Response to Pashler et al. (2016)

Pashler, Rohrer, Abramson, Wolfson, and Harris (2016/this issue) in their critique of Chatterjee, Rose, and Sinha (2013 Chatterjee, P., Rose, R., &; Sinha, J. (2013). Why money meanings matter in decisions to donate time and money. Marketing Letters, 24, 109–118. doi:10.1007/s11002-012-9215-0[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) data argue that (a) large effect sizes in Study 1 and Study 2 undermine the credibility of the data; (b) in a lexical task that is part of Study 3, a concentration of participants in (5,0) and (0,5) benefit/cost word data points and the similarity of 9 neutral word responses at these points are extremely unlikely; and (c) there are apparent errors in the execution of Study 3. In this response, I examine these issues in detail. A recent review of money prime literature (Vohs, 2015 Vohs, K. (2015). Money priming can change people’s thoughts, feelings, motivations, and behaviors: An update on 10 years of experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4), e86–e93. doi:10.1037/xge0000091[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) notes many effect sizes that are as big as or bigger than ours. Although 8 coding errors were discovered in Study 3 data and this particular study has been retracted from that article, as I show in this article, the arguments being put forth by the critics are untenable. For instance, my analysis shows that results hold even without the concentration of (5,0) and (0,5) participants, and I offer statistical simulations to counter critics’ arguments. Regarding the apparent errors in Study 3, I find that removing the target word stems SUPP and CE do not influence findings in any way. I also report findings from MacDonnell and White (2015 MacDonnell, R., &; White, K. (2015). How construals of money versus time impact consumer charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 551–563. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv042[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), who replicate the basic finding of Chatterjee et al. in a different context.     

Assessing the Incremental Algorithm: A Response to Krahmer et al.

This response discusses the experiment reported in Krahmer et al.’s Letter to the Editor of Cognitive Science. We observe that their results do not tell us whether the Incremental Algorithm is better or worse than its competitors, and we speculate about implications for reference in complex domains, and for learning from ‘‘normal” (i.e., non‐semantically‐balanced) corpora.     

Regret and Responsibility: A Reply to Zeelenberg et al. (1998)

M. Zeelenberg, W. W. van Dijk, and A. S. R. Manstead (1998, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 254-272) recently reported an altered replication of our earlier study (T. Connolly, L. D. Ordó?ez, & R. Coughlan, 1997, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 73-85) concerning the effects of decision agency on regret and outcome evaluation. Our earlier study had found no such effect, but Zeelenberg et al. did. In two new experiments, we have largely confirmed Zeelenberg et al.'s result but have shown that, contrary to most theory, regret (a) can appear even in the absence of decision agency, (b) can be unrelated to outcome evaluations, and (c) may be more influenced by the experience of gains or losses from the status quo than by any decisional responsibility for those changes. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.     

Lessons From Markey et al. (2015) and Bushman et al. (2015): Sensationalism and Integrity in Media Research

This article presents a response to the comment by B. J. Bushman, D. Romer, and P. E. Jamieson (2015). This reply addresses 2 issues raised by the commenters. First, they claim they and others have not made sensationalistic statements linking violent media to horrific acts of real‐world violence. In response, we supply numerous examples of sensationalistic statements made by them and others. Second, they claim they did not expect violence in films to be related to violent behavior among adults, but only among youths. However, by examining homicide arrests and homicide gun mortality rates among youths, we found that as films have become increasingly violent over time, both homicide arrests and gun‐related homicides have tended to decrease among this age group.     

The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A rebuttal of victimological critique from Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001).

The authors respond to 2 victimological critiques of their 1998 meta-analysis on child sexual abuse (CSA). S. J. Dallam et al. (2001) claimed that B. Rind, P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman (1998) committed numerous methodological and statistical errors, and often miscoded and misinterpreted data. The authors show all these claims to be invalid. To the contrary, they demonstrate frequent bias in Dallam et al.'s criticisms. S. J. Ondersma et al. (2001) claimed that Rind et al.'s study is part of a backlash against psychotherapists, that its suggestions regarding CSA definitions were extrascientific, and that the moral standard is needed to understand CSA scientifically. The authors show their suggestions to have been scientific and argue that it is Ondersma et al.'s issue-framing and moral standard that are extrascientific. This reply supports the original methods, analyses, recommendations, and conclusions of Rind et al.     

Metacognitive Experiences: Response to Commentaries

The stimulating commentaries by Huber (2004), Lee (2004), and Pham (2004) raised important questions. This response elaborates on some of their themes by addressing the assessment of naive theories, the role of expectations, the influence of metacognitive experiences on consumer choice, as well as parallels between different metacognitive experiences and moods. Receiving thoughtful and stimulating commentary from three of my favorite consumer researchers, whose work has influenced my own thinking, is a great privilege. In this response, I elaborate on some of the themes of their commentaries (Huber, 2004; Lee, 2004; Pham, 2004), although space constraints do not allow me to do full justice to their thoughts.