Literature DB >> 20526445

Correlational biases in mean response latency differences.

N Sriram1, Anthony G Greenwald, Brian A Nosek.   

Abstract

Multifarious psychological constructs are indexed by the mean latency difference (MLD), the within-subject difference between mean response latency on two tasks. Two associations consistently emerge in mean latency data. Firstly, across subjects, mean latencies on distinct tasks are positively correlated. This correlation arises from individual differences in general rates of information processing that are a shared influence on response latency in diverse tasks. Secondly, across tasks, the mean and variance of mean latency are positively correlated. Compared to a simple task, a complex task has both a larger average mean latency and a larger variance of mean latency, across subjects. Taken together, these associations make the interpretation of the MLD problematic by biasing correlations between the MLD and (a) task mean latencies, (b) the average of the mean latencies, (c) external criteria, and (d) other MLDs. A variety of mean latency transformations were evaluated and, while they differed in their effectiveness, they did not satisfactorily rectify MLD biases. An alternative approach, focusing on scale invariant contrasts of within-subject response latency distributions, is introduced in the conclusion.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 20526445      PMCID: PMC2879027          DOI: 10.1016/j.stamet.2009.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methodol        ISSN: 1572-3127


  19 in total

Review 1.  How to fit a response time distribution.

Authors:  T Van Zandt
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2000-09

2.  A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Pablo Gomez; Gail McKoon
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 8.934

Review 3.  Driven by information: a tectonic theory of Stroop effects.

Authors:  Robert D Melara; Daniel Algom
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.

Authors:  Anthony G Greenwald; Brian A Nosek; Mahzarin R Banaji
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2003-08

Review 5.  Interpreting reaction time measures in between-group comparisons.

Authors:  Timothy A Salthouse; Trey Hedden
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.475

6.  The use of transformations.

Authors:  M S BARTLETT
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1947-03       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Adult age differences in the effects of sentence context and stimulus degradation during visual word recognition.

Authors:  D J Madden
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  1988-06

8.  On the automatic activation of attitudes.

Authors:  R H Fazio; D M Sanbonmatsu; M C Powell; F R Kardes
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1986-02

9.  Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks.

Authors:  Jin Fan; Bruce D McCandliss; Tobias Sommer; Amir Raz; Michael I Posner
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2002-04-01       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: evidence from the Simon task.

Authors:  Ellen Bialystok; Fergus I M Craik; Raymond Klein; Mythili Viswanathan
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2004-06
View more
  8 in total

1.  Mental chronometry and individual differences: modeling reliabilities and correlations of reaction time means and effect sizes.

Authors:  Jeff Miller; Rolf Ulrich
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-10

2.  Faulty assumptions: A comment on Blanton, Jaccard, Gonzales, and Christie (2006).

Authors:  Brian A Nosek; N Sriram
Journal:  J Exp Soc Psychol       Date:  2007-05

3.  Approach bias modification in alcohol dependence: do clinical effects replicate and for whom does it work best?

Authors:  Carolin Eberl; Reinout W Wiers; Steffen Pawelczack; Mike Rinck; Eni S Becker; Johannes Lindenmeyer
Journal:  Dev Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 6.464

4.  Can cognitive bias modification simultaneously target two behaviors? Approach bias retraining for alcohol and condom use.

Authors:  Austin M Hahn; Raluca M Simons; Jeffrey S Simons; Reinout W Wiers; Logan E Welker
Journal:  Clin Psychol Sci       Date:  2019-04-02

5.  Can singular examples change implicit attitudes in the real-world?

Authors:  Leslie E Roos; Sophie Lebrecht; James W Tanaka; Michael J Tarr
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-09-05

6.  How to Set Focal Categories for Brief Implicit Association Test? "Good" Is Good, "Bad" Is Not So Good.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Shi; Huajian Cai; Yiqin Alicia Shen; Jing Yang
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-02-03

7.  Low and variable correlation between reaction time costs and accuracy costs explained by accumulation models: Meta-analysis and simulations.

Authors:  Craig Hedge; Georgina Powell; Aline Bompas; Solveiga Vivian-Griffiths; Petroc Sumner
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 17.737

8.  Understanding and using the brief Implicit Association Test: recommended scoring procedures.

Authors:  Brian A Nosek; Yoav Bar-Anan; N Sriram; Jordan Axt; Anthony G Greenwald
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.