The effect of negative valence on false memory formation in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm: A preregistered meta-analysis and preregistered replication.

Participants in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm learn lists of words (e.g., bed, tired) associated with a nonpresented lure (i.e., sleep). In subsequent memory tests, individuals tend to report the nonlearned lures, that is, exhibiting false memories. Priorly, the DRM task has been criticized for not capturing the aversive nature of (clinically and forensically relevant) real-life memories. To obtain a robust estimate of the influence of negative versus neutral word lists on the DRM effect, we conducted both a preregistered meta-analysis (krecall = 49, nrecall = 2,209, krecognition = 75, nrecognition = 3,008, kresponsebias = 31, nresponsebias = 1,128) and replication (nfinal = 278) predicting increased false memories for negative valence in recall and recognition. For recall, we found significant frequentist evidence in the meta-analysis for a reversed valence effect (d = -0.18, i.e., reduced false memories for negative content vs. neutral), whereas the replication displayed null results (d = 0.03). For recognition, both the meta-analysis (d = 0.23) and replication (d = 0.35) showed that negative valence (vs. neutral) increased false memories. However, this effect may be confounded by shifts in response tendencies as controlling for response bias nullified the valence effect in our meta-analysis (dmeta = 0.05), and we found evidence for differential response bias in our replication (dreplica = 0.39). Hence, the effect of valence on false memory reports in the DRM may not represent a systematic difference in emotional information but instead depend on how memory is tested, and be partly attributable to differential response tendencies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Correction to: 'Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: The Transparent Psi Project' (2023) by Kekecs et al.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1098/rsos.191375.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2022.2500.].

Suppression-induced forgetting: a pre-registered replication of the think/no-think paradigm.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is characterised by recurring memories of a traumatic experience despite deliberate attempts to forget (i.e., suppression). The Think/No-Think (TNT) task has been used widely in the laboratory to study suppression-induced forgetting. During the task, participants learn a series of cue-target word pairs. Subsequently, they are presented with a subset of the cue words and are instructed to think (respond items) or not think about the corresponding target (suppression items). Baseline items are not shown during this phase. Successful suppression-induced forgetting is indicated by the reduced recall of suppression compared to baseline items in recall tests using either the same or different cues than originally studied (i.e., same- and independent-probe tests, respectively). The current replication was a pre-registered collaborative effort to evaluate an online experimenter-present version of the paradigm in 150 English-speaking healthy individuals (89 females; MAge = 31.14, SDAge = 7.73). Overall, we did not replicate the suppression-induced forgetting effect (same-probe: BF01 = 7.84; d = 0.03 [95% CI: -0.13; 0.20]; independent-probe: BF01 = 5.71; d = 0.06 [95% CI: -0.12; 0.24]). These null results should be considered in light of our online implementation of the paradigm. Nevertheless, our findings call into question the robustness of suppression-induced forgetting.

Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project.

The low reproducibility rate in social sciences has produced hesitation among researchers in accepting published findings at their face value. Despite the advent of initiatives to increase transparency in research reporting, the field is still lacking tools to verify the credibility of research reports. In the present paper, we describe methodologies that let researchers craft highly credible research and allow their peers to verify this credibility. We demonstrate the application of these methods in a multi-laboratory replication of Bem's Experiment 1 (Bem 2011 J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 407-425. (doi:10.1037/a0021524)) on extrasensory perception (ESP), which was co-designed by a consensus panel including both proponents and opponents of Bem's original hypothesis. In the study we applied direct data deposition in combination with born-open data and real-time research reports to extend transparency to protocol delivery and data collection. We also used piloting, checklists, laboratory logs and video-documented trial sessions to ascertain as-intended protocol delivery, and external research auditors to monitor research integrity. We found 49.89% successful guesses, while Bem reported 53.07% success rate, with the chance level being 50%. Thus, Bem's findings were not replicated in our study. In the paper, we discuss the implementation, feasibility and perceived usefulness of the credibility-enhancing methodologies used throughout the project.

The effect of pre-event instructions on eyewitness identification.

Research on eyewitness identification often involves exposing participants to a simulated crime and later testing memory using a lineup. We conducted a systematic review showing that pre-event instructions, instructions given before event exposure, are rarely reported and those that are reported vary in the extent to which they warn participants about the nature of the event or tasks. At odds with the experience of actual witnesses, some studies use pre-event instructions explicitly warning participants of the upcoming crime and lineup task. Both the basic and applied literature provide reason to believe that pre-event instructions may affect eyewitness identification performance. In the current experiment, we tested the impact of pre-event instructions on lineup identification decisions and confidence. Participants received non-specific pre-event instructions (i.e., "watch this video") or eyewitness pre-event instructions (i.e., "watch this crime video, you'll complete a lineup later") and completed a culprit-absent or -present lineup. We found no support for the hypothesis that participants who receive eyewitness pre-event instructions have higher discriminability than participants who receive non-specific pre-event instructions. Additionally, confidence-accuracy calibration was not significantly different between conditions. However, participants in the eyewitness condition were more likely to see the event as a crime and to make an identification than participants in the non-specific condition. Implications for conducting and interpreting eyewitness identification research and the basic research on instructions and attention are discussed.

When Alcohol Adverts Catch the Eye: A Psychometrically Reliable Dual-Probe Measure of Attentional Bias.

Existing tasks assessing substance-related attentional biases are characterized by low internal consistency and test-retest reliability. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of a novel dual-probe task to measure alcohol-related attentional bias. Undergraduate students were recruited in June 2019 (N = 63; final N = 57; mean age = 20.88, SD = 2.63, 67% females). In the dual-probe task, participants were presented with simultaneous visual streams of adverts promoting either alcoholic or non-alcoholic drinks, and probes were presented in both streams. The dual-probe task measured the percentage of accurately identified probes that appeared on alcohol adverts in relation to total accuracy. The dual-probe task displayed excellent split-half reliability (M = 0.90, SD = 0.11; α = 0.90; 95% CI [0.84, 0.93]), and the derived attentional bias measure was significantly positively associated with beer drinking in a taste-test (r (57) = 0.33, p = 0.013; 95% CI [0.07, 0.54]), with habitual drinking (r (57) = 0.27, p = 0.045; 95% CI [0.01, 0.49]), and with increased craving (r (57) = 0.29, p = 0.031; 95% CI [0.03, 0.51]). Thus, the dual-probe task assessed attentional bias with excellent internal consistency and was associated with laboratory and habitual drinking measures, demonstrating initial support for the task's utility in addiction research.