Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A meta-analysis of the survival-processing advantage in memory

A meta-analysis of the survival-processing advantage in memory The survival-processing advantage occurs when processing words for their survival value improves later performance on a memory test. Due to the interest in this topic, we conducted a meta-analysis to review the literature regarding the survival-processing advantage, in order to estimate a bias-corrected effect size. Traditional meta-analytic methods were used, as well as the test of excess significance, p-curve, p-uniform, trim and fill, PET–PEESE, and selection models, to reevaluate previous effect sizes while controlling for forms of small-study-size effects. The average effect sizes for survival processing ranged between η p 2 = .06 and .09 for between-subjects experiments and between η p 2 = .15 and .18 for within-subjects experiments, after correcting for potential bias and selective reporting. Overall, researchers can expect to find medium to large survival-processing effects, with selective reporting and bias-correcting techniques typically estimating lower effect sizes than traditional meta-analytic techniques. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Springer Journals

A meta-analysis of the survival-processing advantage in memory

Download PDF
16 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/a-meta-analysis-of-the-survival-processing-advantage-in-memory-k9AqjBI8qN
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by Psychonomic Society, Inc.
Subject
Psychology; Cognitive Psychology
ISSN
1069-9384
eISSN
1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/s13423-017-1346-0
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The survival-processing advantage occurs when processing words for their survival value improves later performance on a memory test. Due to the interest in this topic, we conducted a meta-analysis to review the literature regarding the survival-processing advantage, in order to estimate a bias-corrected effect size. Traditional meta-analytic methods were used, as well as the test of excess significance, p-curve, p-uniform, trim and fill, PET–PEESE, and selection models, to reevaluate previous effect sizes while controlling for forms of small-study-size effects. The average effect sizes for survival processing ranged between η p 2 = .06 and .09 for between-subjects experiments and between η p 2 = .15 and .18 for within-subjects experiments, after correcting for potential bias and selective reporting. Overall, researchers can expect to find medium to large survival-processing effects, with selective reporting and bias-correcting techniques typically estimating lower effect sizes than traditional meta-analytic techniques.

Journal

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review – Springer Journals

Published: Jul 25, 2017

There are no references for this article.