Two replications of Wiechert et al.'s (2023) online Think/No-Think study in undergraduate students.

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Memory Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1080/09658211.2024.2412025
Ineke Wessel, Robyn Lehmann, Sera Wiechert
{"title":"Two replications of Wiechert et al.'s (2023) online Think/No-Think study in undergraduate students.","authors":"Ineke Wessel, Robyn Lehmann, Sera Wiechert","doi":"10.1080/09658211.2024.2412025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Think/No-Think (TNT) task examines the effects of attempts at suppressing particular stimuli. First, participants learn cue-target word pairs. Subsequently, they either recall (Think trials) or avoid thinking about targets whatsoever (No-Think trials) in response to cues. The critical finding is that No-Think targets are recalled less well than Baseline items (i.e., Suppression-Induced Forgetting; SIF). Wiechert et al.'s [(2023). Suppression-induced forgetting: A pre-registered replication of the think/no-think paradigm. <i>Memory (Hove, England)</i>, 31(7), 989-1002] null-findings in Prolific workers using online video calls casted doubts on the robustness of the effect. We adapted their procedure in two replication studies testing undergraduate psychology students. The first study (<i>N</i> = 54) adapted Wiechert's procedure to an in-person laboratory setting using Same Probe (SP) recall and found evidence for SIF. Hypothesizing that an online test should yield SIF in undergraduates as well, study 2 replicated both the in-person laboratory (<i>n</i> = 54) and online (<i>n</i> = 54) procedures. The results suggested evidence for SIF in the in-lab setting, yet no evidence was observed in the online setting. As exploratory Bayesian analyses showed conclusive evidence for a null effect, this pattern of results does not imply that the in-lab and online settings actually differed. Yet, overall, the results cast doubts on the generalisability of the SIF-effect .</p>","PeriodicalId":18569,"journal":{"name":"Memory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2412025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Think/No-Think (TNT) task examines the effects of attempts at suppressing particular stimuli. First, participants learn cue-target word pairs. Subsequently, they either recall (Think trials) or avoid thinking about targets whatsoever (No-Think trials) in response to cues. The critical finding is that No-Think targets are recalled less well than Baseline items (i.e., Suppression-Induced Forgetting; SIF). Wiechert et al.'s [(2023). Suppression-induced forgetting: A pre-registered replication of the think/no-think paradigm. Memory (Hove, England), 31(7), 989-1002] null-findings in Prolific workers using online video calls casted doubts on the robustness of the effect. We adapted their procedure in two replication studies testing undergraduate psychology students. The first study (N = 54) adapted Wiechert's procedure to an in-person laboratory setting using Same Probe (SP) recall and found evidence for SIF. Hypothesizing that an online test should yield SIF in undergraduates as well, study 2 replicated both the in-person laboratory (n = 54) and online (n = 54) procedures. The results suggested evidence for SIF in the in-lab setting, yet no evidence was observed in the online setting. As exploratory Bayesian analyses showed conclusive evidence for a null effect, this pattern of results does not imply that the in-lab and online settings actually differed. Yet, overall, the results cast doubts on the generalisability of the SIF-effect .

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Wiechert 等人(2023 年)的在线 "思考/不思考 "研究在本科生中进行了两次复制。
思考/不思考(TNT)任务考察的是尝试抑制特定刺激的效果。首先,参与者学习提示-目标词对。随后,他们会根据提示回忆(思考试验)或避免思考目标(不思考试验)。关键的发现是,"不思考 "目标的回忆效果不如 "基线 "项目(即抑制诱发遗忘;SIF)。Wiechert 等人的[(2023).抑制诱发遗忘:思考/不思考范式的预注册复制。记忆》(英格兰霍夫),31(7), 989-1002] 在使用在线视频通话的 Prolific 工作者身上得出的无效结论让人对该效应的稳健性产生怀疑。我们对他们的程序进行了调整,在两项重复研究中对心理学本科生进行了测试。第一项研究(N = 54)将 Wiechert 的程序改编为使用相同探针(SP)回忆的现场实验室环境,并发现了 SIF 的证据。第二项研究假设在线测试也能在本科生中产生 SIF,因此复制了实验室现场测试(54 人)和在线测试(54 人)的程序。结果表明,在实验室环境中存在 SIF 的证据,但在在线环境中没有观察到证据。由于探索性贝叶斯分析显示了无效效应的确凿证据,这种结果模式并不意味着实验室和在线环境实际上存在差异。然而,总体而言,这些结果使人对 SIF 效应的普遍性产生怀疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Memory
Memory PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
79
期刊介绍: Memory publishes high quality papers in all areas of memory research. This includes experimental studies of memory (including laboratory-based research, everyday memory studies, and applied memory research), developmental, educational, neuropsychological, clinical and social research on memory. By representing all significant areas of memory research, the journal cuts across the traditional distinctions of psychological research. Memory therefore provides a unique venue for memory researchers to communicate their findings and ideas both to peers within their own research tradition in the study of memory, and also to the wider range of research communities with direct interest in human memory.
期刊最新文献
People experience similar intrusions about past and future autobiographical negative experiences. Comparison of working memory performance in athletes and non-athletes: a meta-analysis of behavioural studies. On the role of familiarity and developmental exposure in music-evoked autobiographical memories. Intrinsic functional connectivity in medial temporal lobe networks is associated with susceptibility to misinformation. Cross-cultural comparison of the neural correlates of true and false memory retrieval.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1