The short-term DMT program can counter the anticipated worsening of stress and pain in women with breast cancer during radiotherapy.

No abstract

The importance of replication is becoming increasingly appreciated, however, considerably less consensus exists about how to evaluate the design and results of replications. We make concrete recommendations on how to evaluate replications with more nuance than what is typically done currently in the literature. We highlight six study characteristics that are crucial for evaluating replications: replication method similarity, replication differences, investigator independence, method/data transparency, analytic result reproducibility, and auxiliary hypotheses’ plausibility evidence. We also recommend a more nuanced approach to statistically interpret replication results at the individual-study and meta-analytic levels, and propose clearer language to communicate replication results.

Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, and Hannon (2002, Study 1) demonstrated a causal link between subjective commitment to a relationship and how people responded to hypothetical betrayals of that relationship. Participants primed to think about their commitment to their partner (high commitment) reacted to the betrayals with reduced exit and neglect responses relative to those primed to think about their independence from their partner (low commitment). The priming manipulation did not affect constructive voice and loyalty responses. Although other studies have demonstrated a correlation between subjective commitment and responses to betrayal, this study provides the only experimental evidence that inducing changes to subjective commitment can causally affect forgiveness responses. This Registered Replication Report (RRR) meta-analytically combines the results of 16 new direct replications of the original study, all of which followed a standardized, vetted, and preregistered protocol. The results showed little effect of the priming manipulation on the forgiveness outcome measures, but it also did not observe an effect of priming on subjective commitment, so the manipulation did not work as it had in the original study. We discuss possible explanations for the discrepancy between the findings from this RRR and the original study.

The impact bias in affective forecasting-a tendency to overestimate the emotional consequences of future events-may not be a universal phenomenon. This prediction bias stems from a cognitive process known as focalism, whereby predictors focus attention narrowly on the upcoming target event. Three studies supported the hypothesis that East Asians, who tend to think more holistically than Westerners, would be less susceptible to focalism and, consequently, to the impact bias. In Studies 1 and 2, Euro-Canadians exhibited the impact bias for positive future events, whereas East Asians did not. A thought focus measure indicated that the cultural difference in prediction was mediated by the extent to which participants focused on the target event (i.e., focalism). In Study 3, a thought focus manipulation revealed that defocused Euro-Canadians and East Asians made equally moderate affective forecasts.