.24,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #89,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,yes,yes,700
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Allen (2016, MontanaSU) ",51,d,.59,.58,109,d,-.11,.38,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #90,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,yes,yes,701
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Banks et al. (2016, NovaSU) ",51,d,.59,.58,85,d,.42,.44,no signal - consistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #91,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,yes,yes,702
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Wirth (2016, OSUNewark)",51,d,.59,.58,127,d,-.25,.36,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #92,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,yes,yes,703
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Grahe et al. (2016, PacificLU) ",51,d,.59,.58,103,d,-.02,.40,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #93,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,yes,yes,704
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Bernstein (2016, PSAbington) ",51,d,.59,.58,118,d,.19,.36,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #94,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,yes,yes,705
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Devos et al. (2016, SDSU) ",51,d,.59,.58,131,d,-.11,.34,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #95,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,yes,yes,706
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Davis & Hicks (2016, TexasA&M) ",51,d,.59,.58,153,d,.14,.32,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #96,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,yes,yes,707
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","German et al. (2016, UCDavis) ",51,d,.59,.58,105,d,.02,.38,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #97,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,yes,yes,708
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Baranski et al. (2016, UCRiverside) ",51,d,.59,.58,212,d,-.03,.27,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #98,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,yes,yes,709
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Brown et al. (2016, UofF) ",51,d,.59,.58,121,d,.10,.36,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #99,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,yes,yes,710
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Fletcher et al. (2016, UofSM) ",51,d,.59,.58,79,d,.05,.45,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #100,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,yes,yes,711
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Re et al. (2016, UofT) ",51,d,.59,.58,73,d,-.34,.47,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #101,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,yes,yes,712
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Ebersole et al. (2016, UofV) Study 1",51,d,.59,.58,171,d,.09,.30,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #102,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,yes,yes,713
weight-importance effect,"Jostmann, Lakens et al. (2009) Study 2","Cairo et al. (2016, VirginiaCU) ",51,d,.59,.58,89,d,.12,.42,no signal - inconsistent,heavy vs. light clipboard,perceived importance,very close,ML3 #103,,,,,,https://14b4ee02-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lakens2/JostmannLakensSchubert-2009-WeightandImportance%28PsychScience%29.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coriiPZwnj4x3M23fKUkbZV6qMESyp6KJ_3w71xTW5Y0CBXT5M5TqQumLSRZMFu9FnS_1UqbI7OLVutU1dzl4BWK2aNav_0WQM8p8ljrTlyz0VwL4WuGFyNilC2w6ldTjR4nb_lZhQI3VInrLfcb5rCeuKgCUeeAktdwWTFyHbhrVOoPIhidg5JHA-0yDFvtDjci0I8DZyvCGuvHPohcSfpgn0xK824YAg7zVr4idQPd01Oy_uGB7aOiWXqLk5fxLoi-F-_fxzk5GbJ4_FigTVF5ZM_ZA%3D%3D&attredirects=0,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,yes,yes,714
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Bonfiglio et al. (2016, Ashland) ",80,d,.86,.46,79,d,.27,.45,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #104,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,yes,yes,715
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Hermann et al. (2016, Bradley) ",80,d,.86,.46,116,d,.11,.38,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #105,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,yes,yes,716
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Capaldi et al. (2016, Carleton) ",80,d,.86,.46,37,d,.06,.68,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #106,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,yes,no,717
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Vaughn (2016, Ithaca) ",80,d,.86,.46,83,d,-.26,.44,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #107,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,yes,yes,718
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Belanger et al. (2016, Miami) ",80,d,.86,.46,94,d,.09,.42,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #108,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,yes,yes,719
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Johnson et al. (2016, MichiganSU) ",80,d,.86,.46,298,d,-.07,.22,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #109,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,yes,yes,720
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Allen (2016, MontanaSU) ",80,d,.86,.46,122,d,-.05,.36,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #110,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,yes,yes,721
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Banks et al. (2016, NovaSU) ",80,d,.86,.46,129,d,.09,.36,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #111,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,yes,yes,722
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Wirth (2016, OSUNewark)",80,d,.86,.46,153,d,.17,.32,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #112,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,yes,yes,723
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Grahe et al. (2016, PacificLU) ",80,d,.86,.46,93,d,.17,.41,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #113,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,yes,yes,724
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Bernstein (2016, PSAbington) ",80,d,.86,.46,112,d,.08,.38,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #114,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,yes,yes,725
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Devos et al. (2016, SDSU) ",80,d,.86,.46,134,d,.06,.34,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #115,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,yes,yes,726
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Davis & Hicks (2016, TexasA&M) ",80,d,.86,.46,172,d,-.05,.30,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #116,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,yes,yes,727
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","German et al. (2016, UCDavis) ",80,d,.86,.46,115,d,-.37,.37,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #117,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,yes,yes,728
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Baranski et al. (2016, UCRiverside) ",80,d,.86,.46,237,d,.14,.26,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #118,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,yes,yes,729
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Brown et al. (2016, UofF) ",80,d,.86,.46,132,d,-.01,.35,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #119,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,yes,yes,730
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Fletcher et al. (2016, UofSM) ",80,d,.86,.46,87,d,-.23,.43,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #120,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,yes,yes,731
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Re et al. (2016, UofT) ",80,d,.86,.46,70,d,-.25,.48,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #121,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,yes,no,732
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Ebersole et al. (2016, UofV) Study 1",80,d,.86,.46,189,d,-.08,.29,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #122,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,yes,yes,733
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Cairo et al. (2016, VirginiaCU) ",80,d,.86,.46,92,d,.30,.42,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #123,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,yes,yes,734
warmer-heart-warmer-room effect,"Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman et al. (2013) Study1 ","Ebersole et al. (2016, mTurk) Study 2",80,d,.86,.46,575,d,-.10,.16,no signal - inconsistent,communal vs. agentic person description,ambient room temperature,very close,ML3 #124,,,,,,http://www.badania.net/reprint/Szymkow_Chandler_Ijzerman_Parzuchowski_Wojciszke_2013.PDF,10.1027/1864-9335/a000147,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,yes,yes,735
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Wirth (2016, OSUNewark)",114,d,.91,.40,85,d,.17,.44,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #125,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,736
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Fletcher et al. (2016, UofSM) ",114,d,.91,.40,120,d,.12,.36,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #126,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,737
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Devos et al. (2016, SDSU) ",114,d,.91,.40,45,d,-.06,.60,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #127,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,738
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Vaughn (2016, Ithaca) ",114,d,.91,.40,92,d,.05,.42,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #128,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,739
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Banks et al. (2016, NovaSU) ",114,d,.91,.40,96,d,-.20,.41,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #129,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,5,,no,740
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"German et al. (2016, UCDavis) ",114,d,.91,.40,318,d,.16,.22,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #130,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,741
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Re et al. (2016, UofT) ",114,d,.91,.40,128,d,.19,.36,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #131,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,742
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Capaldi et al. (2016, Carleton) ",114,d,.91,.40,134,d,.07,.34,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #132,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,743
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Davis & Hicks (2016, TexasA&M) ",114,d,.91,.40,158,d,.00,.32,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #133,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,744
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Brown et al. (2016, UofF) ",114,d,.91,.40,103,d,.09,.39,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #134,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,745
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Grahe et al. (2016, PacificLU) ",114,d,.91,.40,120,d,.10,.36,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #135,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,746
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Bernstein (2016, PSAbington) ",114,d,.91,.40,143,d,-.02,.33,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #136,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,747
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Hermann et al. (2016, Bradley) ",114,d,.91,.40,179,d,-.09,.30,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #137,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,748
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Baranski et al. (2016, UCRiverside) ",114,d,.91,.40,120,d,.07,.36,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #138,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,14,,yes,749
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Ebersole et al. (2016, UofV) Study 1",114,d,.91,.40,245,d,-.15,.26,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #139,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,750
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Johnson et al. (2016, MichiganSU) ",114,d,.91,.40,137,d,-.08,.34,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #140,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,751
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Bonfiglio et al. (2016, Ashland) ",114,d,.91,.40,89,d,.01,.42,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #141,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,17,,no,752
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Allen (2016, MontanaSU) ",114,d,.91,.40,84,d,-.07,.44,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #142,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,18,,no,753
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Belanger et al. (2016, Miami) ",114,d,.91,.40,195,d,-.14,.28,no signal - inconsistent,strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #143,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,754
NFC amplifies strong argument persuasion effect,Cacioppo et al. (1983) Study 1,"Cairo et al. (2016, VirginiaCU) ",114,d,.91,.40,96,d,-.31,.42,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),strong vs. weak arguments; need for cognition (NFC),persuasion (argument quality & persuasiveness),very close,ML3 #144,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Petty/publication/200772918_Effects_of_need_for_cognition_on_message_evaluation_recall_and_persuasion/links/0912f51068dd973964000000/Effects-of-need-for-cognition-on-message-evaluation-recall-and-persuasion.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,1983,,"Interaction effect: Strong arguments more persuasive than weak arguments (on average), which is amplified at high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC)",,,,,,,,,,,,20,,no,755
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Bonfiglio et al. (2016, Ashland) ",357,d,.21,.21,82,d,-.02,.44,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #145,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,756
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Hermann et al. (2016, Bradley) ",357,d,.21,.21,118,d,-.14,.37,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #146,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,no,757
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Capaldi et al. (2016, Carleton) ",357,d,.21,.21,42,d,-.76,.68,"signal - inconsistent, opposite (imprecise)",event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #147,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,758
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Vaughn (2016, Ithaca) ",357,d,.21,.21,90,d,.21,.42,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #148,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,759
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Belanger et al. (2016, Miami) ",357,d,.21,.21,95,d,.23,.42,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #149,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,no,760
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Johnson et al. (2016, MichiganSU) ",357,d,.21,.21,307,d,.13,.22,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #150,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,761
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Allen (2016, MontanaSU) ",357,d,.21,.21,121,d,-.13,.36,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #151,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,762
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Banks et al. (2016, NovaSU) ",357,d,.21,.21,130,d,-.11,.35,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #152,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,763
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Wirth (2016, OSUNewark)",357,d,.21,.21,149,d,-.07,.32,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #153,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,764
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Grahe et al. (2016, PacificLU) ",357,d,.21,.21,99,d,.19,.40,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #154,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,no,765
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Bernstein (2016, PSAbington) ",357,d,.21,.21,112,d,.31,.38,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #155,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,no,766
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Devos et al. (2016, SDSU) ",357,d,.21,.21,137,d,-.12,.34,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #156,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,767
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Davis & Hicks (2016, TexasA&M) ",357,d,.21,.21,177,d,.05,.30,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #157,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,768
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"German et al. (2016, UCDavis) ",357,d,.21,.21,110,d,-.04,.38,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #158,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,no,769
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Baranski et al. (2016, UCRiverside) ",357,d,.21,.21,229,d,.38,.26,signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #159,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,770
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Brown et al. (2016, UofF) ",357,d,.21,.21,134,d,-.16,.34,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #160,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,771
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Fletcher et al. (2016, UofSM) ",357,d,.21,.21,86,d,-.16,.43,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #161,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,no,772
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Re et al. (2016, UofT) ",357,d,.21,.21,77,d,-.10,.46,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #162,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,no,773
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Ebersole et al. (2016, UofV) Study 1",357,d,.21,.21,178,d,.00,.30,no signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #163,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,774
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Cairo et al. (2016, VirginiaCU) ",357,d,.21,.21,92,d,.59,.44,signal - consistent (imprecise),event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #164,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,no,775
self-esteem and event valence on psychological distance,Ross & Wilson (2002) Study 2,"Ebersole et al. (2016, mTurk) Study 2",357,d,.21,.21,574,d,.07,.16,no signal - consistent,event valence (positive vs. negative); self-esteem,subjective temporal distance,very close,ML3 #165,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Wilson5/publication/11368494_It_feels_like_yesterday_Self-esteem_valence_of_personal_past_experiences_and_judgments_of_subjective_distance/links/0fcfd50afd115e79ec000000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,yes,776
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Bonfiglio et al. (2016, Ashland) ",198,d,.43,.29,84,d,.54,.45,signal - consistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #166,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,777
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Hermann et al. (2016, Bradley) ",198,d,.43,.29,120,d,-.08,.36,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #167,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,778
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Capaldi et al. (2016, Carleton) ",198,d,.43,.29,44,d,-.14,.62,no signal - consistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #168,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,779
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Vaughn (2016, Ithaca) ",198,d,.43,.29,92,d,.37,.42,no signal - consistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #169,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,780
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Belanger et al. (2016, Miami) ",198,d,.43,.29,93,d,-.37,.42,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #170,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,no,781
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Johnson et al. (2016, MichiganSU) ",198,d,.43,.29,316,d,.14,.22,no signal - inconsistent,moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #171,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,782
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Allen (2016, MontanaSU) ",198,d,.43,.29,124,d,-.22,.36,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #172,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,783
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Banks et al. (2016, NovaSU) ",198,d,.43,.29,130,d,-.09,.34,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #173,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,784
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Wirth (2016, OSUNewark)",198,d,.43,.29,155,d,-.07,.32,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #174,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,785
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Grahe et al. (2016, PacificLU) ",198,d,.43,.29,103,d,.45,.40,signal - consistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #175,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,no,786
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Bernstein (2016, PSAbington) ",198,d,.43,.29,119,d,.27,.36,no signal - consistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #176,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,787
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Devos et al. (2016, SDSU) ",198,d,.43,.29,138,d,-.14,.34,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #177,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,788
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Davis & Hicks (2016, TexasA&M) ",198,d,.43,.29,178,d,.04,.30,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #178,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,789
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"German et al. (2016, UCDavis) ",198,d,.43,.29,117,d,-.18,.37,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #179,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,no,790
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Baranski et al. (2016, UCRiverside) ",198,d,.43,.29,243,d,.00,.25,no signal - inconsistent,moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #180,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,791
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Brown et al. (2016, UofF) ",198,d,.43,.29,136,d,.02,.34,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #181,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,792
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Fletcher et al. (2016, UofSM) ",198,d,.43,.29,89,d,.36,.43,no signal - consistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #182,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,no,793
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Re et al. (2016, UofT) ",198,d,.43,.29,80,d,-.14,.45,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #183,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,no,794
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Ebersole et al. (2016, UofV) Study 1",198,d,.43,.29,192,d,.00,.29,no signal - inconsistent,moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #184,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,795
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Cairo et al. (2016, VirginiaCU) ",198,d,.43,.29,94,d,.13,.41,no signal - consistent (imprecise),moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #185,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,no,796
moral licensing effect,Monin & Miller (2001) Study 1,"Ebersole et al. (2016, mTurk) Study 2",198,d,.43,.29,639,d,-.06,.16,no signal - inconsistent,moral credentials (disagreeing with sexist statements) vs. control,prejudice (favoring man for job),very close,ML3 #186,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd98/c9dd864da213f567d2fc46d24139544e096d.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33,http://existentialpsych.tamu.edu/files/2016/09/Many-Labs-3.pdf,https://osf.io/5ykuj/,https://osf.io/ct89g/wiki/home/,https://osf.io/ct89g/,,,,,social,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,yes,797
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Leite (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,102,IRD,-18%,19%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #1,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/xua2c/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,no,798
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Echterhoff & Kopietz (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,87,IRD,-16%,20%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #2,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/8vqns/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,no,799
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Musselman & Colarusso (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,101,IRD,-16%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #3,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/bpz7x/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,800
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,McCoy & Rancourt (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,123,IRD,-15%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #4,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/2nrqa/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,no,801
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Dellapaolera & Bornstein (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,150,IRD,-15%,16%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #5,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/3895k/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,802
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Alogna et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,113,IRD,-13%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #6,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/tcgqu/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,no,803
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Poirer et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,110,IRD,-13%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #7,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/i3z58/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,no,804
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Carlson et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,150,IRD,-13%,16%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #8,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/xhnqf/wiki/home/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,805
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Mammarella et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,220,IRD,-12%,13%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #9,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,806
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,"Chu, Marsh, & Skelton (2014) Study 1",75,IRD,-22%,22%,101,IRD,-9%,19%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #10,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/7kpa2/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,no,807
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Greenberg et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,100,IRD,-8%,20%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #11,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/4yvcf/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,no,808
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Wade et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,120,IRD,-8%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #12,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/g4mq7/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,no,809
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Eggleston et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,150,IRD,-7%,16%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #13,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/zr4f2/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,810
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,"Verkoeijen, Zwaan et al. (2014) Study 1",75,IRD,-22%,22%,105,IRD,-5%,19%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #14,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/7vdy9/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,no,811
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Kehn et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,131,IRD,-5%,17%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #15,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/wyi3p/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,812
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Birt & Aucoin (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,101,IRD,-3%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #16,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/w5a84/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,no,813
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Palmer et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,107,IRD,-2%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #17,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/dz28w/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,no,814
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Was et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,135,IRD,-2%,17%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #18,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/rs4xg/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,815
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,"McIntyre, Langton et al. (2014) Study 1",75,IRD,-22%,22%,103,IRD,-1%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #19,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/r8d7b/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,no,816
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Birch (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,106,IRD,0%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #20,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/h4ukj/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,no,817
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Susa et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,110,IRD,0%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #21,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/i4uh2/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,no,818
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Michael et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,185,IRD,0%,15%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #22,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/q2uei/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,819
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Delvenne et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,120,IRD,2%,17%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #23,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,yes,820
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Gabbert & Valentine (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,108,IRD,3%,19%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #24,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/sdte4/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,no,821
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Ulatowska & Cislak (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,110,IRD,4%,17%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #25,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/jq6rn/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25,,yes,822
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Mitchell & Petro (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,113,IRD,4%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #26,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/igbvm/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,26,,no,823
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,"Michael et al. (2014, mTURK) Study 1",75,IRD,-22%,22%,390,IRD,6%,10%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #27,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/q2uei/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,27,,yes,824
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Rubinova et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,118,IRD,7%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #28,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/d35cv/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,28,,no,825
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Koch et al. (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,96,IRD,8%,20%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #29,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/9mfh7/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,29,,no,826
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Brandimonte (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,140,IRD,10%,16%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #30,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/67muv/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,30,,yes,827
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Edlund & Nichols (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,112,IRD,12%,19%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #31,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/yspv3/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,31,,no,828
verbal overshadowing effect (description immediately after video),Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 4,Thompson (2014) Study 1,75,IRD,-22%,22%,100,IRD,14%,19%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR1 #32,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/bt8j5/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,32,,no,829
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Poirer et al. (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,95,IRD,-29%,20%,signal - consistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #1,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/dkc7v,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,yes,830
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Delvenne et al. (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,98,IRD,-26%,19%,signal - consistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #2,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,831
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Birt & Aucoin (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,65,IRD,-25%,24%,signal - consistent (imprecise),verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #3,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/wvc3h,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,no,832
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Susa et al. (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,111,IRD,-24%,18%,signal - consistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #4,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/ifc3v,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,yes,833
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Carlson et al. (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,160,IRD,-24%,15%,signal - consistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #5,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,834
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Musselman & Colarusso (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,78,IRD,-23%,24%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #6,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/w4yne,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,no,835
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Echterhoff & Kopietz (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,124,IRD,-22%,20%,signal - consistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #7,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/qpigy,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,836
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Mammarella et al. (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,104,IRD,-22%,19%,signal - consistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #8,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,837
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Dellapaolera & Bornstein (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,164,IRD,-21%,16%,signal - consistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #9,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,838
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Mitchell & Petro (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,109,IRD,-20%,19%,signal - consistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #10,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/cy7tx,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,839
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Ulatowska & Cislak (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,106,IRD,-17%,19%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #11,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/t6qvu,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,840
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Wade et al. (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,121,IRD,-17%,17%,signal - consistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #12,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/q98df,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,841
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Birch (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,156,IRD,-16%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #13,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/87b3s,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,842
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,McCoy & Rancourt (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,89,IRD,-15%,21%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #14,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/gpq3d,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,yes,843
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Greenberg et al. (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,75,IRD,-13%,25%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #15,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/czk4f,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,no,844
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Alogna et al. (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,137,IRD,-12%,19%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #16,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/4xrpk,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,845
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,"Michael et al. (2014, mTURK) Study 2",88,IRD,-25%,20%,615,IRD,-11%,10%,signal - consistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #17,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/tabw4/,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,846
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Koch et al. (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,67,IRD,-10%,25%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #18,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/6kpnj,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,no,847
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Thompson (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,102,IRD,-9%,22%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #19,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/ivfry,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,848
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Rubinova et al. (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,110,IRD,-3%,18%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #20,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/a7hwn,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,yes,849
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Brandimonte (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,100,IRD,-2%,20%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #21,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/ktx8g,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,yes,850
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Eggleston et al. (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,93,IRD,-2%,20%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #22,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/672ms,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,851
verbal overshadowing effect,Schooler & Eng...-Schooler (1990) Study 1,Kehn et al. (2014) Study 2,88,IRD,-25%,20%,113,IRD,-1%,20%,no signal - inconsistent,verbal description vs. control task,identification of perpetrator in lineup,very close,RRR2 #23,,,,IRD = identification rate difference of verbal description compared to control condition Ps,articles/verbal-overshadowing.html,http://wixtedlab.ucsd.edu/publications/Psych%20272/Schooler_Engstler-Schooler_1990.pdf,10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691614545653,https://osf.io/brwdp/,https://osf.io/td8rp/,https://osf.io/9g86r,,https://osf.io/td8rp/,,,social,1990,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,yes,852
grammar on intentionality effect (criminal intentionality DV),Hart & Albarracín (2011) Study 3,Berger (2016),48,MD,1.20,.88,75,MD,-.98,.74,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) behavior descriptions,perceived criminal intentionality,very close,RRR3 #1,,,"2 other DVs (detailed processing [imagery], intention attribution; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) grammar on perceived criminal intentionality,,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626430/pdf/nihms454521.pdf,10.1177/0956797610395393,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826,https://osf.io/va85u/,https://osf.io/p6jxr/,,,,,,social,2011,,Imperfective (was doing) behavior descriptions increase perceived criminal intentionality compared to perfective (did),,,,,,,,,,,,1,,yes,853
grammar on intentionality effect (criminal intentionality DV),Hart & Albarracín (2011) Study 3,Knepp (2016),48,MD,1.20,.88,86,MD,-.95,.63,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) behavior descriptions,perceived criminal intentionality,very close,RRR3 #2,,,"2 other DVs (detailed processing [imagery], intention attribution; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) grammar on perceived criminal intentionality,,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626430/pdf/nihms454521.pdf,10.1177/0956797610395393,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826,https://osf.io/va85u/,https://osf.io/p6jxr/,https://osf.io/vfgp8/,,,,,social,2011,,Imperfective (was doing) behavior descriptions increase perceived criminal intentionality compared to perfective (did),,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,854
grammar on intentionality effect (criminal intentionality DV),Hart & Albarracín (2011) Study 3,Michael (2016),48,MD,1.20,.88,83,MD,-.41,.64,no signal - inconsistent,imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) behavior descriptions,perceived criminal intentionality,very close,RRR3 #3,,,"2 other DVs (detailed processing [imagery], intention attribution; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) grammar on perceived criminal intentionality,,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626430/pdf/nihms454521.pdf,10.1177/0956797610395393,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826,https://osf.io/va85u/,https://osf.io/p6jxr/,,,,,,social,2011,,Imperfective (was doing) behavior descriptions increase perceived criminal intentionality compared to perfective (did),,,,,,,,,,,,3,,yes,855
grammar on intentionality effect (criminal intentionality DV),Hart & Albarracín (2011) Study 3,Prenoveau & Carlucci (2016),48,MD,1.20,.88,100,MD,-.38,.68,no signal - inconsistent,imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) behavior descriptions,perceived criminal intentionality,very close,RRR3 #4,,,"2 other DVs (detailed processing [imagery], intention attribution; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) grammar on perceived criminal intentionality,,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626430/pdf/nihms454521.pdf,10.1177/0956797610395393,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826,https://osf.io/va85u/,https://osf.io/p6jxr/,,,,,,social,2011,,Imperfective (was doing) behavior descriptions increase perceived criminal intentionality compared to perfective (did),,,,,,,,,,,,4,,yes,856
grammar on intentionality effect (criminal intentionality DV),Hart & Albarracín (2011) Study 3,Birt & Aucoin (2016),48,MD,1.20,.88,66,MD,-.38,.59,no signal - inconsistent,imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) behavior descriptions,perceived criminal intentionality,very close,RRR3 #5,,,"2 other DVs (detailed processing [imagery], intention attribution; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) grammar on perceived criminal intentionality,,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626430/pdf/nihms454521.pdf,10.1177/0956797610395393,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826,https://osf.io/va85u/,https://osf.io/p6jxr/,,,,,,social,2011,,Imperfective (was doing) behavior descriptions increase perceived criminal intentionality compared to perfective (did),,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,857
grammar on intentionality effect (criminal intentionality DV),Hart & Albarracín (2011) Study 3,Arnal (2016),48,MD,1.20,.88,67,MD,-.35,.72,no signal - inconsistent,imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) behavior descriptions,perceived criminal intentionality,very close,RRR3 #6,,,"2 other DVs (detailed processing [imagery], intention attribution; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) grammar on perceived criminal intentionality,,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626430/pdf/nihms454521.pdf,10.1177/0956797610395393,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826,https://osf.io/va85u/,https://osf.io/p6jxr/,https://osf.io/ztvrp/,,,,,social,2011,,Imperfective (was doing) behavior descriptions increase perceived criminal intentionality compared to perfective (did),,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,858
grammar on intentionality effect (criminal intentionality DV),Hart & Albarracín (2011) Study 3,"Eerland, Zwaan et al. (2016, online)",48,MD,1.20,.88,260,MD,-.33,.29,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) behavior descriptions,perceived criminal intentionality,very close,RRR3 #7,,,"2 other DVs (detailed processing [imagery], intention attribution; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) grammar on perceived criminal intentionality,,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626430/pdf/nihms454521.pdf,10.1177/0956797610395393,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826,https://osf.io/va85u/,https://osf.io/p6jxr/,,,,,,social,2011,,Imperfective (was doing) behavior descriptions increase perceived criminal intentionality compared to perfective (did),,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,859
grammar on intentionality effect (criminal intentionality DV),Hart & Albarracín (2011) Study 3,Kurby & Kibbe (2016),48,MD,1.20,.88,120,MD,-.14,.60,no signal - inconsistent,imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) behavior descriptions,perceived criminal intentionality,very close,RRR3 #8,,,"2 other DVs (detailed processing [imagery], intention attribution; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) grammar on perceived criminal intentionality,,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626430/pdf/nihms454521.pdf,10.1177/0956797610395393,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826,https://osf.io/va85u/,https://osf.io/p6jxr/,https://osf.io/86zg9/,,,,,social,2011,,Imperfective (was doing) behavior descriptions increase perceived criminal intentionality compared to perfective (did),,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,860
grammar on intentionality effect (criminal intentionality DV),Hart & Albarracín (2011) Study 3,Ferretti (2016),48,MD,1.20,.88,85,MD,-.01,.42,no signal - inconsistent,imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) behavior descriptions,perceived criminal intentionality,very close,RRR3 #9,,,"2 other DVs (detailed processing [imagery], intention attribution; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) grammar on perceived criminal intentionality,,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626430/pdf/nihms454521.pdf,10.1177/0956797610395393,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826,https://osf.io/va85u/,https://osf.io/p6jxr/,https://osf.io/7kizw/,,,,,social,2011,,Imperfective (was doing) behavior descriptions increase perceived criminal intentionality compared to perfective (did),,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,861
grammar on intentionality effect (criminal intentionality DV),Hart & Albarracín (2011) Study 3,"Eerland, Zwaan et al. (2016)",48,MD,1.20,.88,100,MD,.16,.65,no signal - inconsistent,imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) behavior descriptions,perceived criminal intentionality,very close,RRR3 #10,,,"2 other DVs (detailed processing [imagery], intention attribution; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) grammar on perceived criminal intentionality,,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626430/pdf/nihms454521.pdf,10.1177/0956797610395393,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826,https://osf.io/va85u/,https://osf.io/p6jxr/,,,,,,social,2011,,Imperfective (was doing) behavior descriptions increase perceived criminal intentionality compared to perfective (did),,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,862
grammar on intentionality effect (criminal intentionality DV),Hart & Albarracín (2011) Study 3,"Poirier, Capezza, & Crocker (2016)",48,MD,1.20,.88,79,MD,.32,.66,no signal - inconsistent,imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) behavior descriptions,perceived criminal intentionality,very close,RRR3 #11,,,"2 other DVs (detailed processing [imagery], intention attribution; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) grammar on perceived criminal intentionality,,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626430/pdf/nihms454521.pdf,10.1177/0956797610395393,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826,https://osf.io/va85u/,https://osf.io/p6jxr/,https://osf.io/r7hx4/,,,,,social,2011,,Imperfective (was doing) behavior descriptions increase perceived criminal intentionality compared to perfective (did),,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,863
grammar on intentionality effect (criminal intentionality DV),Hart & Albarracín (2011) Study 3,Melcher (2016),48,MD,1.20,.88,66,MD,.65,.92,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) behavior descriptions,perceived criminal intentionality,very close,RRR3 #12,,,"2 other DVs (detailed processing [imagery], intention attribution; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between imperfective (was doing) vs. perfective (did) grammar on perceived criminal intentionality,,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626430/pdf/nihms454521.pdf,10.1177/0956797610395393,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691615605826,https://osf.io/va85u/,https://osf.io/p6jxr/,,,,,,social,2011,,Imperfective (was doing) behavior descriptions increase perceived criminal intentionality compared to perfective (did),,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,864
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)",Ringos & Carlucci (2016),47,d,-.69,.59,68,d,-.50,.48,signal - consistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #1,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/e9cky/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,yes,865
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Wolff, Muzzi & Brand (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,87,d,-.46,.43,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #2,German language,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/ztqwb/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,866
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)",Calvillo & Mills (2016),47,d,-.69,.59,75,d,-.44,.56,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #3,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/2bk7y/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,yes,867
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Crowell, Finley et al. (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,73,d,-.40,.46,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #4,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/um3h9/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,yes,868
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Lynch, vanDellen et al. (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,79,d,-.36,.44,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #5,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/r3cyn/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,869
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)",Birt & Muise (2016),47,d,-.69,.59,59,d,-.31,.52,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #6,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/cp6yt/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,870
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Yusainy, Wimbarti et al. (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,156,d,-.22,.31,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #7,Indonesian language,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/qpu5j/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,871
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)",Lau & Brewer (2016),47,d,-.69,.59,99,d,-.20,.40,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #8,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,872
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Ullrich, Primoceri et al. (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,103,d,-.09,.39,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #9,German language,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/sdb8f/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,873
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)",Elson (2016),47,d,-.69,.59,90,d,-.04,.42,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #10,German language,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/g6wv4/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,874
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Cheung, Kroese et al. (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,181,d,-.04,.29,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #11,Dutch language,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/9yycr/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,875
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)",Hagger et al. (2016),47,d,-.69,.59,101,d,.00,.39,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #12,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,876
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Schlinkert, Schrama et al. (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,79,d,.00,.44,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #13,Dutch language,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/uywbt/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,877
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)",Philipp & Cannon (2016),47,d,-.69,.59,75,d,.04,.45,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #14,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/z623g/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,yes,878
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)",Carruth & Miyake (2016),47,d,-.69,.59,126,d,.09,.36,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #15,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/a6qfe/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,879
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)",Brandt (2016),47,d,-.69,.59,102,d,.11,.39,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #16,Dutch language,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/8cz43/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,880
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Stamos, Bruyneel et al. (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,93,d,.12,.41,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #17,Dutch language,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/ekt68/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,881
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Rentzsch, Nalis et al. (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,103,d,.18,.39,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #18,German language,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/j4mdk/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18,,yes,882
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)",Francis & Inzlicht (2016),47,d,-.69,.59,50,d,.18,.56,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #19,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/agwtu/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,19,,yes,883
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Lange, Heise et al. (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,106,d,.23,.38,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #20,German language,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/bx3s5/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20,,yes,884
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Evans, Fay, & Mosser (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,89,d,.27,.42,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #21,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/2jfe3/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,21,,yes,885
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)",Tinghög & Koppel (2016),47,d,-.69,.59,82,d,.40,.43,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #22,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/py3ue/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22,,yes,886
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Otgaar, Martijn et al. (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,69,d,.41,.50,no signal - inconsistent,effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #23,Dutch language,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/b4ynb/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,23,,yes,887
ego depletion effect,"Sripada, Kessler, & Jonides (2014)","Muller, Zerhouni et al. (2016)",47,d,-.69,.59,78,d,.51,.46,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",effortful letter crossing vs. control,multi-source interference task (MSIT; RTV),very close,RRR4 #24,French language,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206661/pdf/nihms-565892.pdf,10.1177/0956797614526415,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616652873,https://osf.io/v79xp/,https://osf.io/ifdj3/,https://osf.io/eqabw/,,,,,social,2014,,,,,,,,,,,,,,24,,yes,888
ego depletion effect,"Gaillot, Baumeister et al. (2007) Study 7",Cesario & Corker (2010),61,d,-1.19,.52,119,d,.22,.34,no signal - inconsistent,sugar vs. splenda; video attention task vs. control,Stroop performance,very close,individual effort,No manipulation check,"Positive correlation between baseline & post-manipulation error rates, r = .36, p < .001",,,collections/ego-depletion.html,https://web.archive.org/web/20171108154936/http://www.laurenebrewer.com/uploads/3/8/6/6/3866345/gailliotetal_selfcontrol_glucose.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.325,https://web.archive.org/web/20170923092139/http://psychfiledrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTIw,,,,,,,,social,2007,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,889
ego depletion effect,Wang & Dvorak (2010),Lange & Eggert (2014) Study 1,61,d,-.99,.52,70,d,.13,.48,no signal - inconsistent,sugar vs. splenda; future-discounting t1 vs. t2,future-discounting task,close,individual effort,Different choices in future-discounting task,Test-retest reliability of r = .80 across t1 and t2 scores,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/ego-depletion/Wang%20and%20Dvorak%20(2010).pdf,10.1177/0956797609358096,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/ego-depletion/Lange%20%26%20Eggert%20(2014)%20study%201%20unsuccessful%20direct%20rep%20of%20Wang%20%26%20Dvorak%20(2010).pdf,,,,,,,,social,2010,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,890
ego depletion effect,"Muraven, Tice et al. (1998) Study 2",Murtagh & Todd (2004) Study 2,34,d,-.75,.71,51,d,-.01,.55,no signal - inconsistent,thought suppression vs. control,anagram performance,close,individual effort,"Very difficult solvable anagrams used rather than ""unsolvable""",,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/self-control_as_limited_resource-_regulatory_depletion_patterns.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.774,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.437.7808&rep=rep1&type=pdf,,,,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,891
ego depletion effect,"Schmeichel, Vohs et al. (2003) Study 1",Pond et al. (2011) Study 3,24,d,-1.58,.98,128,d,-.35,.52,no signal - inconsistent,video attention task vs. control,GRE standardized test,close,individual effort,10 verbal GRE items used (instead of 13 analytic GRE items),,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/ego-depletion/schmeichel%20et%20al%20(2003)%20Intellectual%20performance%20and%20ego%20depletion%20Role%20of%20the%20self%20in%20logical%20reasoning%20and%20other%20information%20processing.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.33,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/ego-depletion/Pond%20et%20al%20(2011%2C%20Study%203)%20unpublished%20dataset%20methodological%20details.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2003,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,892
ego depletion effect,Schmeichel (2007) Study 1,Healy et al. (2011) Study 1,79,d,-.37,.44,38,d,-1.31,.71,signal - consistent (imprecise),video attention task vs. control,working memory (OSPAN),close,individual effort,% of target words recalled (rather than total),,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/ego-depletion/Schmeichel%20(2007%2C%20JEPG).pdf,10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.241,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/ego-depletion/Healey%20et%20al%202011%20-%20potential%20direct%20rep%20of%20Schmeichel%20(2007)%20study%201.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2007,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,893
ego depletion effect,Schmeichel (2007) Study 1,Carter & McCullough (2013),79,d,-.37,.44,138,d,.05,.45,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),video attention task vs. control,working memory (OSPAN),close,individual effort,Effortful essay task vs. control in between IV and DV (perfectly confounded w/ IV),,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/ego-depletion/Schmeichel%20(2007%2C%20JEPG).pdf,10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.241,https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/2050-7283-1-22?site=bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com,,,,,,,,social,2007,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,894
ego depletion effect,Schmeichel (2007) Study 1,Lurquin et al. (2016),79,d,-.37,.44,200,d,.21,.28,no signal - inconsistent,video attention task vs. control,working memory (OSPAN),close,individual effort,40 target words in OSPAN (rather than 48),"Main effect of OSPAN set sizes on performance, F(1, 199) = 4439.81, p < .001",,,collections/ego-depletion.html,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/ego-depletion/Schmeichel%20(2007%2C%20JEPG).pdf,10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.241,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147770&type=printable,https://osf.io/r7vmb/?view_only=0c7de573120f4cab9b52e7ec2b2acd2d,https://osf.io/r7vmb/?view_only=0c7de573120f4cab9b52e7ec2b2acd2d,http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0147770.s002,,,,,social,2007,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,895
ego depletion effect,Inzlicht & Gutsell (2007),"Wang, Yang, & Wang (2014)",33,d,-1.06,.71,31,d,-.93,.73,signal - consistent (imprecise),emotion suppression (video) vs. control,EEG ERN during stroop task,close,individual effort,,,,,collections/ego-depletion.html,http://www.brandeis.edu/departments/psych/gutsell/docs/Inzlicht-Gutsell-2007.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02004.x,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096339,,,,,,,,social,2007,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,896
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,Bredow & Luna (2016),89,MD,-.65,.45,160,MD,-.42,.38,signal - consistent,high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #1,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .90 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/qqcjz/,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,1,yes,yes,897
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,"Carson, Corretti, Kane & Ackerman (2016)",89,MD,-.65,.45,201,MD,-.26,.39,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #2,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .92 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/b4jsf/,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,2,yes,yes,898
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,Yong & Li (2016),89,MD,-.65,.45,120,MD,-.25,.46,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #3,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .91 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,3,yes,yes,899
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,"Goldberg, Sinclair, Ritchey et al. (2016)",89,MD,-.65,.45,111,MD,-.23,.38,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #4,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .91 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,4,yes,yes,900
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,"Cheung, Campbell & LeBel (2016)",89,MD,-.65,.45,160,MD,-.22,.41,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #5,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .91 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/c2w5b/,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,5,yes,yes,901
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,"Fuglestad, Leone & Kim (2016)",89,MD,-.65,.45,124,MD,-.21,.58,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #6,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .92 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,6,yes,yes,902
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,"Vranka, Bahnik, & Houdek (2016)",89,MD,-.65,.45,162,MD,-.12,.43,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #7,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .93 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/3cgeu/,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,7,yes,yes,903
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,"Collins, Bowen, Winczewski et al. (2016)",89,MD,-.65,.45,102,MD,-.11,.42,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #8,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .94 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/zjsh2/,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,8,yes,yes,904
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,DiDonato & Golom (2016),89,MD,-.65,.45,105,MD,-.04,.49,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #9,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .91 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/5f33a/,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,9,yes,yes,905
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,Sucharyna & Morry (2016),89,MD,-.65,.45,187,MD,-.03,.45,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #10,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .90 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/wzf3x/?view_only=a61116c9e9b64a68b6e78cb5f06abcb7,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,10,yes,yes,906
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,Carcedo & Fernandez-Rouco (2016),89,MD,-.65,.45,100,MD,.03,.39,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #11,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .86 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/zrtvw/,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,11,yes,yes,907
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,"Aykutoglu, Gündogdu-Aktürk et al. (2016)",89,MD,-.65,.45,142,MD,.12,.43,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #12,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .93 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/wnj9c/,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,12,yes,yes,908
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,Hoplock & Stinson (2016),89,MD,-.65,.45,209,MD,.16,.35,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #13,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .88 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/8wk5r/,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,13,yes,yes,909
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,"Cobb, Pink, Millman & Logan (2016)",89,MD,-.65,.45,173,MD,.16,.38,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #14,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .90 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/4d264/?view_only=a99b2290256d4588b465196b3b59554d,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,14,yes,yes,910
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,Caprariello (2016),89,MD,-.65,.45,127,MD,.23,.43,no signal - inconsistent,high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #15,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .90 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/dwtsj/,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,15,yes,yes,911
commitment priming boosts forgiveness effect (exit forgiveness DV),Finkel et al. (2002) Study 1,Tidwell & Kraus (2016),89,MD,-.65,.45,101,MD,.29,.46,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),high vs. low commitment priming (dependence vs. independence from partner),forgiveness to hypothetical betrayals,very close,RRR5 #16,DV assessed via computer rather than paper-and-pencil,α = .90 on subjective commitment measure,"3 other DVs (neglect, voice, loyalty forgiveness; same pattern of results observed)",MD = mean difference between high vs. low commitment priming on exit forgiveness (negative value means lower levels of exit forgiveness),,http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/Finkeletal_2002_000.pdf,10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.956,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616664694,https://osf.io/2h6tf/,https://osf.io/knfy4/,https://osf.io/asgn9/,,,,,social,2002,,High commitment priming (writing about interdependence to partner) increases forgiveness on hypothetical betrayals compared to low commitment priming (writing about independence),,,,,,,,,,,,16,yes,yes,912
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Özdogru (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,87,MD,-.58,.83,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #1,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,yes,913
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Oosterwijk et al. (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,110,MD,-.24,.52,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #2,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2,,yes,914
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Wayand (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,110,MD,-.20,.54,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #3,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,https://osf.io/vpv8h/,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,yes,915
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Koch (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,100,MD,-.19,.54,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #4,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,https://osf.io/sdhak/,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,yes,916
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Pacheco-Unguetti et al. (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,120,MD,-.13,.63,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #5,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,,yes,917
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Capaldi et al. (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,117,MD,-.11,.58,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #6,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,https://osf.io/23vjk/,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6,,yes,918
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Chasten et al. (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,94,MD,-.05,.60,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #7,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,yes,919
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Benning et al. (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,115,MD,-.02,.50,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #8,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,https://osf.io/tq6da/,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,,yes,920
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Talarico & DeCicco (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,112,MD,.02,.54,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #9,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,https://osf.io/56tqw/,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9,,yes,921
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Korb et al. (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,101,MD,.02,.67,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #10,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,https://osf.io/eqp9k/,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,,yes,922
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Bulnes et al. (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,101,MD,.12,.55,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #11,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,yes,923
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Albohn et al. (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,139,MD,.14,.53,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #12,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,https://osf.io/s3b7p/,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,,yes,924
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Wagenmakers et al. (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,130,MD,.15,.42,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #13,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,https://osf.io/fvt3w/,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,,yes,925
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Allard & Zetzer (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,125,MD,.16,.59,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #14,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14,,yes,926
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Holmes et al. (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,99,MD,.20,.55,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #15,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,https://osf.io/2pm3a/,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,,yes,927
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Zeelenberg et al. (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,108,MD,.35,.53,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #16,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16,,yes,928
facial feedback hypothesis,Strack et al. (1988) Study 1,Lynott et al. (2016),60,MD,.82,.77,126,MD,.37,.55,no signal - inconsistent,hold pen with teeth vs. lips,amusement of cartoons (4 cartoons),close,RRR6 #17,New set of Far Side cartoons normed to be moderately funny; instructions via video to minimize experimenter effects; sessions filmed to allow for manipulation check; minor wording change for funniness rating scale,,,MD = mean difference (holding pen in mouth (smile) compared to holding pen with lips (pout) on perceived funniness of cartoons),,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Strack-et-al-1988-cartoons.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616674458,https://osf.io/dvqmj/,https://osf.io/pkd65/,,,,,,social,1988,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17,,yes,929
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Aczel et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,203,MD,5.49%,6.56%,no signal - consistent,time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #1,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,930
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Bègue et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,221,MD,-.37%,9.65%,no signal - consistent,time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #2,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,931
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Bouwmeester et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,169,MD,-3.85%,10.64%,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #3,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no,932
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Espin et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,157,MD,-2.13%,11.53%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #4,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no,933
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Evans et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,144,MD,-2.59%,10.62%,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #5,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no,934
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Ferreira-Santos et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,163,MD,1.24%,9.63%,no signal - consistent,time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #6,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,935
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Fiedler et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,154,MD,7.87%,11.39%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #7,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no,936
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Hauser et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,166,MD,-2.02%,12.30%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #8,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,937
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Hernan et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,182,MD,-2.47%,11.55%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #9,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,938
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Lohse et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,156,MD,-6.07%,11.32%,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #10,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no,939
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Mischkowski et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,188,MD,-5.10%,10.19%,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #11,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,940
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Neal et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,156,MD,4.92%,11.60%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #12,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no,941
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Novakova et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,202,MD,2.53%,9.62%,no signal - consistent,time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #13,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,942
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Pagà et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,157,MD,-5.61%,12.12%,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #14,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no,943
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Piovesan et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,216,MD,-7.56%,10.09%,no signal - inconsistent,time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #15,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,944
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Salomon et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,198,MD,-.25%,10.44%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #16,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,945
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Srinivasan et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,177,MD,7.51%,10.51%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #17,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,946
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Tinghög et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,164,MD,-9.36%,10.51%,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #18,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,947
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Trueblood et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,143,MD,.13%,11.99%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #19,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no,948
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Wills et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,147,MD,-1.41%,12.50%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #20,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no,949
intuitive-cooperation effect,"Rand, Greene, & Nowak (2012) Study 7",Wollbrant et al. (2017),211,MD,8.58%,10.42%,133,MD,2.22%,12.47%,no signal - consistent (imprecise),time pressure (within 10 seconds) vs. forced delay (wait at least 10 seconds),cooperation (money given to common project),very close,RRR7 #21,slightly different money amounts for samples outside US and Canada,decision time manipulation check; DV comprehension questions (2-items) ,,MD = mean difference in donations (% of maximum possible donation given) across conditions (time pressure - forced delay),,http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/ped/files/nature12a_0.pdf,10.1038/nature11467,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617693624,https://osf.io/rk7fu/,https://osf.io/rftsp/,https://osf.io/9tpgx/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no,950
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Schulte-Mecklenbeck et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,110,PD,4.24%,4.36%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #1,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,951
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Baskin et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,130,PD,4.08%,4.29%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #2,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,952
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Braithwaite et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,136,PD,4.01%,4.29%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #3,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,953
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,"Vazire, Finnigan et al. (2017)",43,PD,13.20%,,277,PD,2.89%,3.28%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #4,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,954
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Newell et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,122,PD,1.66%,4.71%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #5,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,955
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,O’Donnell et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,200,PD,1.58%,4.90%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #6,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,956
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Tamayo et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,208,PD,1.41%,3.42%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #7,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,957
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Karpinski et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,157,PD,1.38%,4.45%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #8,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,958
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Klein et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,242,PD,.88%,2.93%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #9,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,959
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Keller et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,431,PD,.17%,2.61%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #10,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,960
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Shanks et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,135,PD,.11%,5.01%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #11,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,961
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Bialobrzeska et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,136,PD,-.12%,3.98%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #12,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,962
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Koppel et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,139,PD,-.20%,4.07%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #13,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,963
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Philipp et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,140,PD,-.43%,4.75%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #14,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,964
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Ropovik et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,199,PD,-.48%,3.14%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #15,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,965
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Steele et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,544,PD,-.58%,2.01%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #16,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,966
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Susa et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,169,PD,-.63%,4.05%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #17,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,967
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Steffens et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,144,PD,-.84%,4.79%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #18,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,968
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Aczel et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,260,PD,-1.35%,2.95%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #19,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,969
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Saunders et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,152,PD,-1.87%,4.44%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #20,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,970
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,McLatchie et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,107,PD,-2.16%,4.95%,no signal - inconsistent,professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #21,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,971
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Aveyard et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,205,PD,-3.99%,3.43%,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #22,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,972
professor priming,Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998) Study 4,Boot et al. (2017),43,PD,13.20%,,150,PD,-4.99%,4.68%,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",professor vs. hooligan priming (writing task),Trivial pursuit performance (% of correct answers; out of 30 items),close,RRR8 #23,new normed set of Trivial pursuit items (medium difficulty; 30 instead of 20 items); different cover story,,,PD = percentage difference in correctly answered Trivial pursuit questions across conditions (professor - hooligan),,http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_relation_between_perception_and_behavior-_how_t_win_a_game_of_trivial_pursuit.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865,https://www.psychologicalscience.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RRR_ProfPrime_Ms_171013_ACPT.pdf,https://osf.io/hzg2v/,https://osf.io/6whj3/,https://osf.io/fyptm/,,,,,social,1998,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,973
playboy effect (on love),Kenrick et al. (1989) Study 2,Balzarini et al. (2017) Study 1,65,Δd,-.53,.64,223,Δd,.29,.46,no signal - inconsistent,Playboy centerfolds vs. control; Participant sex,Love for partner (Rubin Love-scale),close,individual effort,Updated pictures of abstract art & male/female nudes; Two attention check questions,Nudes rated as more pleasant than abstract art,1 other DV (partner attraction; same pattern of results observed),Δd = change in love after exposure to opposite-sex nudes vs. control (d_men - d_women; negative value means exposure to nudes decreased love more for men compared to women),,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/kgg1989/Kenrick%2C%20Gutierres%2C%20%26%20Goldbergs%20(1989)%20Study%202%20playboy%20effect.pdf,10.1016/0022-1031(89)90010-3,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/kgg1989/balzarini%20et%20al%20(2016%2C%20JESP)%203%20independent%20direct%20replications%20of%20playboy%20effect.pdf,https://osf.io/6xqju/,https://osf.io/nrkej/,https://osf.io/w648b/,,,,,social,1989,,"Opposite-sex nudes exposure decreases love among men, but not women",,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,974
playboy effect (on love),Kenrick et al. (1989) Study 2,Balzarini et al. (2017) Study 2,65,Δd,-.53,.64,263,Δd,.30,.42,no signal - inconsistent,Playboy centerfolds vs. control; Participant sex,Love for partner (Rubin Love-scale),close,individual effort,Updated pictures of abstract art & male/female nudes; Two attention check questions,Nudes rated as more pleasant than abstract art,1 other DV (partner attraction; same pattern of results observed),Δd = change in love after exposure to opposite-sex nudes vs. control (d_men - d_women; negative value means exposure to nudes decreased love more for men compared to women),,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/kgg1989/Kenrick%2C%20Gutierres%2C%20%26%20Goldbergs%20(1989)%20Study%202%20playboy%20effect.pdf,10.1016/0022-1031(89)90010-3,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/kgg1989/balzarini%20et%20al%20(2016%2C%20JESP)%203%20independent%20direct%20replications%20of%20playboy%20effect.pdf,https://osf.io/6xqju/,https://osf.io/nrkej/,https://osf.io/rqhjk/,,,,,social,1989,,"Opposite-sex nudes exposure decreases love among men, but not women",,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,975
playboy effect (on love),Kenrick et al. (1989) Study 2,Balzarini et al. (2017) Study 3,65,Δd,-.53,.64,225,Δd,-.38,.46,no signal - inconsistent,Playboy centerfolds vs. control; Participant sex,Love for partner (Rubin Love-scale),close,individual effort,Updated pictures of abstract art & male/female nudes; Two attention check questions,Nudes rated as more pleasant than abstract art,1 other DV (partner attraction; same pattern of results observed),Δd = change in love after exposure to opposite-sex nudes vs. control (d_men - d_women; negative value means exposure to nudes decreased love more for men compared to women),,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/kgg1989/Kenrick%2C%20Gutierres%2C%20%26%20Goldbergs%20(1989)%20Study%202%20playboy%20effect.pdf,10.1016/0022-1031(89)90010-3,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/kgg1989/balzarini%20et%20al%20(2016%2C%20JESP)%203%20independent%20direct%20replications%20of%20playboy%20effect.pdf,https://osf.io/6xqju/,https://osf.io/f56a8/,https://osf.io/f4n7b/,,,,,social,1989,,"Opposite-sex nudes exposure decreases love among men, but not women",,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,976
positive mood boosts helping effect,Isen & Levin (1972) Study 2,Blevins & Murphy (1974),41,PD,84%,18%,50,PD,3%,30%,no signal - inconsistent,positive mood (finding dime) vs. control (not finding dime),helping (picking up dropped papers),close,individual effort,,,,PD = percentage difference in Ps helping (positive mood compared to control condition),collections/mood-on-helping.html,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5081/93706d0c21b5ca09e8f43a3ce01e03a2138c.pdf,10.1037/h0032317,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/mood-on-helping/blevins%20%26%20murphy%20(1974)%20failed%20replication%20of%20i%26l1972%20study%202.pdf,,,,,,,,social,1972,,Positive mood increases percentage of Ps who help,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,977
positive mood boosts helping effect,Levin & Isen (1975) Study 1,Weyant & Clark (1977) Study 1,24,PD,60%,30%,106,PD,25%,29%,no signal - inconsistent,positive mood (finding dime) vs. control (not finding dime),helping (mailing 'forgotten' letter),close,individual effort,,,,PD = percentage difference in Ps helping (positive mood compared to control condition),collections/mood-on-helping.html,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/mood-on-helping/levin%20%26%20isen%20(1975%2C%20studies%201%20%26%202)%20further%20studies%20on%20effect%20of%20feeling%20good%20on%20helping.pdf,10.2307/2786238,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/mood-on-helping/weyant%20%26%20clark%20(1977%2C%20pspb)%20dimes%20and%20helping%20-%20the%20other%20side%20of%20the%20coin%20%5B2%20failed%20reps%20of%20l%26i1975%20study%201%5D.pdf,,,,,,,,social,1975,,Positive mood increases percentage of Ps who help,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,978
positive mood boosts helping effect,Levin & Isen (1975) Study 1,Weyant & Clark (1977) Study 2,24,PD,60%,30%,32,PD,-7%,16%,no signal - inconsistent,positive mood (finding dime) vs. control (not finding dime),helping (mailing 'forgotten' letter),close,individual effort,,,,PD = percentage difference in Ps helping (positive mood compared to control condition),collections/mood-on-helping.html,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/mood-on-helping/levin%20%26%20isen%20(1975%2C%20studies%201%20%26%202)%20further%20studies%20on%20effect%20of%20feeling%20good%20on%20helping.pdf,10.2307/2786238,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/mood-on-helping/weyant%20%26%20clark%20(1977%2C%20pspb)%20dimes%20and%20helping%20-%20the%20other%20side%20of%20the%20coin%20%5B2%20failed%20reps%20of%20l%26i1975%20study%201%5D.pdf,,,,,,,,social,1975,,Positive mood increases percentage of Ps who help,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,979
reading fiction boosts empathy effect,Kidd & Castano (2013) Study 1,Panero et al. (2016) Study 1,86,d,.56,.43,300,d,-.08,.23,no signal - inconsistent,literary fiction vs. nonfiction,empathy (Reading the mind in the eyes test [RMET]),very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://www.scienceintheclassroom.org/sites/default/files/research-papers/science-2013-kidd-377-80.pdf,10.1126/science.1239918,https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~deenas/papers/panero-weisberg-black-etal-JPSP.pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/Panero-et-al-2016-SUPPLEMENTARY-MATERIALS.pdf,https://osf.io/6h9u3/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,980
reading fiction boosts empathy effect,Kidd & Castano (2013) Study 3,"Dijkstra, Zwaan et al. (2015)",69,d,.36,.21,300,d,.14,.23,no signal - inconsistent,literary fiction vs. nonfiction,empathy (Reading the mind in the eyes test [RMET]),very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://www.scienceintheclassroom.org/sites/default/files/research-papers/science-2013-kidd-377-80.pdf,10.1126/science.1239918,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/dijkstra-et-al%5B2015%5D.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,981
reading fiction boosts empathy effect,Kidd & Castano (2013) Study 3,Panero et al. (2016) Study 2,69,d,.36,.21,303,d,.04,.22,no signal - inconsistent,literary fiction vs. popular fiction,empathy (Reading the mind in the eyes test [RMET]),very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://www.scienceintheclassroom.org/sites/default/files/research-papers/science-2013-kidd-377-80.pdf,10.1126/science.1239918,https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~deenas/papers/panero-weisberg-black-etal-JPSP.pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/Panero-et-al-2016-SUPPLEMENTARY-MATERIALS.pdf,https://osf.io/6h9u3/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,982
reading fiction boosts empathy effect,Kidd & Castano (2013) Study 5,Panero et al. (2016) Study 3,237,d,.25,.25,369,d,.10,.20,no signal - inconsistent,literary fiction vs. popular fiction,empathy (Reading the mind in the eyes test [RMET]),very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://www.scienceintheclassroom.org/sites/default/files/research-papers/science-2013-kidd-377-80.pdf,10.1126/science.1239918,https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~deenas/papers/panero-weisberg-black-etal-JPSP.pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/Panero-et-al-2016-SUPPLEMENTARY-MATERIALS.pdf,https://osf.io/6h9u3/,,,,,social,2013,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,983
pre-cognition (erotic premonition),Bem (2011) Study 1,Wagenmakers et al. (2012),100,d,.25,,200,d,-.05,,no signal - inconsistent,n/a,future location of erotic photo,close,individual effort,different erotic photos,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d54/6a62281b2d9e49a82afffb3a6d176dbf19e9.pdf,10.1037/a0021524,http://ejwagenmakers.com/2012/WagenmakersEtAl2012PoPS.pdf,https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1018886/Advance_Information_on_Experiment_and_Analysis.pdf,https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1018886/Advance_Information_on_Experiment_and_Analysis.pdf,,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,984
pre-cognition (retroactive memory recall),Bem (2011) Study 8,Galak et al. (2012) Study 1,100,DR%,2.3%,2.3%,112,DR%,-1.2%,1.6%,no signal - inconsistent,rehearsed vs. non-rehearsed words (after memory test),free recall memory test,close,individual effort,,,,DR% = differential recall between rehearsed vs. control words (weighted by total words recalled),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d54/6a62281b2d9e49a82afffb3a6d176dbf19e9.pdf,10.1037/a0021524,http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/galak2012.pdf,,,http://www.consumerbehaviorlab.com/psi/CorrectingThePastData.xlsx,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,985
pre-cognition (retroactive memory recall),Bem (2011) Study 8,Galak et al. (2012) Study 2,100,DR%,2.3%,2.3%,158,DR%,0%,1.3%,no signal - inconsistent,rehearsed vs. non-rehearsed words (after memory test),free recall memory test,close,individual effort,,,,DR% = differential recall between rehearsed vs. control words (weighted by total words recalled),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d54/6a62281b2d9e49a82afffb3a6d176dbf19e9.pdf,10.1037/a0021524,http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/galak2012.pdf,,,http://www.consumerbehaviorlab.com/psi/CorrectingThePastData.xlsx,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,986
pre-cognition (retroactive memory recall),Bem (2011) Study 8,Galak et al. (2012) Study 3,100,DR%,2.3%,2.3%,124,DR%,1.2%,1.4%,no signal - inconsistent,rehearsed vs. non-rehearsed words (after memory test),free recall memory test,exact,individual effort,,,,DR% = differential recall between rehearsed vs. control words (weighted by total words recalled),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d54/6a62281b2d9e49a82afffb3a6d176dbf19e9.pdf,10.1037/a0021524,http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/galak2012.pdf,,,http://www.consumerbehaviorlab.com/psi/CorrectingThePastData.xlsx,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,987
pre-cognition (retroactive memory recall),Bem (2011) Study 8,Galak et al. (2012) Study 7,100,DR%,2.3%,2.3%,2469,DR%,-.1%,.1%,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",rehearsed vs. non-rehearsed words (after memory test),free recall memory test,close,individual effort,,,,DR% = differential recall between rehearsed vs. control words (weighted by total words recalled),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d54/6a62281b2d9e49a82afffb3a6d176dbf19e9.pdf,10.1037/a0021524,http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/galak2012.pdf,,,http://www.consumerbehaviorlab.com/psi/CorrectingThePastData.xlsx,,,,,social,2011,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,988
pre-cognition (retroactive memory recall),Bem (2011) Study 9,Galak et al. (2012) Study 4,50,DR%,4.2%,3.0%,109,DR%,1.6%,1.1%,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",rehearsed vs. non-rehearsed words (after memory test),free recall memory test,exact,individual effort,,,,DR% = differential recall between rehearsed vs. control words (weighted by total words recalled),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d54/6a62281b2d9e49a82afffb3a6d176dbf19e9.pdf,10.1037/a0021524,http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/galak2012.pdf,,,http://www.consumerbehaviorlab.com/psi/CorrectingThePastData.xlsx,,,,,social,2011,,"different rehearsal task (visualize, click, & type) than Bem Study 8",,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,989
pre-cognition (retroactive memory recall),Bem (2011) Study 9,Galak et al. (2012) Study 5,50,DR%,4.2%,3.0%,211,DR%,-.5%,1.5%,no signal - inconsistent,rehearsed vs. non-rehearsed words (after memory test),free recall memory test,exact,individual effort,,,,DR% = differential recall between rehearsed vs. control words (weighted by total words recalled),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d54/6a62281b2d9e49a82afffb3a6d176dbf19e9.pdf,10.1037/a0021524,http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/galak2012.pdf,,,http://www.consumerbehaviorlab.com/psi/CorrectingThePastData.xlsx,,,,,social,2011,,"different rehearsal task (visualize, click, & type) than Bem Study 8",,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,990
pre-cognition (retroactive memory recall),Bem (2011) Study 9,Galak et al. (2012) Study 6,50,DR%,4.2%,3.0%,106,DR%,-.3%,1.5%,no signal - inconsistent,rehearsed vs. non-rehearsed words (after memory test),free recall memory test,exact,individual effort,,,,DR% = differential recall between rehearsed vs. control words (weighted by total words recalled),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d54/6a62281b2d9e49a82afffb3a6d176dbf19e9.pdf,10.1037/a0021524,http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/galak2012.pdf,,,http://www.consumerbehaviorlab.com/psi/CorrectingThePastData.xlsx,,,,,social,2011,,"different rehearsal task (visualize, click, & type) than Bem Study 8",,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,991
pre-cognition (retroactive memory recall),Bem (2011) Study 9,Ritchie et al. (2012) Study 1,50,DR%,4.2%,3.0%,50,DR%,.2%,3.5%,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),rehearsed vs. non-rehearsed words (after memory test),free recall memory test,exact,individual effort,,,,DR% = differential recall between rehearsed vs. control words (weighted by total words recalled),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d54/6a62281b2d9e49a82afffb3a6d176dbf19e9.pdf,10.1037/a0021524,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0033423,http://www.richardwiseman.com/BemReplications.shtml,,,,,,,social,2011,,"different rehearsal task (visualize, click, & type) than Bem Study 8",,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,992
pre-cognition (retroactive memory recall),Bem (2011) Study 9,Ritchie et al. (2012) Study 2,50,DR%,4.2%,3.0%,50,DR%,-2.7%,3.5%,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),rehearsed vs. non-rehearsed words (after memory test),free recall memory test,exact,individual effort,,,,DR% = differential recall between rehearsed vs. control words (weighted by total words recalled),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d54/6a62281b2d9e49a82afffb3a6d176dbf19e9.pdf,10.1037/a0021524,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0033423,http://www.richardwiseman.com/BemReplications.shtml,,,,,,,social,2011,,"different rehearsal task (visualize, click, & type) than Bem Study 8",,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,993
pre-cognition (retroactive memory recall),Bem (2011) Study 9,Ritchie et al. (2012) Study 3,50,DR%,4.2%,3.0%,50,DR%,-.6%,3.5%,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),rehearsed vs. non-rehearsed words (after memory test),free recall memory test,exact,individual effort,,,,DR% = differential recall between rehearsed vs. control words (weighted by total words recalled),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d54/6a62281b2d9e49a82afffb3a6d176dbf19e9.pdf,10.1037/a0021524,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0033423,http://www.richardwiseman.com/BemReplications.shtml,,,,,,,social,2011,,"different rehearsal task (visualize, click, & type) than Bem Study 8",,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,994
pre-cognition (retroactive memory recall),Bem (2011) Study 9,Robinson (2011),50,DR%,4.2%,3.0%,50,DR%,-1.6%,3.4%,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),rehearsed vs. non-rehearsed words (after memory test),free recall memory test,exact,individual effort,,,,DR% = differential recall between rehearsed vs. control words (weighted by total words recalled),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d54/6a62281b2d9e49a82afffb3a6d176dbf19e9.pdf,10.1037/a0021524,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/bem2011/robinson(2011).pdf,,,,,,,,social,2011,,"different rehearsal task (visualize, click, & type) than Bem Study 8",,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,995
power posing effect (risk-taking DV),"Carney, Cuddy & Yap (2010)",Ranehill et al. (2015),42,OR,3.13,"[.94,10.4]",200,OR,.72,"[.43,1.21]",no signal - inconsistent,pose (expansive vs contractive),risky gambling decision (yes vs. no),close,individual effort,3-minute poses instead of 1-minute; 5 additional gain domain gambling decisions,,"2 other DVS (testosterone level, cortisol level; same pattern of results observed)",OR = odds ratio (likelihood of choosing risky gamble vs. not),,"http://www.people.hbs.edu/acuddy/in%20press,%20carney,%20cuddy,%20&%20yap,%20psych%20science.pdf",10.1177/0956797610383437,http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/5110-Ranehill-Dreber-Johannesson-Leiberg-Sul-Weber-PS-2015-Assessing-the-robustness-of-power-posing-no-effect-on-hormones-and-risk-rolerance-in-a-large-sample-of-men-and-women.pdf,,https://osf.io/49a32/,https://osf.io/6gswz/,,,,,social,2010,,,between-subjects,chi-square,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,996
power posing effect (risk-taking DV),"Carney, Cuddy & Yap (2010)",Garrison et al. (2016),42,OR,3.13,"[.94,10.4]",305,OR,.67,"[.38,1.18]",no signal - inconsistent,pose (expansive vs contractive),risky gambling decision (yes vs. no),close,individual effort,added ultimatum game dominance DV; also manipulated eye gaze (orthogonal to pose IV),,,OR = odds ratio (likelihood of choosing risky gamble vs. not),,"http://www.people.hbs.edu/acuddy/in%20press,%20carney,%20cuddy,%20&%20yap,%20psych%20science.pdf",10.1177/0956797610383437,http://andrewgelman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Social-Psychological-and-Personality-Science-2016-Garrison-1948550616652209-copy.pdf,https://osf.io/8tikd/,,https://osf.io/34maf/,,,,,social,2010,,,between-subjects,chi-square,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,997
power posing effect (risk-taking DV),"Carney, Cuddy & Yap (2010)","Bailey, LaFrance et al. (2017)",42,OR,3.13,"[.94,10.4]",94,OR,1.38,"[.65,2.92]",no signal - inconsistent,pose (expansive vs contractive),risky gambling decision (yes vs. no),close,CRSP special issue,2 tokens for snacks instead of $2,,,OR = odds ratio (likelihood of choosing risky gamble vs. not),,"http://www.people.hbs.edu/acuddy/in%20press,%20carney,%20cuddy,%20&%20yap,%20psych%20science.pdf",10.1177/0956797610383437,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/April_Bailey3/publication/312489365_Could_a_woman_be_superman_Gender_and_the_embodiment_of_power_postures/links/587e452908ae9275d4eb8dba.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2010,,,between-subjects,chi-square,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,998
power posing effect (risk-taking DV),"Carney, Cuddy & Yap (2010)","Ronay, Tybur et al. (2017)",42,OR,3.13,"[.94,10.4]",108,OR,.53,"[.17,1.59]",no signal - inconsistent,pose (expansive vs contractive),risky gambling decision (yes vs. no),very close,CRSP special issue,Dutch undergraduates,,"2 other DVS (testosterone level, cortisol level; same pattern of results observed)",OR = odds ratio (likelihood of choosing risky gamble vs. not),,"http://www.people.hbs.edu/acuddy/in%20press,%20carney,%20cuddy,%20&%20yap,%20psych%20science.pdf",10.1177/0956797610383437,http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23743603.2016.1248081?needAccess=true,,http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/dana_carney/PRS%20Materials%20-%20to%20replicate.zip,,,,,,social,2010,,,between-subjects,chi-square,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,999
power posing effect (risk-taking DV),"Carney, Cuddy & Yap (2010)","Bombari, Schmid et al. (2017)",42,OR,3.13,"[.94,10.4]",200,OR,1.14,"[.68,1.89]",no signal - inconsistent,pose (expansive vs contractive),risky gambling decision (yes vs. no),close,CRSP special issue,Swiss undergrad or Master's students,,,OR = odds ratio (likelihood of choosing risky gamble vs. not),,"http://www.people.hbs.edu/acuddy/in%20press,%20carney,%20cuddy,%20&%20yap,%20psych%20science.pdf",10.1177/0956797610383437,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Cesario/publication/317958126_Power_poses_-_where_do_we_stand/links/59dbd44d0f7e9b1460fc29be/Power-poses-where-do-we-stand.pdf#page=45,,,,,,,,social,2010,,,between-subjects,chi-square,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1000
power posing effect (risk-taking DV),"Carney, Cuddy & Yap (2010)","Keller, Johnson et al. (2017)",42,OR,3.13,"[.94,10.4]",276,OR,1.17,"[.91,1.51]",no signal - inconsistent,pose (expansive vs contractive),risky gambling decision (yes vs. no),close,CRSP special issue,2 tickets to win $50 gift card instead of $2,,impromptu job interview performance (same pattern of results observed),OR = odds ratio (likelihood of choosing risky gamble vs. not),,"http://www.people.hbs.edu/acuddy/in%20press,%20carney,%20cuddy,%20&%20yap,%20psych%20science.pdf",10.1177/0956797610383437,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Cesario/publication/317958126_Power_poses_-_where_do_we_stand/links/59dbd44d0f7e9b1460fc29be/Power-poses-where-do-we-stand.pdf#page=107,https://osf.io/ut9jv/,,https://osf.io/hnef7/,,,,,social,2010,,,between-subjects,chi-square,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1001
elderly priming,Bargh et al. (1996) Study 2a,Hull et al. (2002) Study 1a,30,d,1.02,.76,31,d,.56,.72,no signal - consistent,exposure to elderly cues vs. control (scrambled sentence),walking speed,close,individual effort,,,,,,http://paynelab395.web.unc.edu/files/2012/08/Bargh-Chen-Burrows-1996-Automaticity-of-social-behavior.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/barghetal1996/hull%20et%20al%20(2002)%20The%20nonconsciousness%20of%20self-consciousness%20(2%20unsuccessful%20direct%20replications%20of%20bargh%20et%20al%201996%20study%202).pdf,,,,,,,,social,1996,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1002
elderly priming,Bargh et al. (1996) Study 2a,Hull et al. (2002) Study 1b,30,d,1.02,.76,40,d,.53,.63,no signal - consistent,exposure to elderly cues vs. control (scrambled sentence),walking speed,close,individual effort,,,,,,http://paynelab395.web.unc.edu/files/2012/08/Bargh-Chen-Burrows-1996-Automaticity-of-social-behavior.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/barghetal1996/hull%20et%20al%20(2002)%20The%20nonconsciousness%20of%20self-consciousness%20(2%20unsuccessful%20direct%20replications%20of%20bargh%20et%20al%201996%20study%202).pdf,,,,,,,,social,1996,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1003
elderly priming,Bargh et al. (1996) Study 2a,Cesario et al. (2007) Study 2,30,d,1.02,.76,45,d,.22,.58,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to elderly cues vs. control (scrambled sentence),walking speed,very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://paynelab395.web.unc.edu/files/2012/08/Bargh-Chen-Burrows-1996-Automaticity-of-social-behavior.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230,https://msu.edu/~cesario/publications/cesario_plaks_higgins_2006_jpsp.pdf,,,,,,,,social,1996,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1004
elderly priming,Bargh et al. (1996) Study 2a,Pashler et al. (2008),30,d,1.02,.76,66,d,-.22,.48,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to elderly cues vs. control (scrambled sentence),walking speed,very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://paynelab395.web.unc.edu/files/2012/08/Bargh-Chen-Burrows-1996-Automaticity-of-social-behavior.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230,https://web.archive.org/web/20170923093613/http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU%3D,,,,,,,,social,1996,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1005
elderly priming,Bargh et al. (1996) Study 2a,Doyen et al. (2012) Study 1,30,d,1.02,.76,120,d,-.07,.36,no signal - inconsistent,exposure to elderly cues vs. control (scrambled sentence),walking speed,close,individual effort,,,,,,http://paynelab395.web.unc.edu/files/2012/08/Bargh-Chen-Burrows-1996-Automaticity-of-social-behavior.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029081,,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?type=supplementary&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029081.s001,,,,,,social,1996,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1006
embodiment of secrets effect,Slepian et al. (2012) Study 1,Perfecto et al. (2012),40,d,.78,.62,314,d,.19,.22,no signal - inconsistent,big vs. small secret (write about),hill steepness estimate (open-ended),very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://web.stanford.edu/group/ipc/pubs/Slepian-Masicampo-Toosi-Ambady_Physical-Burdens-of-Secrecy_2012_JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0027598,https://web.archive.org/web/20170923095521/http://psychfiledrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTc2,,https://web.archive.org/web/20170107102034/http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/files/8531391990603Materials.pdf,,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1007
embodiment of secrets effect,Slepian et al. (2012) Study 1,LeBel & Wilbur (2014) Study 1,40,d,.78,.62,240,d,.18,.25,no signal - inconsistent,big vs. small secret (write about),hill steepness estimate (open-ended),very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://web.stanford.edu/group/ipc/pubs/Slepian-Masicampo-Toosi-Ambady_Physical-Burdens-of-Secrecy_2012_JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0027598,"http://etiennelebel.com/documents/l&w(2014,pbr).pdf",https://osf.io/dz2fx/,https://osf.io/dz2fx/,https://osf.io/bks3g/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1008
embodiment of secrets effect,Slepian et al. (2012) Study 1,LeBel & Wilbur (2014) Study 2,40,d,.78,.62,90,d,-.32,.41,no signal - inconsistent,big vs. small secret (write about),hill steepness estimate (open-ended),very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://web.stanford.edu/group/ipc/pubs/Slepian-Masicampo-Toosi-Ambady_Physical-Burdens-of-Secrecy_2012_JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0027598,"http://etiennelebel.com/documents/l&w(2014,pbr).pdf",https://osf.io/e5aj9/,https://osf.io/e5aj9/,https://osf.io/kdu9z/,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1009
embodiment of secrets effect,Slepian et al. (2012) Study 1,Pecher et al. (2015) Study 1,40,d,.78,.62,100,d,.08,.39,no signal - inconsistent,big vs. small secret (write about),hill steepness estimate (open-ended),very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://web.stanford.edu/group/ipc/pubs/Slepian-Masicampo-Toosi-Ambady_Physical-Burdens-of-Secrecy_2012_JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0027598,https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37999752/PecherVanMierloCanalBrulandZeelenberg15.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510160697&Signature=FSmhl5Z5BF%2Bcem9NgITBSb6fzxY%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_Burden_of_Secrecy_No_Effect_on_Hill.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1010
embodiment of secrets effect,Slepian et al. (2012) Study 1,Pecher et al. (2015) Study 2,40,d,.78,.62,100,d,.21,.39,no signal - inconsistent,big vs. small secret (write about),hill steepness estimate (open-ended),very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://web.stanford.edu/group/ipc/pubs/Slepian-Masicampo-Toosi-Ambady_Physical-Burdens-of-Secrecy_2012_JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0027598,https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37999752/PecherVanMierloCanalBrulandZeelenberg15.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510160697&Signature=FSmhl5Z5BF%2Bcem9NgITBSb6fzxY%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_Burden_of_Secrecy_No_Effect_on_Hill.pdf,https://osf.io/hmfxt/,,,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1011
embodiment of secrets effect,Slepian et al. (2012) Study 2,Cobb et al. (2014),36,d,.81,.73,60,d,.31,.52,no signal - inconsistent,meaningful vs. trivial secret (recall task),beanbag toss distance,close,individual effort,,,,,,http://web.stanford.edu/group/ipc/pubs/Slepian-Masicampo-Toosi-Ambady_Physical-Burdens-of-Secrecy_2012_JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0027598,https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://psychfiledrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MjIw,,,,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1012
embodiment of secrets effect,Slepian et al. (2012) Study 2,Pecher et al. (2015) Study 3,36,d,.81,.73,118,d,.21,.36,no signal - inconsistent,meaningful vs. trivial secret (recall task),beanbag toss distance,very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://web.stanford.edu/group/ipc/pubs/Slepian-Masicampo-Toosi-Ambady_Physical-Burdens-of-Secrecy_2012_JEPG.pdf,10.1037/a0027598,https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37999752/PecherVanMierloCanalBrulandZeelenberg15.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510160697&Signature=FSmhl5Z5BF%2Bcem9NgITBSb6fzxY%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_Burden_of_Secrecy_No_Effect_on_Hill.pdf,https://osf.io/qc3pz/,,,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1013
Macbeth effect ([im]moral act text transcription),Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 2,Gamez et al. (2011) Study 2,27,r,.45,.31,36,r,.04,.33,no signal - inconsistent (imprecise),moral purity threat (transcribe unethical vs. ethical act),need to cleanse oneself (cleaning products desirability),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/macbeth-effect.html,http://haniff.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/washing-away-your-sins.pdf,10.1126/science.1130726,http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/172/17217456013.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1014
Macbeth effect ([im]moral act text transcription),Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 2,Siev (2012) Study 1,27,r,.45,.31,335,r,-.04,.11,no signal - inconsistent,moral purity threat (transcribe unethical vs. ethical act),need to cleanse oneself (cleaning products desirability),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/macbeth-effect.html,http://haniff.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/washing-away-your-sins.pdf,10.1126/science.1130726,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/z%26l/Siev%20(2012).pdf,,,,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1015
Macbeth effect ([im]moral act text transcription),Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 2,Siev (2012) Study 2,27,r,.45,.31,148,r,-.09,.16,no signal - inconsistent,moral purity threat (transcribe unethical vs. ethical act),need to cleanse oneself (cleaning products desirability),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/macbeth-effect.html,http://haniff.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/washing-away-your-sins.pdf,10.1126/science.1130726,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/z%26l/Siev%20(2012).pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/z%26l/Siev%20(2012%2C%20Study%202)%20-%20Spring08protocol%20undergrads%20fixed%20format.pdf,,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1016
Macbeth effect ([im]moral act text transcription),Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 2,Earp et al. (2014) Study 1,27,r,.45,.31,153,r,.00,.16,no signal - inconsistent,moral purity threat (transcribe unethical vs. ethical act),need to cleanse oneself (cleaning products desirability),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/macbeth-effect.html,http://haniff.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/washing-away-your-sins.pdf,10.1126/science.1130726,http://www.jimaceverett.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Earp-Everett-et-al.-2014-Out-damned-spot.pdf,,,http://www.jimaceverett.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Macbeth-Study-1.csv,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1017
Macbeth effect ([im]moral act text transcription),Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 2,Earp et al. (2014) Study 2,27,r,.45,.31,156,r,-.07,.16,no signal - inconsistent,moral purity threat (transcribe unethical vs. ethical act),need to cleanse oneself (cleaning products desirability),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/macbeth-effect.html,http://haniff.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/washing-away-your-sins.pdf,10.1126/science.1130726,http://www.jimaceverett.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Earp-Everett-et-al.-2014-Out-damned-spot.pdf,,,http://www.jimaceverett.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Macbeth-Study-2-USA.csv,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1018
Macbeth effect ([im]moral act text transcription),Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 2,Earp et al. (2014) Study 3,27,r,.45,.31,286,r,-.11,.11,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",moral purity threat (transcribe unethical vs. ethical act),need to cleanse oneself (cleaning products desirability),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/macbeth-effect.html,http://haniff.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/washing-away-your-sins.pdf,10.1126/science.1130726,http://www.jimaceverett.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Earp-Everett-et-al.-2014-Out-damned-spot.pdf,,,http://www.jimaceverett.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Macbeth-Study-3-India.csv,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1019
Macbeth effect ([im]moral act recollection),Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 3,Fayard et al. (2009) Study 1,32,r,.38,.30,210,r,.03,.14,no signal - inconsistent,moral purity threat (recall unethical vs. ethical deed),product choice (cleaning-related vs. unrelated),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/macbeth-effect.html,http://haniff.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/washing-away-your-sins.pdf,10.1126/science.1130726,http://www.jasnh.com/pdf/Vol6-No2.pdf,,,https://figshare.com/articles/Fayard_et_al_2009_Study_1/1007716,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1020
Macbeth effect ([im]moral act recollection),Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 3,Gamez et al. (2011) Study 3,32,r,.38,.30,45,r,.15,.29,no signal - inconsistent,moral purity threat (recall unethical vs. ethical deed),product choice (cleaning-related vs. unrelated),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/macbeth-effect.html,http://haniff.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/washing-away-your-sins.pdf,10.1126/science.1130726,http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/172/17217456013.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1021
Macbeth effect (physical cleansing),Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 4,Fayard et al. (2009) Study 2,45,r,.33,.26,115,r,.01,.18,no signal - inconsistent,physical cleansing (antiseptic wipe vs. control),volunteerism (help student RA),close,individual effort,minutes volunteering instead of binary choice to help,,,,collections/macbeth-effect.html,http://haniff.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/washing-away-your-sins.pdf,10.1126/science.1130726,http://www.jasnh.com/pdf/Vol6-No2.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1022
Macbeth effect (physical cleansing),Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 4,Gamez et al. (2011) Study 4,45,r,.33,.26,28,r,.19,.36,no signal - consistent (imprecise),physical cleansing (antiseptic wipe vs. control),volunteerism (help student RA),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/macbeth-effect.html,http://haniff.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/washing-away-your-sins.pdf,10.1126/science.1130726,http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/172/17217456013.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1023
Macbeth effect (physical cleansing),Zhong & Liljenquist (2006) Study 4,Reuven et al. (2013),45,r,.33,.26,29,r,.39,.31,signal - consistent (imprecise),physical cleansing (antiseptic wipe vs. control),volunteerism (help student RA),close,individual effort,3-choice instead of binary choice DV,,,,collections/macbeth-effect.html,http://haniff.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/washing-away-your-sins.pdf,10.1126/science.1130726,http://sci-hub.tw/http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2167702613485565,,,https://osf.io/g83w6/,,,,,social,2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1024
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,Donnellan et al. (2015a) Study 9,51,r,.57,.19,197,r,-.13,.14,no signal - inconsistent,UCLA Loneliness scale (10-item v1),showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://msu.edu/~cesario/publications/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20loneliness%20bathing.pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20CODEBOOK%20for%20Combined%20Studies%205%20to%209.pdf,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20DATA%20for%20Combined%20Studies%205%20to%209.csv,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1025
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,Donnellan et al. (2015a) Study 4,51,r,.57,.19,228,r,-.10,.13,no signal - inconsistent,UCLA Loneliness scale (20-item v3),showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),close,individual effort,online (SurveyMonkey); slightly different scale response options; 20-item (instead of 10-item) UCLA Loneliness Scale,,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://msu.edu/~cesario/publications/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20loneliness%20bathing.pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20CODEBOOK%20for%20Combined%20Studies%201%20to%204.pdf,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20DATA%20for%20Combined%20Studies%201%20to%204.csv,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1026
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,Donnellan et al. (2015a) Study 1,51,r,.57,.19,235,r,-.06,.13,no signal - inconsistent,UCLA Loneliness scale (20-item v3),showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),close,individual effort,slightly different scale response options; 20-item (instead of 10-item) UCLA Loneliness Scale,,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://msu.edu/~cesario/publications/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20loneliness%20bathing.pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20CODEBOOK%20for%20Combined%20Studies%201%20to%204.pdf,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20DATA%20for%20Combined%20Studies%201%20to%204.csv,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1027
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,Donnellan et al.(2015b),51,r,.57,.19,291,r,-.04,.11,no signal - inconsistent,UCLA Loneliness scale (10-item v1),showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20et%20al%20(2015b)%20rejoinder%20supplementary%20file%20-%20another%20direct%20rep%20of%20b%26s%202012%20study%201.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1028
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,Ferrell et al. (2013),51,r,.57,.19,365,r,-.03,.10,no signal - inconsistent,"Revised UCLA Loneliness scale (3-item; Hughes et al., 2004)",showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),close,individual effort,online (UT Austin),,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://traitstate.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/u-of-t-failure-to-replicate_final.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1029
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,McDonald & Donnellan (2015),51,r,.57,.19,356,r,-.02,.10,no signal - inconsistent,"Revised UCLA Loneliness scale (3-item; Hughes et al., 2004)",showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),close,individual effort,online Israeli sample,,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://web.archive.org/web/20170107101257/http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/files/5051407362021McDonald%20and%20Donnellan.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1030
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,Donnellan et al. (2015a) Study 2,51,r,.57,.19,480,r,-.01,.09,no signal - inconsistent,UCLA Loneliness scale (20-item v3),showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),close,individual effort,online (mTurk); slightly different scale response options; 20-item (instead of 10-item) UCLA Loneliness Scale,,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://msu.edu/~cesario/publications/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20loneliness%20bathing.pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20CODEBOOK%20for%20Combined%20Studies%201%20to%204.pdf,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20DATA%20for%20Combined%20Studies%201%20to%204.csv,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1031
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,Donnellan et al. (2015a) Study 8,51,r,.57,.19,365,r,.02,.10,no signal - inconsistent,UCLA Loneliness scale (10-item v1),showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://msu.edu/~cesario/publications/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20loneliness%20bathing.pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20CODEBOOK%20for%20Combined%20Studies%205%20to%209.pdf,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20DATA%20for%20Combined%20Studies%205%20to%209.csv,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1032
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,Donnellan et al. (2015a) Study 7,51,r,.57,.19,311,r,.02,.11,no signal - inconsistent,UCLA Loneliness scale (10-item v1),showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://msu.edu/~cesario/publications/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20loneliness%20bathing.pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20CODEBOOK%20for%20Combined%20Studies%205%20to%209.pdf,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20DATA%20for%20Combined%20Studies%205%20to%209.csv,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1033
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,Donnellan & Lucas (2014),51,r,.57,.19,531,r,.04,.08,no signal - inconsistent,UCLA Loneliness scale (10-item v1),showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),very close,individual effort,,,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://web.archive.org/web/20170405040007/http://psychfiledrawer.org/files/471398782639Spring%202014%20Failure%20to%20Replicate.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1034
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,Donnellan et al. (2015a) Study 6,51,r,.57,.19,553,r,.06,.08,no signal - inconsistent,UCLA Loneliness scale (10-item v1),showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),very close,individual effort,online (mTurk),,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://msu.edu/~cesario/publications/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20loneliness%20bathing.pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20CODEBOOK%20for%20Combined%20Studies%205%20to%209.pdf,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20DATA%20for%20Combined%20Studies%205%20to%209.csv,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1035
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,Donnellan et al. (2015a) Study 5,51,r,.57,.19,494,r,.10,.09,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",UCLA Loneliness scale (10-item v1),showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),very close,individual effort,online (mTurk),,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://msu.edu/~cesario/publications/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20loneliness%20bathing.pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20CODEBOOK%20for%20Combined%20Studies%205%20to%209.pdf,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20DATA%20for%20Combined%20Studies%205%20to%209.csv,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1036
warmth embodiment (hot shower loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 1a,Donnellan et al. (2015a) Study 3,51,r,.57,.19,210,r,.13,.13,"signal - inconsistent, smaller",UCLA Loneliness scale (20-item v3),showering/bathing behaviors (3-items),close,individual effort,online (SurveyMonkey); slightly different scale response options; 20-item (instead of 10-item) UCLA Loneliness Scale,,,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,https://msu.edu/~cesario/publications/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20loneliness%20bathing.pdf,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20CODEBOOK%20for%20Combined%20Studies%201%20to%204.pdf,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/b%26s2012/Donnellan%20Lucas%20Cesario%20IN%20PRESS%20EMOTION%20DATA%20for%20Combined%20Studies%201%20to%204.csv,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1037
warmth embodiment (cold packs boost loneliness effect),Bargh & Shalev (2012) Study 2,Wortman et al. (2014),75,r,.29,.21,260,r,.01,.11,no signal - inconsistent,holding cold vs. warm pack,UCLA Loneliness scale (10-item v1),very close,individual effort,,Cold packs rated as colder than warm packs (d = +3.07 ± .92),,,collections/warmth-embodiment.html,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406601/,10.1037/a0023527,http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-34343-001.pdf,,http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/arc/2/1/13.pdf,,,,,,social,2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1038
anxious attachment warm food effect,Vess (2012) Study 1,LeBel & Campbell (2013) Study 1,56,d,.60,.55,219,d,.03,.27,no signal - inconsistent,anxious attachment; recall breakup vs. control,warm food desirability ratings (3 items),very close,individual effort,slightly different instructions & scale anchors for attachment measure,"Known sex differences in food preferences (women liked vegetables, fruits, candy, and wine more than men whereas men liked meats, chili pepper, and beer more than women; Logan & Smith, 1986)",,,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1009.3466&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1177/0956797611435919,"http://etiennelebel.com/documents/l&c(2013,psci).pdf",https://osf.io/kizyn/,https://osf.io/kizyn/,https://osf.io/suza9/,,,,,social,2012,,"individuals with high (but not low) levels of anxious attachment reported heightened preferences for warm foods when attachment concerns were activated (i.e., by reflecting on a romantic breakup). ",between-subjects,interaction,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1039
anxious attachment warm food effect,Vess (2012) Study 1,LeBel & Campbell (2013) Study 2,56,d,.60,.55,233,d,.05,.26,no signal - inconsistent,anxious attachment; recall breakup vs. control,warm food desirability ratings (3 items),exact,individual effort,,"Known sex differences in food preferences (women liked vegetables, fruits, candy, and wine more than men whereas men liked meats, chili pepper, and beer more than women; Logan & Smith, 1986)",,,,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1009.3466&rep=rep1&type=pdf,10.1177/0956797611435919,"http://etiennelebel.com/documents/l&c(2013,psci).pdf",https://osf.io/5kyjt/,https://osf.io/5kyjt/,https://osf.io/mgq8f/,,,,,social,2012,,"individuals with high (but not low) levels of anxious attachment reported heightened preferences for warm foods when attachment concerns were activated (i.e., by reflecting on a romantic breakup). ",between-subjects,interaction,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1040
modulation of 1/f noise racial bias emission effect,Correll (2008) Study 2,Madurski & LeBel (2015) Study 1,71,d,.59,.51,148,d,.16,.34,no signal - inconsistent,avoid/use race information vs. control instructions,1/f noise (weapon identification task),very close,individual effort,Canadian rather than US undergraduates; keyboard used instead of response box;,Racial bias (in terms of RT) higher in use and avoid race (compared to control) conditions (d = .34 ± .35); 1/f noise observed within each of the 3 conditions (p<.0001),,,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/correll(2008).pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.48,"http://etiennelebel.com/documents/m&l(2015,pbr).pdf",https://osf.io/iwe3v/,https://osf.io/fe9qz/,https://osf.io/faj47/,,,,,social,2008,,Use/avoid race conditions increases effort (via 1/f noise) on racial bias task (weapon identification task),between-subjects,linear contrast,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1041
modulation of 1/f noise racial bias emission effect,Correll (2008) Study 2,Madurski & LeBel (2015) Study 2,71,d,.59,.51,148,d,-.09,.34,no signal - inconsistent,avoid/use race information vs. control instructions,1/f noise (weapon identification task),very close,individual effort,Canadian rather than US undergraduates; keyboard used instead of response box;,Racial bias (in terms of RT) higher in use and avoid race (compared to control) conditions (d = .44 ± .35); 1/f noise observed within each of the 3 conditions (p<.0001),,,,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/correll(2008).pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.48,"http://etiennelebel.com/documents/m&l(2015,pbr).pdf",https://osf.io/v538h/,https://osf.io/x8tf6/,https://osf.io/9tr4h/,,,,,social,2008,,Use/avoid race conditions increases effort (via 1/f noise) on racial bias task (weapon identification task),between-subjects,linear contrast,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1042
high-approach positive affect constricts attention effect,Gable & Harmon-Jones (2008) Study 2,Domachowska et al. (2016) Study 1,32,η²,.53,"[.26,.67]",79,η²,.24,"[.09,.39]","signal - inconsistent, smaller",Affect (High-approach positive affect vs. neutral),"Attentional breadth (Navon, 1977 letter task RTs) ",very close,individual effort,German language; Mood (PANAS) assessed at study outset,"Neutral mood global bias effect observed, p < .01; Successful valence manipulation check, dz = 1.14",,,,http://www.socialemotiveneuroscience.org/pubs/gable_hj2008psy_sci.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02112.x,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/domachowska-et-al(2016%2CJESP).pdf,https://osf.io/c2bt8/register/564d31db8c5e4a7c9694b2c2,https://osf.io/w928b/,https://osf.io/3svem/,,,,,social,2008,,,within-subjects,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1043
high-approach positive affect constricts attention effect,Gable & Harmon-Jones (2008) Study 2,Domachowska et al. (2016) Study 2,32,η²,.53,"[.26,.67]",80,η²,.08,"[.00,.21]","signal - inconsistent, smaller",Affect (High-approach positive affect vs. neutral),"Attentional breadth (Navon, 1977 letter task RTs) ",close,individual effort,German-normed stimuli; Low-approach positive affect within-subject condition also included,"Neutral mood global bias effect observed, p < .05; Successful valence manipulation check, dz = 2.51",,,,http://www.socialemotiveneuroscience.org/pubs/gable_hj2008psy_sci.pdf,10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02112.x,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/domachowska-et-al(2016%2CJESP).pdf,https://osf.io/c2bt8/register/564d31db8c5e4a7c9694b2c2,https://osf.io/w928b/,https://osf.io/kp92b/,,,,,social,2008,,,within-subjects,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1044
honesty priming,Rasinski et al. (2005),"Pashler, Rohrer, & Harris (2012) Study 1",62,d,1.21,.55,149,d,.18,.33,no signal - inconsistent,honesty vs. neutral words exposure (synonym judgment task),candor (alcohol drinking questions),very close,individual effort,,,,,,http://j.b.legal.free.fr/Blog/share/M1/Articles%20INC/Goals/honesty%20goal%20priming.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2004.07.001,http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles/Pashler%20Rohrer%20Harris_JESP2013.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2005,,,between-subjects,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1045
honesty priming,Rasinski et al. (2005),"Pashler, Rohrer, & Harris (2012) Study 2",62,d,1.21,.55,152,d,-.13,.33,no signal - inconsistent,honesty vs. neutral words exposure (synonym judgment task),candor (alcohol drinking questions),very close,individual effort,UCSD online sample,,,,,http://j.b.legal.free.fr/Blog/share/M1/Articles%20INC/Goals/honesty%20goal%20priming.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2004.07.001,http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles/Pashler%20Rohrer%20Harris_JESP2013.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2005,,,between-subjects,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1046
honesty priming,Rasinski et al. (2005),"Pashler, Rohrer, & Harris (2012,online) Study 3",62,d,1.21,.55,151,d,-.14,.32,no signal - inconsistent,honesty vs. neutral words exposure (synonym judgment task),candor (alcohol drinking questions),close,individual effort,US mTurk sample; BIDR also measured,,,,,http://j.b.legal.free.fr/Blog/share/M1/Articles%20INC/Goals/honesty%20goal%20priming.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2004.07.001,http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles/Pashler%20Rohrer%20Harris_JESP2013.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2005,,,between-subjects,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1047
honesty priming,Rasinski et al. (2005),"Pashler, Rohrer, & Harris (2012,online) Study 4",62,d,1.21,.55,153,d,.04,.32,no signal - inconsistent,honesty vs. neutral words exposure (synonym judgment task),candor (alcohol drinking questions),close,individual effort,Indian mTurk sample; BIDR also measured,,,,,http://j.b.legal.free.fr/Blog/share/M1/Articles%20INC/Goals/honesty%20goal%20priming.pdf,10.1016/j.jesp.2004.07.001,http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles/Pashler%20Rohrer%20Harris_JESP2013.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2005,,,between-subjects,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1048
achievement priming,Bargh et al. (2001) Study 1,"Harris, Rohrer, & Pashler (2013) Study 1",78,d,.70,.46,106,d,-.24,.40,no signal - inconsistent,high-achievement vs. neutral words exposure (word search puzzle),word search performance (3 IV-unrelated puzzles),very close,individual effort,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f808/e462cc8169d5e4c8bb677df2f4a7f4304a16.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1014,http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles/Harris_etal_PLOS2013.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2001,,,between-subjects,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1049
achievement priming (5-minute delay before DV),Bargh et al. (2001) Study 3,"Harris, Rohrer, & Pashler (2013) Study 2",72,d,NR,,66,d,-.03,.49,no signal,high-achievement vs. neutral words exposure (word search puzzle),word search performance (3 IV-unrelated puzzles),close,individual effort,"for each DV puzzle, 5 of 10 words were different (not described in original paper)",,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f808/e462cc8169d5e4c8bb677df2f4a7f4304a16.pdf,10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1014,http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles/Harris_etal_PLOS2013.pdf,,,,,,,,social,2001,,,between-subjects,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,yes,1050
time is money reminder reduces pleasure (enjoyment DV),Devoe & House (2012) Study 3,"Connors, Campbell et al. (2016) Study 1",145,d,.75,.52,266,d,-.25,.27,no signal - inconsistent,time/money mindset vs. control; compensation vs. no compensation,enjoyment (3-items),exact,individual effort,,,1 other DV (impatience; same pattern of results observed),,,"https://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/DeVoe%20and%20House,%20JESP.pdf",10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.012,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/connors-et-al(2016%2CJESP).pdf,https://osf.io/tksjc/,https://osf.io/dzwny/,https://osf.io/ryfse/,,,,,social,2012,,,between-subjects,interaction,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1051
time is money reminder reduces pleasure (enjoyment DV),Devoe & House (2012) Study 3,"Connors, Campbell et al. (2016) Study 2",145,d,.75,.52,254,d,.21,.29,no signal - inconsistent,time/money mindset vs. control; compensation vs. no compensation,enjoyment (3-items),exact,individual effort,,,1 other DV (impatience; same pattern of results observed),,,"https://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/DeVoe%20and%20House,%20JESP.pdf",10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.012,https://github.com/eplebel/science-commons/blob/master/curated/connors-et-al(2016%2CJESP).pdf,https://osf.io/tksjc/,https://osf.io/dzwny/,https://osf.io/ryfse/,,,,,social,2012,,,between-subjects,interaction,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1052
orientation simulation effect,Stanfield & Zwaan (2001),Zwaan & Pecher (2012) Study 1,40,MD,44,35,164,MD,33,28,signal - consistent,match vs. mismatch (between object orientation and implied object orientation in preceding sentence),reaction time (RT; sentence-picture verification paradigm),very close,individual effort,online (mTurk) instead of lab setting,word frequency effect (d = .63; lexical decision task),,MD = mean difference in RT (in ms) across conditions (mismatch - match),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1616/7ce1de6c86bf792d330f80f908d43d82c5f4.pdf,10.1111/1467-9280.00326,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051382,,,,,,,,cognitive,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1053
orientation simulation effect,Stanfield & Zwaan (2001),Zwaan & Pecher (2012) Study 2,40,MD,44,35,172,MD,38,29,signal - consistent,match vs. mismatch (between object orientation and implied object orientation in preceding sentence),reaction time (RT; sentence-picture verification paradigm),very close,individual effort,online (mTurk) instead of lab setting,word frequency effect (d = .51; lexical decision task),,MD = mean difference in RT (in ms) across conditions (mismatch - match),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1616/7ce1de6c86bf792d330f80f908d43d82c5f4.pdf,10.1111/1467-9280.00326,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051382,,,,,,,,cognitive,2001,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1054
shape simulation effect,"Zwaan, Stanfield, & Yaxley (2002) Study 1",Zwaan & Pecher (2012) Study 3,42,MD,64,36,176,MD,57,30,signal - consistent,match vs. mismatch (between object shape and implied object shape in preceding sentence),reaction time (RT; sentence-picture verification paradigm),very close,individual effort,online (mTurk) instead of lab setting,word frequency effect (d = .46; lexical decision task),,MD = mean difference in RT (in ms) across conditions (mismatch - match),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4611/eff86360ce7204b6949bf71c868de74ebdc8.pdf,10.1111/1467-9280.00430,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051382,,,,,,,,cognitive,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1055
shape simulation effect,"Zwaan, Stanfield, & Yaxley (2002) Study 1",Zwaan & Pecher (2012) Study 4,42,MD,64,36,176,MD,70,35,signal - consistent,match vs. mismatch (between object shape and implied object shape in preceding sentence),reaction time (RT; sentence-picture verification paradigm),very close,individual effort,online (mTurk) instead of lab setting,word frequency effect (d = .32; lexical decision task),,MD = mean difference in RT (in ms) across conditions (mismatch - match),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4611/eff86360ce7204b6949bf71c868de74ebdc8.pdf,10.1111/1467-9280.00430,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051382,,,,,,,,cognitive,2002,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1056
color simulation effect,Connell (2005),Zwaan & Pecher (2012) Study 5,60,MD,-154,102,152,MD,157,78,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",match vs. mismatch (between object color and implied object color in preceding sentence),reaction time (RT; sentence-picture verification paradigm),very close,individual effort,online (mTurk) instead of lab setting,word frequency effect (d = .61; lexical decision task),,MD = mean difference in RT (in ms) across conditions (mismatch - match),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5d84/81f3dac777a137c77303bd0fc7008629a3b4.pdf,10.1016/j.cognition.2006.02.009,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051382,,,,,,,,cognitive,2005,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1057
color simulation effect,Connell (2005),Zwaan & Pecher (2012) Study 6,60,MD,-154,102,152,MD,85,73,"signal - inconsistent, opposite",match vs. mismatch (between object color and implied object color in preceding sentence),reaction time (RT; sentence-picture verification paradigm),very close,individual effort,online (mTurk) instead of lab setting,word frequency effect (d = .47; lexical decision task),,MD = mean difference in RT (in ms) across conditions (mismatch - match),,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5d84/81f3dac777a137c77303bd0fc7008629a3b4.pdf,10.1016/j.cognition.2006.02.009,http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051382,,,,,,,,cognitive,2005,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes,1058
spatial compatibility effect (Simon task),Craft & Simon (1970) Study 1,"Zwaan, Pecher et al. (2018) Study 1",,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort,,,,,,https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/33055848/simon-effect.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1516052815&Signature=V%2Fo8QZuYw2gflEIQtfmvL60aq9Y%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DPROCESSING_SYMBOLIC_INFORMATJON_FROM_A_V.pdf,,https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2Fs13423-017-1348-y.pdf,https://osf.io/2nkym/,https://osf.io/4w2n3/,https://osf.io/x8pha/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
response inhibition effect (Flanker task),Eriksen & Eriksen (1974),"Zwaan, Pecher et al. (2018) Study 2",,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort,,,,,,http://wexler.free.fr/library/files/eriksen%20(1974)%20effects%20of%20noise%20letters%20upon%20the%20identification%20of%20a%20target%20letter%20in%20a%20nonsearch%20task.pdf,,https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2Fs13423-017-1348-y.pdf,https://osf.io/2nkym/,https://osf.io/6pvxh/,https://osf.io/q7y3d/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
motor priming effect,Eimer & Schlaghecken (1998) Study 1a,"Zwaan, Pecher et al. (2018) Study 3",,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort,,,,,,http://brainb.psyc.bbk.ac.uk/PDF/jep1998.pdf,,https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2Fs13423-017-1348-y.pdf,https://osf.io/2nkym/,https://osf.io/bd5qh/,https://osf.io/cau73/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
spacing effect,Greene (1989),"Zwaan, Pecher et al. (2018) Study 4",,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort,,,,,,,,https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2Fs13423-017-1348-y.pdf,https://osf.io/2nkym/,https://osf.io/rnuxe/,https://osf.io/6astw/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
false memories effect,Roediger & McDermott (1995),"Zwaan, Pecher et al. (2018) Study 5",,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort,,,,,,http://commonweb.unifr.ch/artsdean/pub/gestens/f/as/files/4660/39100_161531.pdf,,https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2Fs13423-017-1348-y.pdf,https://osf.io/2nkym/,https://osf.io/g7ja2/,https://osf.io/fg84z/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
serial position memory effect,Murdock (1962),"Zwaan, Pecher et al. (2018) Study 6",,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f518/20619ca42c5799f3c5acc3855671b905419c.pdf,,https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2Fs13423-017-1348-y.pdf,https://osf.io/2nkym/,https://osf.io/e6pkd/,https://osf.io/6ut8p/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
associative priming memory effect,Meyer & Schvaneveldt (1971),"Zwaan, Pecher et al. (2018) Study 7",,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort,,,,,,https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/46064292/Facilitation_in_recognizing_pairs_of_wor20160530-2948-kzke3r.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1516053078&Signature=fDz285v8Dhu%2BHPRxTwtDOhaRefI%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DFacilitation_in_recognizing_pairs_of_wor.pdf,,https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2Fs13423-017-1348-y.pdf,https://osf.io/2nkym/,https://osf.io/nftzg/,https://osf.io/v8wdn/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
repetition priming memory effect,Forster & Davis (1984) Study 3,"Zwaan, Pecher et al. (2018) Study 8",,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort,,,,,,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kenneth_Forster/publication/232543328_Repetition_and_frequency_attenuation_in_lexical_access/links/0deec52057517911df000000.pdf,,https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2Fs13423-017-1348-y.pdf,https://osf.io/2nkym/,https://osf.io/y4btk/,https://osf.io/by3zc/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
shape simulation effect,"Zwaan, Stanfield, & Yaxley (2002) Study 1","Zwaan, Pecher et al. (2018) Study 9",,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4611/eff86360ce7204b6949bf71c868de74ebdc8.pdf,,https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2Fs13423-017-1348-y.pdf,https://osf.io/2nkym/,https://osf.io/8p6yt/,https://osf.io/gy6v9/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
disgust priming,"Schnall, Haidt et al. (2008) Study 3",Johnson et al. (2016) Study 1,,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort,,,,,,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146167208317771,,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1948550616654211,,,https://osf.io/8wkhg/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
disgust priming,"Schnall, Haidt et al. (2008) Study 3",Johnson et al. (2016) Study 2,,,,,,,,,,,,close*,individual effort,,,,,,http://sci-hub.tw/http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146167208317771,,http://sci-hub.tw/http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1948550616654211,https://osf.io/cupax/,,https://osf.io/ghrxc/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
self-esteem buffers relationship threat effect,Murray et al. (2002) Study 3,Campbell et al. (2018),,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort,,,,,,,,https://psyarxiv.com/5suda/,https://osf.io/q8dx5/,https://osf.io/xuqmg/,https://osf.io/wb6vc/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
race-erased effect,Kurzban et al. (2001),"Voorspoels, Bartlema, & Vanpaemel (2014)",,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort/RR,,,,,,http://www.pnas.org/content/98/26/15387.long,,https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01035/full,https://osf.io/6ukb9/,https://osf.io/r5uch/,https://osf.io/9h6ur/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
automatic behavioral approach/avoidance effect,Chen & Bargh (1999) Study 1,Rotteveel et al. (2015) Study 1,,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort,,,,,,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146167299025002007,,https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00335/full,https://osf.io/k0bf6/,,https://osf.io/e2ryf/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
automatic behavioral approach/avoidance effect,Chen & Bargh (1999) Study 2,Rotteveel et al. (2015) Study 2,,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort/RR,,,,,,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146167299025002008,,https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00335/full,https://osf.io/k0bf6/,,https://osf.io/eibv6/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
embodied clock effect,Topolinski & Sparenberg (2012) Study 2,Wagenmakers et al. (2015),,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort/RR,,,,,,http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1948550611419266,,https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00494/full,https://osf.io/fwhbu/,https://osf.io/3emuj/,https://osf.io/nhtws/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
automatic EC effect,Rydell et al. (2006),Heycke et al. (2018) Study 1,,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort/RR,,,,,,http://allenmcconnell.net/pdfs/sysofreasoning-JPSP-2006.pdf,,http://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/02699931.2018.1429389,https://osf.io/rv54j/,https://osf.io/acnq6/,https://osf.io/5munt/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
automatic EC effect,Rydell et al. (2006),Heycke et al. (2018) Study 2,,,,,,,,,,,,close,individual effort/RR,,,,,,http://allenmcconnell.net/pdfs/sysofreasoning-JPSP-2006.pdf,,http://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/02699931.2018.1429389,https://osf.io/rv54j/,https://osf.io/uy6hx/,https://osf.io/j9hbz/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 1",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 2",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 3",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 4",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 5",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 6",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 7",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 8",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 9",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 10",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 11",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 12",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 13",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 14",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 15",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 16",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 17",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 18",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 19",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 20",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 21",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 22",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 23",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 24",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 25",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR9: hostility priming increases hostility perceptions,Srull & Wyer (1979) Study 1,"McCarthy, Skowronski et al. (in press) Sample 26",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR9,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e6d/53539b5e2208609182035a21cc381c136a52.pdf,,https://osf.io/29xv5/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 1",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 2",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 3",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 4",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 5",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 6",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 7",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 8",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 9",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 10",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 11",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 12",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 13",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 14",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 15",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 16",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 17",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 18",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 19",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 20",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 21",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 22",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 23",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 24",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
RRR10: moral reminder (10 commandments) reduces cheating,"Mazar, Amir, & Ariely (2008) Study 1","Verschuere, Meijer et al. (in press) Sample 25",,,,,,,,,,,,close,RRR10,,,,,,https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ccc/241f69e8d5a31d1f67af748a02cf765b8ab3.pdf,,https://osf.io/jckme/,https://osf.io/zr4z7/,https://osf.io/rbejp/files/,https://osf.io/mcvt7/files/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,