Why So Little Faith? A Reply to Blanton and Jaccard's (2006) Skeptical View of Testing Pure Multiplicative Theories

Autor/inn/en	Greenwald, Anthony G.; Rudman, Laurie A.; Nosek, Brian A.; Zayas, Vivian
Titel	Why So Little Faith? A Reply to Blanton and Jaccard's (2006) Skeptical View of Testing Pure Multiplicative Theories
Quelle	In: Psychological Review, 113 (2006) 1, S.170-180 (11 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0033-295X
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; Predictor Variables; Regression (Statistics); Theories; Hypothesis Testing; Simulation; Meta Analysis + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Prädiktor; Regression; Regressionsanalyse; Theory; Theorie; Hypothesenprüfung; Hypothesentest; Simulation program; Simulationsprogramm; Meta-analysis; Metaanalyse
Abstract	Blanton and Jaccard questioned the 4-test regression method used by Greenwald et al. to test a pure multiplicative theory. The present authors address Blanton and Jaccard's concerns with a combination of simulations and meta-analysis. Simulations show that (a) Blanton and Jaccard's preferred simultaneous regression method has a severe power loss in testing multiplicative theories when predictor variables' means deviate from rational zero values, and (b) Greenwald et al.'s 4-test method has a more limited weakness when predictor means deviate from rational zero in the positive direction. Meta-analyses showed that aggregate analyses of Greenwald et al.'s 5 experiments confirmed a multiplicative theory regardless of which analysis method was used. However, only the 4-test method could confirm a pure multiplicative theory. (Author).
Anmerkungen	American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org/publications.
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10