@erikbij Very interesting work, Erik, congratulations! But one question to your assertion above (haven't read the paper yet, admittedly): How could you find evidence for moderation by task features, if the meta-analysis only included 1 particular task?
This is fascinating- same paper sent out to huge pool of reviewers under different names. 23% recommended “reject” when a prominent researcher was the only author shown, 48% when the paper was anonymized, and 65% when a little-known author was the only author shown
Really interesting paper @PsychScience . Not reporting effect sizes of interventions related to people acting as if they're practically significant. The less numerate were less sensitive to effect sizes even when reported. https://t.co/U8Mjuyr08N
Come work in Tilburg, where the sun always shines!
We have an opening for people working in Economic Psychology, Consumer Behavior, or Decision Making.
Friendly colleagues, inspiring department, great facilities.
https://t.co/Atf6uv6VxS
I’ve written a textbook on improving your statistical inferences. It consists of the content I teach in workshops, and combines material from my MOOC’s, blog, and published work. It’s a free open educational resource: You can read it here: https://t.co/FdQIS63fVd
Let's say I would write a piece proposing IRB's start to include skilled methodological reviewers (because I am). These reviewers would only flag studies that are highly unlikely to be able to answer the researcher's own question. What would be your biggest concern?
Are you interested in ideology, morality, political psych, implicit and explicit measures, or individual differences? We are releasing a massive dataset (>280k sessions) with dozens of individual difference measures, implicit and explicit measures. 1/ https://t.co/PZUBaAhRlL