for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help
Journal Cover Psychological Bulletin
  [SJR: 8.106]   [H-I: 223]   [219 followers]  Follow
    
   Full-text available via subscription Subscription journal
   ISSN (Print) 0033-2909
   Published by APA Homepage  [74 journals]
  • “Meta-analyses and P-curves support robust cycle shifts in women’s
           mate preferences: Reply to Wood and Carden (2014) and Harris, Pashler, and
           Mickes (2014)": Correction to Gildersleeve, Haselton, and Fales (2014).
    • Abstract: Reports an error in "Meta-analyses and p-curves support robust cycle shifts in women’s mate preferences: Reply to Wood and Carden (2014) and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014)" by Kelly Gildersleeve, Martie G. Haselton and Melissa R. Fales (Psychological Bulletin, 2014[Sep], Vol 140[5], 1272-1280). In the article, all p-curve analyses examining the Context Moderation Hypothesis Prediction mistakenly included the p-value from Little, Jones, Burt, & Perrett (2007) Study 2 for the simple effect of fertility on attraction to facial symmetry in a short-term relationship context (p < .001). The analyses should have instead included the p-value for the fertility X relationship context interaction (p = .011). In addition, the p-curve analyses examining exact two-tailed p-values for the Cycle Shift Prediction should have included an additional p-value from Provost et al. (2008) Study 1 for the main effect of fertility on attraction to gait masculinity. The reported p-value for this effect was .05, making it ineligible for inclusion in p-curves of reported p-values. However, the exact recalculated two-tailed p-value was .049, making it eligible for inclusion in p-curves of exact p-values. The corrected p-curve of exact two-tailed p-values evaluating the Cycle Shift Prediction and Context Moderation Prediction (displayed in Figure 2) now includes a total of 15 p-values (N = 1442) is no longer significantly right skewed χ²(30) = 41.25, p = .08. The corrected p-curve of exact two-tailed p-values evaluating the Cycle Shift Prediction, Context Moderation Prediction, and Partner Qualities Moderation Prediction (displayed in Figure 3) now includes a total of 21 p-values (N = 1707) and continues to be significantly right skewed Χ²(42) = 69.83, p = .004. As part of this correction, the online supplemental materials have been updated. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2014-35938-003.) Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women’s mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions' We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.’s meta-analysis—some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden’s (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal—that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers’ reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 04:00:00 GMT
       
  • The common sense model of self-regulation: Meta-analysis and test of a
           process model.
    • Abstract: According to the common-sense model of self-regulation, individuals form lay representations of illnesses that guide coping procedures to manage illness threat. We meta-analyzed studies adopting the model to (a) examine the intercorrelations among illness representation dimensions, coping strategies, and illness outcomes; (b) test the sufficiency of a process model in which relations between illness representations and outcomes were mediated by coping strategies; and (c) test effects of moderators on model relations. Studies adopting the common-sense model in chronic illness (k = 254) were subjected to random-effects meta-analysis. The pattern of zero-order corrected correlations among illness representation dimensions (identity, consequences, timeline, perceived control, illness coherence, emotional representations), coping strategies (avoidance, cognitive reappraisal, emotion venting, problem-focused generic, problem-focused specific, seeking social support), and illness outcomes (disease state, distress, well-being, physical, role, and social functioning) was consistent with previous analyses. Meta-analytic path analyses supported a process model that included direct effects of illness representations on outcomes and indirect effects mediated by coping. Emotional representations and perceived control were consistently related to illness-related and functional outcomes via, respectively, lower and greater employment of coping strategies to deal with symptoms or manage treatment. Representations signaling threat (consequences, identity) had specific positive and negative indirect effects on outcomes through problem- and emotion-focused coping strategies. There was little evidence of moderation of model effects by study design, illness type and context, and study quality. A revised process model is proposed to guide future research which includes effects of moderators, individual differences, and beliefs about coping and treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 04:00:00 GMT
       
  • Anxiety and depression as bidirectional risk factors for one another: A
           meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
    • Abstract: Not only do anxiety and depression diagnoses tend to co-occur, but their symptoms are highly correlated. Although a plethora of research has examined longitudinal associations between anxiety and depression, these data have not yet been effectively synthesized. To address this need, the current study undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of 66 studies involving 88,336 persons examining the prospective relationship between anxiety and depression at both symptom and disorder levels. Using mixed-effect models, results suggested that all types of anxiety symptoms predicted later depressive symptoms (r = .34), and all types of depressive symptoms predicted later anxiety symptoms (r = .31). Although anxiety symptoms more strongly predicted depressive symptoms than vice versa, the difference in effect size for this analysis was very small and likely not clinically meaningful. Additionally, all types of diagnosed anxiety disorders predicted all types of later depressive disorders (OR = 2.77), and all depressive disorders predicted later anxiety disorders (OR = 2.73). Most anxiety and depressive disorders predicted each other with similar degrees of strength, but depressive disorders more strongly predicted social anxiety disorder (OR = 6.05) and specific phobia (OR = 2.93) than vice versa. Contrary to conclusions of prior reviews, our findings suggest that depressive disorders may be prodromes for social and specific phobia, whereas other anxiety and depressive disorders are bidirectional risk factors for one another. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 04:00:00 GMT
       
  • Meta-analytic review of the development of face discrimination in infancy:
           Face race, face gender, infant age, and methodology moderate face
           discrimination.
    • Abstract: Infants show facility for discriminating between individual faces within hours of birth. Over the first year of life, infants’ face discrimination shows continued improvement with familiar face types, such as own-race faces, but not with unfamiliar face types, like other-race faces. The goal of this meta-analytic review is to provide an effect size for infants’ face discrimination ability overall, with own-race faces, and with other-race faces within the first year of life, how this differs with age, and how it is influenced by task methodology. Inclusion criteria were (a) infant participants aged 0 to 12 months, (b) completing a human own- or other-race face discrimination task, (c) with discrimination being determined by infant looking. Our analysis included 30 works (165 samples, 1,926 participants participated in 2,623 tasks). The effect size for infants’ face discrimination was small, 6.53% greater than chance (i.e., equal looking to the novel and familiar). There was a significant difference in discrimination by race, overall (own-race, 8.18%; other-race, 3.18%) and between ages (own-race: 0- to 4.5-month-olds, 7.32%; 5- to 7.5-month-olds, 9.17%; and 8- to 12-month-olds, 7.68%; other-race: 0- to 4.5-month-olds, 6.12%; 5- to 7.5-month-olds, 3.70%; and 8- to 12-month-olds, 2.79%). Multilevel linear (mixed-effects) models were used to predict face discrimination; infants’ capacity to discriminate faces is sensitive to face characteristics including race, gender, and emotion as well as the methods used, including task timing, coding method, and visual angle. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 04:00:00 GMT
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 54.163.61.66
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016