The amplitude of the negative priming effect did not differ between adolescents and adults¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2024: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q3 i? A 2 (type of trial) × 2 (age) ANOVA on probe RTs found no significant two-way interaction, and Bayesian analysis provided moderate evidence in favor of the null hypothesis (BF01 = 3.20). → Rossi 2019

Evidence¶

Rossi 2019¶

Rossi, S., Vidal, J., Letang, M., Houdé, O., & Borst, G. (2019). Adolescents and Adults Need Inhibitory Control to Compare Fractions. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 5(3), 314-336. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.v5i3.197

q3 · i? · causal · r1

A two-way mixed ANOVA on probe RTs found "no effect of age, F(1, 48) = 1.12, p = .29, BF01 = 1.48, and no two-way interaction, F < 1, BF01 = 3.20". The authors note the Bayes factor suggests moderate evidence for the null (about 3 times more likely under the null).

"no effect of age, F(1, 48) = 1.12, p = .29, BF01 = 1.48, and no two-way interaction, F < 1, BF01 = 3.20"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• No significant differences in probe error rates between test and control trials were found, suggesting the negative priming RT effect is not due to speed-accuracy trade-offs — related
• The negative priming effect on probe RTs was statistically significant in both adolescents (Cohen's d = 1.07) and adults (Cohen's d = 0.73) — related
• Adolescents and educated adults require more time to compare common-denominator fractions after a common-numerator prime than after a control prime (negative priming effect) — related
• Participants required more time and committed more errors when comparing fractions with common numerators than with common denominators — related