Still no evidence that risk-taking and consumer choices can be primed by mating motives: Reply to Sundie, Beal, Neuberg, and Kenrick (2019).
Still no evidence that risk-taking and consumer choices can be primed by mating motives: Reply to Sundie, Beal, Neuberg, and Kenrick (2019).
复制标题
仍然没有证据表明冒险和消费者选择可以由交配动机引发：回复 Sundie、Beal、Neuberg 和 Kenrick（2019）。
DOI：
10.1037/xge0000597
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Shanks D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shanks D
Shanks等人（2015）质疑各种形式的决策可能受到浪漫/交配启动的影响。在他们的评论中，Sundie，比尔，Neuberg和Kenrick（2019）质疑了荟萃分析和Shanks等人报告的8项研究，并描述了另一种p曲线分析，他们解释为表明浪漫启动是一种真正的现象。在这篇回复中，我们评论了Sundie等人的几个矛盾之处。的文章。首先，他们认为Shanks et al.的复制实验产生了与原始研究不同的结果，因为我们没有意识到浪漫启动效应的上下文敏感性，但这一论点在很大程度上依赖于我们无法复制的研究的证据，以及大量其他证据表明，社会启动效应在很大程度上是不变的样本和设置。其次，Sundie等人批评了Shanks等人识别相关启动研究的选择规则，但随后在他们的p曲线分析中纳入了完全相同的研究集。第三，他们批评Shanks等人。的统计结果从这些研究中的选择，并提出了一个更广泛的选择，但随后承认，他们的选择过程是不适合评估出版偏见和p黑客。第四，我们表明，他们的p曲线分析，远远没有证明这篇文献不受p黑客攻击的影响，事实上显示了完全相反的情况。Sundie等人声称Shanks等人'的启动操纵是明显弱，但他们的论点是基于不同的依赖措施之间的混乱。我们的结论是，浪漫启动仍然未经证实，并敦促在这一领域的研究人员进行高功率预注册的复制研究。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2019阿帕，保留所有权利）
Shanks et al.(2015) challenged the evidence that various forms of decision making can be influenced by romantic/mating primes. In their comment, Sundie, Beal, Neuberg, and Kenrick (2019) question both the meta-analysis and the 8 studies Shanks et al. reported, and describe an alternative p-curve analysis that they interpret as showing that romantic priming is a genuine phenomenon. In this reply, we comment on several contradictions in Sundie et al.’s article. First, they suggest that Shanks et al.’s replication experiments yielded different results from the original studies because we failed to appreciate the contextual sensitivity of romantic priming effects, but this argument rests largely on evidence from the very studies we were unable to replicate, and a wealth of other evidence suggests that social priming effects are largely invariant across samples and settings. Second, Sundie et al. criticize the selection rule by which Shanks et al. identified relevant priming studies, but then go on to include exactly the same set of studies in their p-curve analysis. Third, they criticize Shanks et al.’s selection of statistical results from these studies and propose a much wider selection, but then acknowledge that their selection process is poorly suited to assessing publication bias and p-hacking. Fourth, we show that their p-curve analysis, far from demonstrating that this literature is unaffected by p-hacking, in fact shows the exact opposite. Sundie et al. claim that Shanks et al.’s priming manipulation was demonstrably weak, but their argument is based on a confusion between different dependent measures. We conclude that romantic priming remains unproven, and urge researchers in this field to undertake high-powered preregistered replication studies.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)