MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415466450 · doi:10.1037/xge0000102

Any effects of social orientation priming on object-location memory are smaller than initially reported.

2015· article· en· W2415466450 on OpenAlexafffund
Héloïse Drouin, Patrick S. R. Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology General · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity of Ottawa
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPriming (agriculture)PsychologyImplicit memoryObject (grammar)Orientation (vector space)Cognitive psychologySocial psychologyCognitionComputer scienceMathematicsNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has previously been reported that priming a collectivistic social orientation (compared with an individualistic one) boosts object-location memory (Kühnen & Oyserman, 2002; Oyserman, Sorensen, Reber, & Chen, 2009). We conducted 4 experiments to replicate this reported effect, using the same methods as in those initial reports. In Experiment 1 (n = 145), we found a hint of a priming effect on object-location memory, but also an unanticipated interaction between priming and gender. In Experiment 2 (n = 90), we included gender as a formal factor and doubled the "dosage" of the priming, yet did not see any priming effects on memory. In Experiment 3 (n = 101), we octupled the priming "dosage" and again saw no significant effects on memory. Finally, in Experiment 4 (n = 102), we performed an exact replication of the methods of the original reports and again found no priming effects on memory. Any effects of this type of social orientation priming on object-location memory appear to be smaller and/or less robust than initially thought.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology GeneralSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207