Collective remembering and future forecasting during the COVID-19 pandemic: How the impact of COVID-19 affected the themes and phenomenology of global and national memories across 15 countries

The COVID-19 pandemic created a unique set of circumstances in which to investigate collective memory and future simulations of events reported during the onset of a potentially historic event. Between early April and late June 2020, we asked over 4,000 individuals from 15 countries across four continents to report on remarkable (a) national and (b) global events that (i) had happened since the first cases of COVID-19 were reported, and (ii) they expected to happen in the future. Whereas themes of infections, lockdown, and politics dominated global and national past events in most countries, themes of economy, a second wave, and lockdown dominated future events. The themes and phenomenological characteristics of the events differed based on contextual group factors. First, across all conditions, the event themes differed to a small yet significant degree depending on the severity of the pandemic and stringency of governmental response at the national level. Second, participants reported national events as less negative and more vivid than global events, and group differences in emotional valence were largest for future events. This research demonstrates that even during the early stages of the pandemic, themes relating to its onset and course were shared across many countries, thus providing preliminary evidence for the emergence of collective memories of this event as it was occurring. Current findings provide a profile of past and future collective events from the early stages of the ongoing pandemic, and factors accounting for the consistencies and differences in event representations across 15 countries are discussed

The Open Anchoring Quest Dataset: Anchored Estimates from 96 Studies on Anchoring Effects

People’s estimates are biased toward previously considered numbers (anchoring). We have aggregated all available data from anchoring studies that included at least two anchors into one large dataset. Data were standardized to comprise one estimate per row, coded according to a wide range of variables, and are available for download and analyses online (https://metaanalyses.shinyapps.io/OpAQ/). Because the dataset includes both original and meta-data it allows for fine-grained analyses (e.g., correlations of estimates for different tasks) but also for meta-analyses (e.g., effect sizes for anchoring effects)

Forced-choice and free-choice trials in response priming with moving primes

Basically, we conducted a response priming experiment with moving row-of-dots-primes (motion direction: leftwards, rightwards, neutral [to the center or the boarders of the screen; inwards or outwards, respectively]; see Bermeitinger, 2013). In forced-choice trials, the target was a directional arrow (>) which has to be classified (leftwards or rightwards). In free-choice trials, the target was an ambigous arrow composition ( or ><) and subjects should freely choose the left or right response. Hypothesis: positive compatibility/congruency effects (PCE) with the shorter stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) and reduced, perhaps even negative compatibility/congruency effects (NCE) with the longer SOA. (SOA was varied between subjects, short SOA = 147 ms, longer SOA = 360 ms.) In general, we expected the same pattern of results in forced-choice and free-choice trials. Further, we set out to determine whether there are differences in the responses to trials with compatible neutral primes (i.e., inwards motions and > targets) and to trials with incompatible neutral primes (i.e., inwards motions and targets; outwards motions and >< targets). Last but not least, we analyzed differences between > targets, focusing on leftwards and rightwards prime motions in free-choice trials. According to Cole and Kuhn (2010), responses should be faster or slower depending on the number of attentional turns needed between prime and response. For targets, we thus expected faster and more likely prime-congruent (than prime-incongruent) responses. In contrast, a >< target should result in faster and more probable prime-incongruent responses. Results: In forced-choice trials: Compatible trials = primes and targets move/point in the same direction; incompatible trials: primes and targets move/point in opposite directions; In free-choice trials, congruency was determined by the responses given, i.e. congruent response = left/right button press after leftwards/rightwards motion; incongruent response = left/right button press after rightwards/leftwards motion. Compatibility/congruency effect = response time in incompatible/incongruent trials - response time in compatible/congruent trials. Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) = time from the beginning of the prime display to the beginning of the target display We found (non-significant) PCEs in the short SOA (for forced-choice and free-choice trials) and (significant) NCEs in the longer SOA (for forced-choice and free-choice trials). There were no congruency effects regarding neutral conditions (i.e. and outwards motion; >< and inwards motion). For directional motions in free-choice trials, we found (non-significantly) faster prime-congruent than prime-incongruent responses after > targets (which is contrary to Cole & Kuhn, 2010)

Moving primes, moving targets, moving flankers - positive effects with short SOA, negative effects with long SOA

We conducted 7 experiments. Basically, they were response priming experiments with moving primes (motion direction: leftwards, rightwards, neutral [to the center or the boarders of the screen]). The primes consisted of rows of dots shifted leftwards or rightwards (see Bermeitinger, 2013, Psychological Research). The target has to be classified (leftwards or rightwards). Response priming was combined with a flanker arrangement. Hypothesis: positive compatibility effects (PCE) with the shorter stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) and negative compatibility effects (NCE) with the longer SOA. (SOA was varied between subjects.) Experiment 1: The prime display contained a single row-of-dots presented at the center of the screen for 147 or 360 ms, thereafter, a blank screen for 213 or 0 ms appeared, respectively. Then, the target was presented. The target display contained a static arrow pointing leftwards or rightwards. Experiment 2A: The prime display contained two rows-of-dots presented above and below the center of the screen (either for 147 or 360 ms). The target display contained a static arrow pointing leftwards or rightwards. There was no blank between prime and target display. Experiment 2B: As Exp. 2A, additionally: the prime rows-of-dots continued (as flankers) during the arrow presentation. There was no blank between prime and target display. Experiment 3: As Exp. 1, except: 1.) There was no blank between prime and target display. 2. The target display contained another row-of-dots (in grey instead of black) moving leftwards or rightwards. Experiment 4A: As Exp. 3, except: 1.) Prime display as in Exp. 2A. 2.) Target display as in Exp. 3 but in black. Experiment 4B: As Exp. 4A, except: The rows-of-dots from the prime display continued (as flankers) during the arrow presentation. Experiment 4C: As Exp. 4B, except: The target row-of-dots was grey instead of black. Results: Compatible trials = primes and targets move/point in the same direction; incompatible trials: primes and targets move/point in opposite directions; Compatibility effect = response time in incompatible trials - response time in compatible trials. Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) = time from the beginning of the prime display to the beginning of the target display Experiment 1: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Experiment 2A: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); not significant but numerically NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Experiment 2B: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Experiment 3: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Experiment 4A: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Experiment 4B: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Experiemnt 4C: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); not significant but numerically NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Positive as well as negative effects were larger with moving compared to static targets, and negative effects were larger with primes compared to flankers

Data for: Response priming with horizontally and vertically moving primes: A comparison of German, Malaysian, and Japanese subjects

Response priming refers to the finding that a prime preceding a target influences the response to the target. With German subjects, using horizontally moving dots as primes, there are typically faster responses to compatible (i.e., prime and target are associated with the same response) compared to incompatible targets (i.e., positive compatibility effect, PCE) with short stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). In contrast, with longer SOAs, subjects responded faster to incompatible targets (i.e., negative compatibility effect, NCE). In the present study, we extended the evidence by adding vertically oriented material (i.e., motion primes and static arrow targets). Furthermore, we tested subjects from Malaysia and Japan where the vertical orientation is more present in daily life and compared them to subjects from Germany to investigate influences of the extent of experience with one orientation on the compatibility effects with this orientation

Forced-choice and free-choice trials in response priming with moving primes

Basically, we conducted a response priming experiment with moving row-of-dots-primes (motion direction: leftwards, rightwards, neutral [to the center or the boarders of the screen; inwards or outwards, respectively]; see Bermeitinger, 2013). In forced-choice trials, the target was a directional arrow (>) which has to be classified (leftwards or rightwards). In free-choice trials, the target was an ambigous arrow composition ( or ><) and subjects should freely choose the left or right response. Hypothesis: positive compatibility/congruency effects (PCE) with the shorter stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) and reduced, perhaps even negative compatibility/congruency effects (NCE) with the longer SOA. (SOA was varied between subjects, short SOA = 147 ms, longer SOA = 360 ms.) In general, we expected the same pattern of results in forced-choice and free-choice trials. Further, we set out to determine whether there are differences in the responses to trials with compatible neutral primes (i.e., inwards motions and > targets) and to trials with incompatible neutral primes (i.e., inwards motions and targets; outwards motions and >< targets). Last but not least, we analyzed differences between > targets, focusing on leftwards and rightwards prime motions in free-choice trials. According to Cole and Kuhn (2010), responses should be faster or slower depending on the number of attentional turns needed between prime and response. For targets, we thus expected faster and more likely prime-congruent (than prime-incongruent) responses. In contrast, a >< target should result in faster and more probable prime-incongruent responses. Results: In forced-choice trials: Compatible trials = primes and targets move/point in the same direction; incompatible trials: primes and targets move/point in opposite directions; In free-choice trials, congruency was determined by the responses given, i.e. congruent response = left/right button press after leftwards/rightwards motion; incongruent response = left/right button press after rightwards/leftwards motion. Compatibility/congruency effect = response time in incompatible/incongruent trials - response time in compatible/congruent trials. Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) = time from the beginning of the prime display to the beginning of the target display We found (non-significant) PCEs in the short SOA (for forced-choice and free-choice trials) and (significant) NCEs in the longer SOA (for forced-choice and free-choice trials). There were no congruency effects regarding neutral conditions (i.e. and outwards motion; >< and inwards motion). For directional motions in free-choice trials, we found (non-significantly) faster prime-congruent than prime-incongruent responses after > targets (which is contrary to Cole & Kuhn, 2010)

Moving primes, moving targets, moving flankers - positive effects with short SOA, negative effects with long SOA

We conducted 7 experiments. Basically, they were response priming experiments with moving primes (motion direction: leftwards, rightwards, neutral [to the center or the boarders of the screen]). The primes consisted of rows of dots shifted leftwards or rightwards (see Bermeitinger, 2013, Psychological Research). The target has to be classified (leftwards or rightwards). Response priming was combined with a flanker arrangement. Hypothesis: positive compatibility effects (PCE) with the shorter stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) and negative compatibility effects (NCE) with the longer SOA. (SOA was varied between subjects.) Experiment 1: The prime display contained a single row-of-dots presented at the center of the screen for 147 or 360 ms, thereafter, a blank screen for 213 or 0 ms appeared, respectively. Then, the target was presented. The target display contained a static arrow pointing leftwards or rightwards. Experiment 2A: The prime display contained two rows-of-dots presented above and below the center of the screen (either for 147 or 360 ms). The target display contained a static arrow pointing leftwards or rightwards. There was no blank between prime and target display. Experiment 2B: As Exp. 2A, additionally: the prime rows-of-dots continued (as flankers) during the arrow presentation. There was no blank between prime and target display. Experiment 3: As Exp. 1, except: 1.) There was no blank between prime and target display. 2. The target display contained another row-of-dots (in grey instead of black) moving leftwards or rightwards. Experiment 4A: As Exp. 3, except: 1.) Prime display as in Exp. 2A. 2.) Target display as in Exp. 3 but in black. Experiment 4B: As Exp. 4A, except: The rows-of-dots from the prime display continued (as flankers) during the arrow presentation. Experiment 4C: As Exp. 4B, except: The target row-of-dots was grey instead of black. Results: Compatible trials = primes and targets move/point in the same direction; incompatible trials: primes and targets move/point in opposite directions; Compatibility effect = response time in incompatible trials - response time in compatible trials. Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) = time from the beginning of the prime display to the beginning of the target display Experiment 1: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Experiment 2A: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); not significant but numerically NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Experiment 2B: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Experiment 3: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Experiment 4A: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Experiment 4B: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Experiemnt 4C: PCE for short SOA (147 ms); not significant but numerically NCE for long SOA (360 ms) Positive as well as negative effects were larger with moving compared to static targets, and negative effects were larger with primes compared to flankers

Forced-choice and free-choice trials in response priming with moving primes

Basically, we conducted a response priming experiment with moving row-of-dots-primes (motion direction: leftwards, rightwards, neutral [to the center or the boarders of the screen; inwards or outwards, respectively]; see Bermeitinger, 2013). In forced-choice trials, the target was a directional arrow (>) which has to be classified (leftwards or rightwards). In free-choice trials, the target was an ambigous arrow composition ( or ><) and subjects should freely choose the left or right response. Hypothesis: positive compatibility/congruency effects (PCE) with the shorter stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) and reduced, perhaps even negative compatibility/congruency effects (NCE) with the longer SOA. (SOA was varied between subjects, short SOA = 147 ms, longer SOA = 360 ms.) In general, we expected the same pattern of results in forced-choice and free-choice trials. Further, we set out to determine whether there are differences in the responses to trials with compatible neutral primes (i.e., inwards motions and > targets) and to trials with incompatible neutral primes (i.e., inwards motions and targets; outwards motions and >< targets). Last but not least, we analyzed differences between > targets, focusing on leftwards and rightwards prime motions in free-choice trials. According to Cole and Kuhn (2010), responses should be faster or slower depending on the number of attentional turns needed between prime and response. For targets, we thus expected faster and more likely prime-congruent (than prime-incongruent) responses. In contrast, a >< target should result in faster and more probable prime-incongruent responses. Results: In forced-choice trials: Compatible trials = primes and targets move/point in the same direction; incompatible trials: primes and targets move/point in opposite directions; In free-choice trials, congruency was determined by the responses given, i.e. congruent response = left/right button press after leftwards/rightwards motion; incongruent response = left/right button press after rightwards/leftwards motion. Compatibility/congruency effect = response time in incompatible/incongruent trials - response time in compatible/congruent trials. Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) = time from the beginning of the prime display to the beginning of the target display We found (non-significant) PCEs in the short SOA (for forced-choice and free-choice trials) and (significant) NCEs in the longer SOA (for forced-choice and free-choice trials). There were no congruency effects regarding neutral conditions (i.e. and outwards motion; >< and inwards motion). For directional motions in free-choice trials, we found (non-significantly) faster prime-congruent than prime-incongruent responses after > targets (which is contrary to Cole & Kuhn, 2010)

Persistence effects in the stream/bounce display reflect perceptual (and not motor) hysteresis

Schütz C. Persistence effects in the stream/bounce display reflect perceptual (and not motor) hysteresis. In: Bermeitinger C, Greve W, eds. 52. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie. Abstracts. Lengerich: Pabst; 2022: 86