4 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
A multi-site collaborative study of the hostile priming effect
Data Accessibility Statement:
See Table 1.Supplementary data:
Peer Review History - docx file - available online at: https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/7/1/18738/116070/A-Multi-Site-Collaborative-Study-of-the-Hostile#supplementary-data .In a now-classic study by Srull and Wyer (1979), people who were exposed to phrases with hostile content subsequently judged a man as being more hostile. And this “hostile priming effect” has had a significant influence on the field of social cognition over the subsequent decades. However, a recent multi-lab collaborative study (McCarthy et al., 2018) that closely followed the methods described by Srull and Wyer (1979) found a hostile priming effect that was nearly zero, which casts doubt on whether these methods reliably produce an effect. To address some limitations with McCarthy et al. (2018), the current multi-site collaborative study included data collected from 29 labs. Each lab conducted a close replication (total N = 2,123) and a conceptual replication (total N = 2,579) of Srull and Wyer’s methods. The hostile priming effect for both the close replication (d = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.22], z = 1.34, p = .16) and the conceptual replication (d = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.15], z = 1.15, p = .58) were not significantly different from zero and, if the true effects are non-zero, were smaller than what most labs could feasibly and routinely detect. Despite our best efforts to produce favorable conditions for the effect to emerge, we did not detect a hostile priming effect. We suggest that researchers should not invest more resources into trying to detect a hostile priming effect using methods like those described in Srull and Wyer (1979).We have no funding to declare for this project
Challenged and changed: Quiet ego and posttraumatic growth in mothers raising children with autism spectrum disorder
The perceived vulnerability to disease scale: Cross-cultural measurement invariance and associations with fear of COVID-19 across 16 countries
Using cross-sectional data from N = 4274 young adults across 16 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, we examined the cross-cultural measurement invariance of the perceived vulnerability to disease (PVD) scale and tested the hypothesis that the association between PVD and fear of COVID-19 is stronger under high disease threat [that is, absence of COVID-19 vaccination, living in a country with lower Human Development Index (HDI) or higher COVID-19 mortality]. Results supported a bi-factor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling model where items loaded on a global PVD factor, and on the sub-factors of Perceived Infectability and Germ Aversion. However, cross-national invariance could only be obtained on the configural level with a reduced version of the PVD scale (PVD-r), suggesting that the concept of PVD may vary across nations. Moreover, higher PVD-r was consistently associated with greater fear of COVID-19 across all levels of disease threat, but this association was especially pronounced among individuals with a COVID-19 vaccine, and in contexts where COVID-19 mortality was high. The present research brought clarity into the dimensionality of the PVD measure, discussed its suitability and limitations for cross-cultural research, and highlighted the pandemic-related conditions under which higher PVD is most likely to go along with psychologically maladaptive outcomes, such as fear of COVID-19