Confidence intervals and replication: where will the next mean fall?

Confidence intervals (CIs) give information about replication, but many researchers have misconceptions about this information. One problem is that the percentage of future replication means captured by a particular CI varies markedly, depending on where in relation to the population mean that CI falls. The authors investigated the distribution of this percentage for varsigma known and unknown, for various sample sizes, and for robust CIs. The distribution has strong negative skew: Most 95% CIs will capture around 90% or more of replication means, but some will capture a much lower proportion. On average, a 95% CI will include just 83.4% of future replication means. The authors present figures designed to assist understanding of what CIs say about replication, and they also extend the discussion to explain how p values give information about replication.     

Between ignorance and truth: Partition dependence and learning in judgment under uncertainty

In 3 studies, participants viewed sequences of multiattribute objects (e.g., colored shapes) appearing with varying frequencies and judged the likelihood of the attributes of those objects. Judged probabilities reflected a compromise between (a) the frequency with which each attribute appeared and (b) the ignorance prior probability cued by the number of distinct values that the focal attribute could take on. Thus, judged probabilities were partition dependent, varying with the number of events into which the state space was subjectively divided. This bias was diminished among participants more confident in what they learned, was strong and insensitive to level of confidence when ignorance priors were especially salient, and required ignorance priors to be salient only when probabilities were elicited (not during encoding).     

A paradoxical effect of presession attention on stereotypy: antecedent attention as an establishing, not an abolishing, operation

Previous studies have shown that presession attention for problem behavior can serve as an abolishing operation when attention functions as a positive reinforcer. In the current study, we show that the stereotypy of a child with severe disabilities was undifferentiated during standard analogue functional analysis conditions. However, when noncontingent presession attention was provided, stereotypy occurred for social attention as a positive reinforcer, suggesting that the antecedent manipulation functioned as an establishing operation.     

Effects of instruction presentation mode in comparative judgments

In each of two experiments, the comparative instructions in a symbolic comparison task were either varied randomly from trial to trial (mixed blocks) or left constant (pure blocks) within blocks of trials. In the first experiment, every stimulus was compared with every other stimulus. The symbolic distance effect (DE) was enhanced, and the semantic congruity effect (SCE) was significantly larger, when the instructions were randomized than when they were blocked. In a second experiment, each stimulus was paired with only one other stimulus. The SCE was again larger when instructions were randomized than when they were blocked. The enhanced SCE and DE with randomized instructions follow naturally from evidence accrual views of comparative judgments.     

APPLICANT REACTIONS TO PRE-EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION BLANKS: A LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE PERSPECTIVE

The current research investigated applicant reactions derived from common application blanks. Previous work has found applications to be riddled with legally inadvisable items, but limited research has attempted to understand how such items might affect applicants. By using organizational justice theory as a framework, two studies examined applicant reactions from two application blanks: a legally advisable application and a legally problematic application. It was found that applicants completing the legally problematic application had lower perceptions of justice and expressed higher litigation intentions compared to those completing the legally advisable application, especially for those that were rejected without an explanation.