ArticlePDF Available

Does Approach Motivation Induce Right-Oriented Bias? Reply to Price and Wolfers (2014)

Authors:
Marieke Roskes at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Marieke Roskes
Daniel Sligte at University of Amsterdam
Daniel Sligte
Shaul Shalvi at University of Amsterdam
Shaul Shalvi
Carsten K W De Dreu at Leiden University
Carsten K W De Dreu
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract and Figures

In 2011, we tested the hypothesis that people exhibit a right-oriented bias when they are approach motivated and act quickly (Roskes, Sligte, Shalvi, & De Dreu, 2011). An experiment showed that when people had to act quickly, they bisected lines farther to the right when they were approach motivated than when they were avoid-ance motivated. Analysis of archival data on soccer pen-alty shoot-outs further revealed that goalkeepers dived more to the right when their team was behind than when their team was not behind, a situation we propose induces approach motivation.Price and Wolfers (2014) challenge whether the right-oriented bias manifests itself in goalkeepers’ behavior. They make three critiques of our findings: (a) The effect does not replicate, (b) an alternative coding of “being behind” eliminates the effect, and (c) the goalkeepers’ tendency to dive right is not dysfunctional. Our analysis suggests that the bias exists, although Price and Wolfers’s alternative coding raises interesting questions about the exact settings that evoke approach motivation. We are happy to see that more data are being collected, which is important for enhancing understanding of the phenomenon.Prior research has demonstrated an association between approach motivation and a variety of right-ori-ented biases. This association is explained by increased left-hemispheric brain activation under approach motiva-tion, which enhances attention and action readiness toward the right (Vallortigara & Rogers, 2005). For exam-ple, dogs wag their tails toward the right when they observe their owners (Quaranta, Siniscalchi, & Vallortigara, 2007), and when quickly dividing lines into equal parts, approach-motivated people divide them to the right of their centers (Nash, McGregor, & Inzlicht, 2010). In our original study, we tested whether right-oriented bias under approach motivation is more likely to appear when people have to act fast than when they have more time in which to override their automatic responses. Price and Wolfers challenge neither the theory nor the results of our experiment. Rather, they challenge whether approach motivation evokes right-oriented bias in goal-keepers during penalty shoot-outs.
Figures - uploaded by Shaul Shalvi
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Shaul Shalvi
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Shaul Shalvi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shaul Shalvi on Sep 18, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://pss.sagepub.com/
Psychological Science
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/09/12/0956797614547919
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0956797614547919
published online 12 September 2014Psychological Science
Marieke Roskes, Daniel Sligte, Shaul Shalvi and Carsten K. W. De Dreu
Does Approach Motivation Induce Right-Oriented Bias? Reply to Price and Wolfers (2014)
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Association for Psychological Science
can be found at:Psychological ScienceAdditional services and information for
http://pss.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://pss.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Sep 12, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
at Association for Psychological Science on September 13, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Association for Psychological Science on September 13, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Psychological Science
1 –4
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0956797614547919
pss.sagepub.com
Commentary
In 2011, we tested the hypothesis that people exhibit a
right-oriented bias when they are approach motivated
and act quickly (Roskes, Sligte, Shalvi, & De Dreu, 2011).
An experiment showed that when people had to act
quickly, they bisected lines farther to the right when they
were approach motivated than when they were avoid-
ance motivated. Analysis of archival data on soccer pen-
alty shoot-outs further revealed that goalkeepers dived
more to the right when their team was behind than when
their team was not behind, a situation we propose
induces approach motivation.
Price and Wolfers (2014) challenge whether the right-
oriented bias manifests itself in goalkeepers’ behavior.
They make three critiques of our findings: (a) The effect
does not replicate, (b) an alternative coding of “being
behind” eliminates the effect, and (c) the goalkeepers’
tendency to dive right is not dysfunctional. Our analysis
suggests that the bias exists, although Price and Wolfers’s
alternative coding raises interesting questions about the
exact settings that evoke approach motivation. We are
happy to see that more data are being collected, which
is important for enhancing understanding of the
phenomenon.
Prior research has demonstrated an association
between approach motivation and a variety of right-ori-
ented biases. This association is explained by increased
left-hemispheric brain activation under approach motiva-
tion, which enhances attention and action readiness
toward the right (Vallortigara & Rogers, 2005). For exam-
ple, dogs wag their tails toward the right when they
observe their owners (Quaranta, Siniscalchi, & Vallor tigara,
2007), and when quickly dividing lines into equal parts,
approach-motivated people divide them to the right of
their centers (Nash, McGregor, & Inzlicht, 2010). In our
original study, we tested whether right-oriented bias
under approach motivation is more likely to appear
when people have to act fast than when they have more
time in which to override their automatic responses. Price
and Wolfers challenge neither the theory nor the results
of our experiment. Rather, they challenge whether
approach motivation evokes right-oriented bias in goal-
keepers during penalty shoot-outs.
Does Right-Oriented Bias Affect
Goalkeepers?
In our original article, we aimed to identify real-life situ-
ations in which right-oriented biases occur. During soc-
cer penalty shoot-outs, goalkeepers make split-second
decisions between diving left and diving right. Penalty
shoot-outs are likely to evoke approach motivation
among goalkeepers because, as Oliver Kahn (a famous
German goalkeeper) explained, “Kickers are the ones
that can lose in a penalty shoot-out; goalkeepers . . . can
win and ultimately become the heroes” (quoted in
“Goalkeepers Give Shoot-Out Tips,” 2010, para. 25). We
predicted that approach motivation would be even stron-
ger when the goalkeepers’ team is behind and their role
in winning the match is crucial. We analyzed all penalty
shoot-outs from Fédération Internationale de Football
547919PSSXXX10.1177/0956797614547919Roskes et al.Right-Oriented Bias
research-article2014
Corresponding Author:
Marieke Roskes, Guilford Glazer Faculty for Business and
Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P. O. Box 653,
Beer Sheva 84105, Israel
E-mail: mroskes@som.bgu.ac.il
Does Approach Motivation Induce Right-
Oriented Bias? Reply to Price and
Wolfers (2014)
Marieke Roskes1, Daniel Sligte2, Shaul Shalvi3, and
Carsten K. W. De Dreu2
1Guilford Glazer Faculty for Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev;
2Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam; and 3Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion
University of the Negev
Received 6/4/14; Revision accepted 7/28/14
Psychological Science OnlineFirst, published on September 12, 2014 as doi:10.1177/0956797614547919
at Association for Psychological Science on September 13, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Roskes et al.
Association (FIFA) World Cup matches: Goalkeepers
whose team was behind were more likely to dive right
(71%) than left (29%), compared with those whose team
was not behind (48% vs. 49%, respectively); see Table 1.
Price and Wolfers’s first critique is that they could not
replicate the pattern in two additional competitions:
Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)
Champions League and Copa América. In these tourna-
ments, the interaction between standing of the goalkeep-
er’s team (behind vs. not behind) and diving direction
(right vs. left) was not significant (Table 1). Recent rec-
ommendations suggest that assessing accumulated data
is more informative than interpreting results of single
studies (Braver, Thoemmes, & Rosenthal, 2014; Stanley &
Spence, 2014). We therefore aggregated the data from the
three tournaments, and this revealed the same pattern as
the original data: Goalkeepers whose team was behind
were more likely to dive right (68%) than left (27%), com-
pared with those whose team was not behind (52% vs.
43%, respectively), p = .022 (Table 1).
Cumming (2013) proposed that replications should
not be labeled as successes (p < .05) or failures (p > .05)
and that confidence intervals are a better way to present
differences. Figure 1 presents the differences between
the proportion of goalkeepers who dived right when
their team was behind and the proportion who dived
right when their team was not behind. Indeed, the repli-
cation does not rule out a zero effect in the combined
UEFA and Copa América data (zero falls within the con-
fidence interval). However, it is also consistent with the
existence of right-oriented bias.
Price and Wolfers’s second critique relates to the situ-
ations evoking approach motivation. Because the game’s
score is salient, we had originally coded goalkeepers’
Table 1. Goalkeeper and Kicker Behavior Across Different Game Situations
Standing of goalkeeper’s
team
Goalkeeper’s behavior Kicker’s behavior
Direction of
goalkeeper’s dives Chi-square
interaction
pvalue
Chi-square
simple-effect
p value
Direction of penalty
kick Chi-square
interaction
p value
Chi-square
simple-effect
p valueRight (%) Left (%)
Goalie’s
right (%)
Goalie’s
left (%)
Data from FIFA World Cup .046 .594
Behind (n = 24) 70.8 29.2 .041 54.2 37.5 .394
Not behind (n = 180) 47.8 49.4 .821 48.3 42.8 .435
Data from Copa América
and UEFA Champions
League
.215 .453
Behind (n = 32) 65.6 25.0 .016 53.1 37.5 .353
Not behind (n = 208) 55.8 36.5 .004 43.8 41.8 .764
Combined data .022 .366
Behind (n = 56) 67.8 26.8 .002 53.6 37.5 .208
Not behind (n = 388) 52.1 42.5 .054 45.9 42.3 .449
Data from FIFA World Cup
(recoded)
.410 .787
Behind (n = 53) 56.6 43.4 .336 47.2 43.4 .773
Not behind (n = 151) 48.3 48.3 1.00 49.7 41.7 .307
Data from Copa América
and UEFA Champions
League (recoded)
.296 .532
Behind (n = 72) 62.5 30.6 .005 50.0 40.3 .385
Not behind (n = 168) 54.8 36.9 .016 42.9 41.7 .867
Combined data (recoded) .161 .790
Behind (n = 125) 60.0 36.0 .006 48.8 41.6 .397
Not behind (n = 319) 51.7 42.3 .083 46.1 41.7 .403
Note: The original data from Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup shoot-outs between 1982 and 2010 were taken
from Roskes, Sligte, Shalvi, & De Dreu (2011). The original data from shoot-outs during the Copa América tournament and Union of European
Football Associations (UEFA) Champions League final games between 1984 and 2011 were taken from Price and Wolfers (2014). The chi square
interaction p value compares the tendency to dive right with the tendency to dive left as a function of whether the goalkeeper’s team is behind
versus not behind. The chi square simple-effect p value compares the observed frequency of diving (or kicking) right with the frequency of diving
(or kicking) left with the expected frequency of choosing a side at random (50%-50%).
at Association for Psychological Science on September 13, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Right-Oriented Bias 3
teams as behind if their team scored fewer goals than
their competitors. Price and Wolfers devised an alterna-
tive coding method, in which goalkeepers’ teams were
considered behind if their team missed more attempts
than the competitors. In this situation, the score (from the
goalkeeper’s perspective) can be either behind or tied.
Although the new coding includes these different situa-
tions, we agree that this may be an elegant way to assess
goalkeepers’ motivation. However, as acknowledged by
Price and Wolfers, the alternative coding does not invali-
date our original coding.
Recoding our original data using Price and Wolfers’s
method revealed no evidence of right-oriented bias
(Table 1). However, the aggregated data show that goal-
keepers whose team was behind were more likely to dive
right (60%) than left (36%), compared with those whose
team was not behind (52% vs. 42%, respectively).
Although consistent with the predicted pattern, the inter-
action was not significant, p = .16. Price and Wolfers
wrote that “the conclusion of Roskes et al. is highly sensi-
tive to the assumption about which situations are likely
to yield approach motivation” (p. XXX). It is indeed fas-
cinating to figure out whether stronger approach motiva-
tion is evoked if one considers teams behind when they
missed more attempts to score than if one considers them
behind if they scored less, which can be tested in both
laboratory and field settings.
Finally, Price and Wolfers suggest that the goalkeepers’
right-oriented bias is not dysfunctional. In Roskes et al.
(2011), we tested the single prediction that right-oriented
bias emerges under approach motivation. We had no
predictions about the bias being either functional or dys-
functional. We discussed the possibility that the bias has
disadvantages because it reduces accuracy and can be
exploited. Price and Wolfers suggest that “the reason that
diving right in these situations is a good choice is that the
kicker is more likely to kick to the goalkeeper’s right:
54.2% of the time versus 37.5%” (p. XXX). However, as
can be seen in Table 1, effects for kickers were not
significant.
Conclusion
Approach motivation has been associated with a variety
of right-oriented biases. Price and Wolfers challenge our
observation that the bias exists among goalkeepers. The
accumulated data support the existence of right-oriented
bias; however, many questions remain open. For exam-
ple, which situations evoke approach motivation, and
when does it translate to right-oriented bias? In which
–.6 –.4 –.2 0.2.
4.
6
Difference Between the Two Proportions
FIFA Data
Copa América and UEFA Data (recoded)
Combined Data (recoded)
Copa América and UEFA Data
FIFA Data (recoded)
Combined Data
Fig. 1. Effect of the standing of the goalkeeper’s team on the goalkeeper’s decision to dive right. For each data set, the
proportion of times that the goalkeepers dived right when their team was not behind was subtracted from the propor-
tion of times that the goalkeepers dived right when their team was behind. The top three data points show results for
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup shoot-outs between 1982 and 2010 (taken from
Roskes, Sligte, Shalvi, & De Dreu, 2011), shoot-outs during the Copa América tournament and Union of European Foot-
ball Associations (UEFA) Champions League final games between 1984 and 2011 (taken from Price & Wolfers, 2014),
and the combined data from both studies. For these analyses, goalkeepers’ teams were considered behind if they scored
fewer goals than their competitors’ teams. The lower three data points show the same data recoded according to alter-
native criteria devised by Price and Wolfers, in which goalkeepers’ teams were considered behind if they missed more
goal attempts than their competitors’ teams. The plot was generated using Exploratory Software for Confidence Intervals
(ESCI; Cumming, 2013). Error bars show 95% confidence intervals.
at Association for Psychological Science on September 13, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4 Roskes et al.
settings does the bias emerge (e.g., drivers’ behavior)?
When is the bias dysfunctional? We hope the discussion
continues and that researchers will keep collecting new
data to provide insight into if, when, and why motivation
evokes directional biases.
Author Contributions
M. Roskes and S. Shalvi drafted the commentary, and D. Sligte
and C. K. W. De Dreu read and commented on it.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
References
Braver, S. L., Thoemmes, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (2014).
Continuously cumulating meta-analysis and replicability.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 333–342.
Cumming, G. (2013). The new statistics: Why and how.
Psychological Science, 25, 7–29.
Goalkeepers give shoot-out tips. (2010, June 25). IOL Sport.
Retrieved from http://www.iol.co.za/sport/goalkeepers-
give-shoot-out-tips-1.619515#.U-owefldUQE
Nash, K., McGregor, I., & Inzlicht, M. (2010). Line bisection as
a neural marker of approach motivation. Psychophysiology,
47, 979–983.
Price, J., & Wolfers, J. (2014). Right-oriented bias: A comment
on Roskes, Sligte, Shalvi, and De Dreu (2011). Psychological
Science, 25, XXX–XXX.
Quaranta, A., Siniscalchi, M., & Vallortigara, G. (2007).
Asymmetric tail-wagging responses by dogs to different
emotive stimuli. Current Biology, 17, R199–R201.
Roskes, M., Sligte, M., Shalvi, S., & De Dreu, C. (2011). The
right side? Under time pressure, approach motivation
leads to right-oriented bias. Psychological Science, 22,
1403–1407.
Stanley, D. J., & Spence, J. R. (2014). Expectations for repli-
cations: Are yours realistic? Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 9, 305–318.
Vallortigara, G., & Rogers, L. J. (2005). Survival with an asym-
metrical brain: Advantages and disadvantages of cerebral
lateralization. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 28, 575–633.
at Association for Psychological Science on September 13, 2014pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
... However, as the Chi-Square p-values reported in Table 1 show, the differences in the relative frequency of choosing left versus right between the various score situations were not statistically significant. This was the case both when we combined the Tied and Ahead categories to one category of "Not behind" (following Roskes et al., 2014) and performed a Chi-Square test on the resulting 2X2 distribution, and when we used the 3X2 distribution, in which Behind, Tied, and Ahead were treated as three separate groups. ...
... To summarise, in men's soccer there have been claims in both directions, with Roskes et al. (2011Roskes et al. ( , 2014 claiming to show such a right-oriented bias, whereas Price and Wolfers (2014) and Avugos et al. (2020) claiming not to find this bias when using an alternative coding of the data, either around the definition of game situations that are likely to elicit approach motivation (i.e., "being behind") or the definition of goal centre width (and thus the distribution of kicks to either side), on a larger sample of shots. Our replicated study with women's soccer led to similar conclusions. ...
... Although female goalkeepers dived more often to the right than to the left (similar to male goalkeepers), this was a reasonable reaction of the goalies given that kickers also chose that side more often. Therefore, contrary to what has been suggested by Roskes et al. (2011Roskes et al. ( , 2014, it seems that the situation of a shootout is not likely to evoke the expected approach-motivated behaviours that are associated with the bias to the rightand this conclusion is more robust for the women's games. Future research should examine the behaviour of goalies during penalty shootouts in the context of temporal decision-making, as suggested by others (e.g., Noël et al., 2021;van der Kamp et al., 2018) i.e., not only choosing the left or right side of the goal depending on the score situation, but also deciding when to dive. ...
Detecting patterns in the behaviour of goalkeepers and kickers in the penalty shootout: a between-gender comparison among score situations
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2022
There is plenty of research on penalty kicking in men's soccer, with a focus on either the goalkeeper or the penalty taker. Yet women's soccer and their playing behaviour are under-represented in research. The current study was designed to examine gender differences in the choice patterns of expert kickers and goalkeepers during penalty shooting in relation to the previously documented right-oriented bias. Using videos of penalties from shootouts at the highest level of men's and women's international soccer, we recorded the goalkeeper's dive direction and accurately measured the location of the ball as it crossed the goal line. We created a map of all kicks and their outcomes (goal, no goal, off-target). Our mapping procedure allowed us to use alternative definitions for the goal centre width and to extract the corresponding kick distribution between right, centre and left. In addition to analysing the potential right-oriented bias in women goalies’ behaviour, we also analysed the joint distribution of kickers’ and goalkeepers’ choices for each score situation (behind, tied, or ahead). Our findings indicate that the goalkeepers’ general tendency was to dive more often to the right, while the kickers’ tendency was to shoot to the right of the goalies. Moreover, this latter tendency of kicking to the goalies’ right was found to be stronger among the female kickers. Finally, our analysis refutes the claim that goalkeepers exhibit a detrimental right-oriented bias, with this conclusion being even stronger among female goalies.
View
... The literature also shows that when people have to act fast under an increased time pressure, they tend to rely on their initial automatic responses (Gray, 2001;Tomarken & Keener, 1998). Roskes et al. (2011Roskes et al. ( , 2014 claimed to demonstrate that during FIFA World Cup penalty shootouts (between 1982 and 2010), soccer goalkeepers whose team was behind were significantly more likely to dive right (71%) than left (29%), seemingly displaying a right-oriented diving bias. Goalkeepers' teams were considered behind if their teams scored fewer goals than the rival team in the penalty shootout so far, a situation that according to Roskes et al. elicits an approach motivation. ...
... In the first test we use the 3 × 2 distribution, i.e., we treat Behind, Tied and Ahead as three separate states. In the second test (reported in the right-most column), we combine the Tied and Ahead categories to one category of "Not behind" (following Roskes et al., 2014) and perform a Chi-Square test on the resulting 2 × 2 distribution. Both Chi-Square tests suggest that there is no statistically significant (at the 5% level) interaction effect between the game situation and the goalie's side choice. ...
The Right-Oriented Bias in Soccer Penalty Shootouts
Article
  • May 2020
Previous studies suggest that approach motivation (a focus on achieving positive outcomes) is related to relative left-hemispheric brain activation, which results in a variety of right-oriented behavioral biases. It has been argued that during FIFA World Cup penalty shootouts, soccer goalkeepers whose team was behind and therefore had approach motivation, dived right more often than left. The present study elaborates on the previous studies in several ways. First, we collected a larger dataset with more penalty kicks from penalty shootouts in top worldwide competitions. Second, we analyze several issues about the behavior of kickers and goalkeepers that were not analyzed before. Third, we use a different methodology to determine the direction of the kicks (right, middle or left), which does not rely on subjective perception of human judges for this classification. Our analysis shows no statistically significant relationship between the game situation (which team leads in the shootout) and the goalie's side choice. Kickers showed a small tendency to shoot to the right side of goalkeepers. Goalkeepers whose team was behind were much more likely to dive right than left, which makes sense given the kickers' behavior.
View
... In their analysis of Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup penalty shootouts, Roskes and colleagues found that goalkeepers were more likely to dive to the right than to the left in penalty shootouts, but only when their team was behind. Following a failed attempt to replicate these results in other major football tournaments (Price & Wolfers, 2014), Roskes, Sligte, Shalvi, and De Dreu (2014) conceded that it remains unclear under which circumstances approach-motivation is linked with a right-oriented bias. Their remark dovetails the findings of Nash et al. (2010, Study 2), who found that people with high self-esteem are more oriented to the right than people with low self-esteem, but this discrepancy only emerged after people re-lived a personal dilemma. ...
... It also sheds light on the circumstances in which activation in BAS is associated with a right-oriented bias (cf. Price & Wolfers, 2014;Roskes et al., 2014). ...
Walking blindfolded unveils unique contributions of behavioural approach and inhibition to lateral spatial bias
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2016
Healthy individuals display a tendency to allocate attention unequally across space, and this bias has implications for how individuals interact with their environments. However, the origins of this phenomenon remain relatively poorly understood. The present research examined the joint and independent contributions of two fundamental motivational systems – behavioural approach and inhibition systems (BAS and BIS) – to lateral spatial bias in a locomotion task. Participants completed self-report measures of trait BAS and BIS, then repeatedly traversed a room, blindfolded, aiming for a straight line. We obtained locomotion data from motion tracking to capture variations in the walking trajectories. Overall, walking trajectories deviated to the left, and this tendency was more pronounced with increasing BIS scores. Meanwhile, BAS was associated with relative rightward tendencies when BIS was low, but not when BIS was high. These results demonstrate for the first time an association between BIS and lateral spatial bias independently of variations in BAS. The findings also contribute to clarify the circumstances in which BAS is associated with a rightward bias. We discuss the implications of these findings for the neurobiological underpinnings of BIS and for the literature on spatial bias.
View
... In fact, a vast amount of marketing literature is concerned with devaluation of laterally placed items (Dittrich and Klauer, 2012), which is at times confounded with a desirable perception of magnitude (i.e., heaviness perception; Deng and Kahn, 2009) or automatic price and quality inferences (i.e., expensive and highquality items on the right end; Valenzuela and Raghubir, 2009). For free choice actions, goal keepers were found more likely to dive to the right during shoot-outs and under pressure (Roskes et al., 2011; but see Price and Wolfers, 2014), which was taken to document approach motivation (Roskes et al., 2014). ...
Arbitrary numbers counter fair decisions: trails of markedness in card distribution
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2015
Converging evidence from controlled experiments suggests that the mere processing of a number and its attributes such as value or parity might affect free choice decisions between different actions. For example the spatial numerical associations of response codes (SNARC) effect indicates the magnitude of a digit to be associated with a spatial representation and might therefore affect spatial response choices (i.e., decisions between a “left” and a “right” option). At the same time, other (linguistic) features of a number such as parity are embedded into space and might likewise prime left or right responses through feature words [odd or even, respectively; markedness association of response codes (MARC) effect]. In this experiment we aimed at documenting such influences in a natural setting. We therefore assessed number-space and parity-space association effects by exposing participants to a fair distribution task in a card playing scenario. Participants drew cards, read out loud their number values, and announced their response choice, i.e., dealing it to a left vs. right player, indicated by Playmobil characters. Not only did participants prefer to deal more cards to the right player, the card’s digits also affected response choices and led to a slightly but systematically unfair distribution, supported by a regular SNARC effect and counteracted by a reversed MARC effect. The experiment demonstrates the impact of SNARC- and MARC-like biases in free choice behavior through verbal and visual numerical information processing even in a setting with high external validity.
View
Expectations for Replications: Are Yours Realistic?
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2014
Failures to replicate published psychological research findings have contributed to a "crisis of confidence." Several reasons for these failures have been proposed, the most notable being questionable research practices and data fraud. We examine replication from a different perspective and illustrate that current intuitive expectations for replication are unreasonable. We used computer simulations to create thousands of ideal replications, with the same participants, wherein the only difference across replications was random measurement error. In the first set of simulations, study results differed substantially across replications as a result of measurement error alone. This raises questions about how researchers should interpret failed replication attempts, given the large impact that even modest amounts of measurement error can have on observed associations. In the second set of simulations, we illustrated the difficulties that researchers face when trying to interpret and replicate a published finding. We also assessed the relative importance of both sampling error and measurement error in producing variability in replications. Conventionally, replication attempts are viewed through the lens of verifying or falsifying published findings. We suggest that this is a flawed perspective and that researchers should adjust their expectations concerning replications and shift to a meta-analytic mind-set. © The Author(s) 2014.
View
Continuously Cumulating Meta-Analysis and Replicability
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2014
The current crisis in scientific psychology about whether our findings are irreproducible was presaged years ago by Tversky and Kahneman (1971), who noted that even sophisticated researchers believe in the fallacious Law of Small Numbers-erroneous intuitions about how imprecisely sample data reflect population phenomena. Combined with the low power of most current work, this often leads to the use of misleading criteria about whether an effect has replicated. Rosenthal (1990) suggested more appropriate criteria, here labeled the continuously cumulating meta-analytic (CCMA) approach. For example, a CCMA analysis on a replication attempt that does not reach significance might nonetheless provide more, not less, evidence that the effect is real. Alternatively, measures of heterogeneity might show that two studies that differ in whether they are significant might have only trivially different effect sizes. We present a nontechnical introduction to the CCMA framework (referencing relevant software), and then explain how it can be used to address aspects of replicability or more generally to assess quantitative evidence from numerous studies. We then present some examples and simulation results using the CCMA approach that show how the combination of evidence can yield improved results over the consideration of single studies. © The Author(s) 2014.
View
The Right Side? Under Time Pressure, Approach Motivation Leads to Right-Oriented Bias
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2011
  • PSYCHOL SCI
Approach motivation, a focus on achieving positive outcomes, is related to relative left-hemispheric brain activation, which translates to a variety of right-oriented behavioral biases. In two studies, we found that approach-motivated individuals display a right-oriented bias, but only when they are forced to act quickly. In a task in which they had to divide lines into two equal parts, approach-motivated individuals bisected the line at a point farther to the right than avoidance-motivated individuals did, but only when they worked under high time pressure. In our analysis of all Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup penalty shoot-outs, we found that goalkeepers were two times more likely to dive to the right than to the left when their team was behind, a situation that we conjecture induces approach motivation. Because penalty takers shot toward the two sides of the goal equally often, the goalkeepers' right-oriented bias was dysfunctional, allowing more goals to be scored. Directional biases may facilitate group coordination but prove maladaptive in individual settings and interpersonal competition.
View
Survival with an asymmetrical brain: Advantages and disadvantages of cerebral lateralization
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2005
Recent evidence in natural and semi-natural settings has revealed a variety of left-right perceptual asymmetries among vertebrates. These include preferential use of the left or right visual hemifield during activities such as searching for food, agonistic responses, or escape from predators in animals as different as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There are obvious disadvantages in showing such directional asymmetries because relevant stimuli may be located to the animal's left or right at random; there is no a priori association between the meaning of a stimulus (e.g., its being a predator or a food item) and its being located to the animal's left or right. Moreover, other organisms (e.g., predators) could exploit the predictability of behavior that arises from population-level lateral biases. It might be argued that lateralization of function enhances cognitive capacity and efficiency of the brain, thus counteracting the ecological disadvantages of lateral biases in behavior. However, such an increase in brain efficiency could be obtained by each individual being lateralized without any need to align the direction of the asymmetry in the majority of the individuals of the population. Here we argue that the alignment of the direction of behavioral asymmetries at the population level arises as an "evolutionarily stable strategy" under "social" pressures occurring when individually asymmetrical organisms must coordinate their behavior with the behavior of other asymmetrical organisms of the same or different species.
View
View
View
The New Statistics
Article
  • Nov 2013
  • PSYCHOL SCI
We need to make substantial changes to how we conduct research. First, in response to heightened concern that our published research literature is incomplete and untrustworthy, we need new requirements to ensure research integrity. These include prespecification of studies whenever possible, avoidance of selection and other inappropriate data-analytic practices, complete reporting, and encouragement of replication. Second, in response to renewed recognition of the severe flaws of null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST), we need to shift from reliance on NHST to estimation and other preferred techniques. The new statistics refers to recommended practices, including estimation based on effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. The techniques are not new, but adopting them widely would be new for many researchers, as well as highly beneficial. This article explains why the new statistics are important and offers guidance for their use. It describes an eight-step new-statistics strategy for research with integrity, which starts with formulation of research questions in estimation terms, has no place for NHST, and is aimed at building a cumulative quantitative discipline.
View
Line bisection as a neural marker of approach motivation
Article
  • Mar 2010
  • PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
Approach motivation has been reliably associated with relative left prefrontal brain activity as measured with electroencephalography (EEG). Motivation researchers have increasingly used the line bisection task, a behavioral measure of relative cerebral asymmetry, as a neural index of approach motivation-related processes. Despite its wide adoption, however, the line bisection task has not been confirmed as a valid measure of the precise pattern of activity linked to approach motivation. In two studies, we demonstrate that line bisection bias is specifically related to baseline, approach-related, prefrontal EEG alpha asymmetry (Study 1) and is heightened by the same situational factors that heighten the same approach-related prefrontal EEG alpha asymmetry (Study 2). Results support the line bisection task as an efficient and unobtrusive behavioral neuroscience measure of approach motivation.
View
Asymmetric tail-wagging response by dogs to different emotive stimuli
Article
  • Apr 2007
  • CURR BIOL
We thank the Waltham Foundation for a grant to G.V. and A.Q., Elisabetta Versace for help with data analyses, and Lesley J. Rogers and Zsofia Viranyi for commenting on the manuscript. Financial support provided by the following institutions to G.V. is also gratefully acknowledged: MIPAF “Ben-o-lat” via Dip. Sci. Zootecniche, Univ. di Sassari, and Project EDCBNL (Evolution and Development of Cognitive, Behavioural and Neural Lateralization - 2006/2009), supported by the Commission of the European Communities (Programme “Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area” Initiative “What it means to be human”).
View
Right-Oriented Bias research-article2014 Corresponding Author: Marieke Roskes, Guilford Glazer Faculty for Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva 84105, Israel E-mail: mroskes@som.bgu.ac.il Does Approach Motivation Induce Right-References Braver
  • p Ssxxx
547919P SSXXX10.1177/0956797614547919Roskes et al.Right-Oriented Bias research-article2014 Corresponding Author: Marieke Roskes, Guilford Glazer Faculty for Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P. O. Box 653, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel E-mail: mroskes@som.bgu.ac.il Does Approach Motivation Induce Right-References Braver, S. L., Thoemmes, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (2014).