scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

David Torres

Bio: David Torres is an academic researcher from Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. The author has contributed to research in topics: Implicit-association test & Ingroups and outgroups. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 8 publications receiving 456 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
24 Dec 2018
TL;DR: This paper conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings, and found that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the task were administered in lab versus online.
Abstract: We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.

495 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the effects of school inclusion programs on male and female nondisabled students' stereotypes and attitudes toward people with Down syndrome were studied, and the results showed that the effect of inclusion programs in ameliorating prejudice and intergroup anxiety; and in promoting positive attitudes, affect, and trust.
Abstract: The effects of school inclusion programs on male and female nondisabled students’ stereotypes and attitudes toward people with Down syndrome were studied. Nondisabled students (11–15 years of age) from schools with and without inclusion programs reported positive and negative attitudes toward people with Down syndrome. As hypothesized, girls and students attending schools with inclusion programs showed more favorable attitudes toward people with Down syndrome than did boys and students attending schools without inclusion programs, respectively. Interaction effects of school system and sex of participant suggest that boys’ attitudes, in particular, benefit from inclusive schooling. The study provides evidence for the effectiveness of inclusion programs in ameliorating prejudice and intergroup anxiety; and in promoting positive attitudes, affect, and trust. Can an educational environment that includes both disabled and nondisabled students change nondisabled students’ attitudes toward disabled people? In this article, we attempt to answer this question by comparing the effects of inclusive and noninclusive school programs in Chile on attitudes toward one particular target group: people with Down syndrome.

39 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The role of coalition identification as an important sociopsychological mechanism for promoting positive affects toward own-coalition party members in a multiparty system, above and beyond interparty political differences was investigated in this article.
Abstract: This paper reports a survey (N = 1,465) conducted in Chile that was conceived to understand the role of coalition identification as an important sociopsychological mechanism for promoting positive affects toward own-coalition party members in a multiparty system, above and beyond interparty political differences. Participants judged their own political party, parties within coalitions (fellow coalition members and opposing parties), and political coalitions as a whole on affective dimensions (trust, liking, and admiration). The results provide substantial support for the five hypotheses addressed in the study. Overall, perceived interparty distance and political identity threat had a negative impact on affect toward coalition party members. Above and beyond these effects, identification with the coalition positively predicted affect toward allies. Ingroup party affect was positively correlated with affect toward own-coalition party members and own coalition as a whole, but was not negatively associated with affect toward opposing-coalition parties. Moreover, the relationship between own-party affect and affect toward own-coalition party members was mediated by affect toward own coalition. Overall, evidence for the benefits of promoting coalition identification in a multiparty system is provided and discussed alongside the limitations and practical implications derived from the study.

33 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors reporta una investigación que busca analizar las actitudes y orientaciones that caracterizan a group of chileno no se identifican con partidos o coaliciones.
Abstract: Este trabajo reporta una investigacion que busca analizar las actitudes y orientaciones que caracterizan a un grupo de creciente importancia en el sistema politico chileno: quienes no se identifican con partidos o coaliciones. El estudio se organizo a partir de un conjunto de hipotesis derivadas de la Teoria de la Identidad Social, asi como de estudios previos relacionados con actitudes politicas generalizadas. La investigacion se llevo a cabo en una muestra de estudiantes universitarios de Santiago (N=1460), quienes respondieron un cuestionario autoadministrado. Los resultados confirmaron que quienes no se identifican politicamente tampoco lo hacen con otros referentes colectivos como la nacion y la religion. Sus actitudes politicas son tambien distintivas: en comparacion con quienes se identifican con partidos o coaliciones, su cinismo politico es mayor y su eficacia politica menor. Su tolerancia politica y autoritarismo difiere de quienes se identifican con partidos o coaliciones de derecha y su adhesion a la democracia se encuentra en un nivel intermedio con respecto a quienes se identifican con la centro-derecha y centro-izquierda. En su conjunto, los resultados muestran que este grupo manifiesta una clara retraccion con respecto a referentes de identidad e integracion social. El trabajo concluye recomendando la realizacion de estudios longitudinales que permitan establecer y caracterizar las transiciones identitarias que llevan a esta forma de desafeccion politica.

33 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors proposed the Category-Focus IAT (CF-IAT) as an instrument to measure implicit associations of single concepts, which directs respondents' attention to a subset of the experimental materials.
Abstract: We propose the Category-Focus IAT (CF-IAT) as an instrument to measure the implicit associations of single concepts. The CF-IAT directs respondents' attention to a subset of the experimental materials. In a first study using the CF-IAT, Chilean adolescents (N = 49), members of either the indigenous minority (Mapuche) or the nonindigenous majority, completed CF-IATs assessing implicit attitudes toward these groups. Results revealed, in both groups, a neutral implicit evaluation of the ingroup, but a negative implicit evaluation of the outgroup. Process evidence suggests that the CF-IAT's manipulation of attentional focus was successful.

21 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is found that peer beliefs of replicability are strongly related to replicable, suggesting that the research community could predict which results would replicate and that failures to replicate were not the result of chance alone.
Abstract: Being able to replicate scientific findings is crucial for scientific progress. We replicate 21 systematically selected experimental studies in the social sciences published in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. The replications follow analysis plans reviewed by the original authors and pre-registered prior to the replications. The replications are high powered, with sample sizes on average about five times higher than in the original studies. We find a significant effect in the same direction as the original study for 13 (62%) studies, and the effect size of the replications is on average about 50% of the original effect size. Replicability varies between 12 (57%) and 14 (67%) studies for complementary replicability indicators. Consistent with these results, the estimated true-positive rate is 67% in a Bayesian analysis. The relative effect size of true positives is estimated to be 71%, suggesting that both false positives and inflated effect sizes of true positives contribute to imperfect reproducibility. Furthermore, we find that peer beliefs of replicability are strongly related to replicability, suggesting that the research community could predict which results would replicate and that failures to replicate were not the result of chance alone.

759 citations

Book
31 May 2002
TL;DR: In this paper, a selective review emphasizes work published from 2005 to 2009 on attitudes and attitude change in contemporary social psychology, focusing on the relationship between implicit and explicit measures of attitude, and the implications of the foregoing for attitude change.
Abstract: Attitudes and attitude change remain core topics of contemporary social psychology. This selective review emphasizes work published from 2005 to 2009. It addresses constructionist and stable-entity conceptualizations of attitude, the distinction between implicit and explicit measures of attitude, and implications of the foregoing for attitude change. Associative and propositional processes in attitude change are considered at a general level and in relation to evaluative conditioning. The role of bodily states and physical perceptions in attitude change is reviewed. This is followed by an integrative perspective on processing models of persuasion and the consideration of meta-cognitions in persuasion. Finally, effects of attitudes on information processing, social memory, and behavior are highlighted. Core themes cutting across the areas reviewed are attempts at integrative theorizing bringing together formerly disparate phenomena and viewpoints.

748 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Apr 1938

702 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Certain biases have caused a dramatic inflation in published effects, making it difficult to compare an actual effect with the real population effects (as these are unknown), and there were very large differences in the mean effects between psychological sub-disciplines and between different study designs,Making it impossible to apply any global benchmarks.
Abstract: Effect sizes are the currency of psychological research. They quantify the results of a study to answer the research question and are used to calculate statistical power. The interpretation of effect sizes—when is an effect small, medium, or large?—has been guided by the recommendations Jacob Cohen gave in his pioneering writings starting in 1962: Either compare an effect with the effects found in past research or use certain conventional benchmarks. The present analysis shows that neither of these recommendations is currently applicable. From past publications without pre-registration, 900 effects were randomly drawn and compared with 93 effects from publications with pre-registration, revealing a large difference: Effects from the former (median r = .36) were much larger than effects from the latter (median r = .16). That is, certain biases, such as publication bias or questionable research practices, have caused a dramatic inflation in published effects, making it difficult to compare an actual effect with the real population effects (as these are unknown). In addition, there were very large differences in the mean effects between psychological sub-disciplines and between different study designs, making it impossible to apply any global benchmarks. Many more pre-registered studies are needed in the future to derive a reliable picture of real population effects.

354 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Marc Brysbaert1
19 Jul 2019
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe reference numbers needed for the designs most often used by psychologists, including single-variable between-groups and repeated-measures designs with two and three levels, two-factor designs involving two repeated measures and one repeated measure, and split-plot design.
Abstract: Given that an effect size of d = .4 is a good first estimate of the smallest effect size of interest in psychological research, we already need over 50 participants for a simple comparison of two within-participants conditions if we want to run a study with 80% power. This is more than current practice. In addition, as soon as a between-groups variable or an interaction is involved, numbers of 100, 200, and even more participants are needed. As long as we do not accept these facts, we will keep on running underpowered studies with unclear results. Addressing the issue requires a change in the way research is evaluated by supervisors, examiners, reviewers, and editors. The present paper describes reference numbers needed for the designs most often used by psychologists, including single-variable between-groups and repeated-measures designs with two and three levels, two-factor designs involving two repeated-measures variables or one between-groups variable and one repeated-measures variable (split-plot design). The numbers are given for the traditional, frequentist analysis with p 10. These numbers provide researchers with a standard to determine (and justify) the sample size of an upcoming study. The article also describes how researchers can improve the power of their study by including multiple observations per condition per participant.

314 citations