No abstract

Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence ("professor") subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence ("soccer hooligans"). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the "professor" category and those primed with the "hooligan" category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.

In two studies participants were asked to make a decision about whether they would hire a job applicant described in a fictitious vita. Later, participants were shown the vita of a second applicant and rated the extent to which they regretted their original decision. Participants who were mildly depressed reported higher levels of regret than non-depressed participants. This heightened regret level was observed: (1) regardless of whether participants had decided to hire the initial candidate; (2) independently of whether the decision had high or low personal relevance to participants; and (3) regardless of the extent to which the second candidate was a better candidate for the job than the first applicant. The results of causal modeling analyses suggest that the construct of depression predicts these regret results independently of related constructs, such as locus of control or causal uncertainty. 665This project was instigated as a part of the first author's senior honors thesis. The second author (J.J. Skowronski) supervised the thesis, and the third author (Wm. MacDonald) was one of the examining committee members. We thank Judith Johnson for her willingness to also serve on the examination committee. We thank Gifford Weary for her assistance in clarifying relations between locus of control, causal uncertainty and depression, and for her comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. We thank the many reviewers of this manuscript for their careful examination of the manuscript and for their suggestions for improving it.Correspondence should be sent to John Skowronski, Northern Illinois University, Department of Psychology,

No abstract

Four samples of participants recalled autobiographical memories. While some evidence emerged from regression analyses suggesting that judgements of the amount of detail contained in each memory and judgements of the ease with which events could be recalled were partially independent, the analyses generally showed that these judgements were similarly predicted by various event characteristics (age, typicality, self-importance, emotional intensity at event occurrence, rehearsal types). Co-occurrence frequency data yielded similar conclusions, showing that while ease ratings and detail ratings occasionally diverged, they were more often consistent with each other. Finally, the data also suggested that events that prompted emotional ambivalence were not judged to be more easily recalled, or to contain more detail, than non-ambivalent events.