832 research outputs found
Rudolf Hermann, Die Probleme der Excommunication bei Luther und Thomas Erastus, 1955
No full textPollet J. V.-M. Rudolf Hermann, Die Probleme der Excommunication bei Luther und Thomas Erastus, 1955. In: Revue des Sciences Religieuses, tome 35, fascicule 4, 1961. pp. 426-427
Haigh, Birch & Pollet (2020) Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Generic News Headlines Study 1 (aka.RPJ-2019-158: Study 5)
No full textStudy 1 from
Haigh, M., Birch, H. A. & Pollet, T. V. (2020). Does ‘Scientists Believe…’ Imply ‘All Scientists believe…’? Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Generic News Headlines. Collabra: Psychology (2020) 6 (1): 17174.
https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.17174
Also known as RPJ-2019-158: Study 5 as it was the 5th study listed in our funding proposa
Haigh, Birch & Pollet (2020) Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Generic News Headlines: Study 2 (aka. RPJ-2019-158: Study 6)
No full textStudy 2 from
Haigh, M., Birch, H. A. & Pollet, T. V. (2020). Does ‘Scientists Believe…’ Imply ‘All Scientists believe…’? Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Generic News Headlines. Collabra: Psychology (2020) 6 (1): 17174.
https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.17174
Also known as RPJ-2019-158: Study 6 as it was the 6th study listed in our funding proposa
Haigh, Birch & Pollet (2020) Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Generic News Headlines: Study 2 (aka. RPJ-2019-158: Study 6)
No full textStudy 2 from
Haigh, M., Birch, H. A. & Pollet, T. V. (2020). Does ‘Scientists Believe…’ Imply ‘All Scientists believe…’? Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Generic News Headlines. Collabra: Psychology (2020) 6 (1): 17174.
https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.17174
Also known as RPJ-2019-158: Study 6 as it was the 6th study listed in our funding proposa
Haigh, Birch & Pollet (2020) Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Generic News Headlines Study 1 (aka.RPJ-2019-158: Study 5)
No full textStudy 1 from
Haigh, M., Birch, H. A. & Pollet, T. V. (2020). Does ‘Scientists Believe…’ Imply ‘All Scientists believe…’? Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Generic News Headlines. Collabra: Psychology (2020) 6 (1): 17174.
https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.17174
Also known as RPJ-2019-158: Study 5 as it was the 5th study listed in our funding proposa
Haigh, Birch & Pollet (2020) Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Generic News Headlines: Study 2 (aka. RPJ-2019-158: Study 6)
No full textStudy 2 from
Haigh, M., Birch, H. A. & Pollet, T. V. (2020). Does ‘Scientists Believe…’ Imply ‘All Scientists believe…’? Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Generic News Headlines. Collabra: Psychology (2020) 6 (1): 17174.
https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.17174
Also known as RPJ-2019-158: Study 6 as it was the 6th study listed in our funding proposa
Haigh, Birch & Pollet (2020) Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Generic News Headlines Study 1 (aka.RPJ-2019-158: Study 5)
No full textStudy 1 from
Haigh, M., Birch, H. A. & Pollet, T. V. (2020). Does ‘Scientists Believe…’ Imply ‘All Scientists believe…’? Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Generic News Headlines. Collabra: Psychology (2020) 6 (1): 17174.
https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.17174
Also known as RPJ-2019-158: Study 5 as it was the 5th study listed in our funding proposa
Grounding the data: Perhaps a U.S. state score is just a U.S. state score and not a glimpse into the evolved human mind.
No full textA commentary on
Population finiteness is not a concern for null hypothesis significance testing when studying human behavior. A reply to Pollet (2013)
by Quillien, T. (2015). Front. Neurosci. 9:81. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2015.0008
Supplementary Material for A re-evaluation of the model selection procedure in Pollet & Nettle (2009)
No full textIn this paper, we first explain the statistical model underlying the ordinal regression technique used by Pollet and Nettle (2009), including the two possible ways of calculat-ing the likelihood function (section 1). We then show that the model fit criteria reported were in fact invalid, and calculate the correct ones, showing that this leads to a different choice of best model (section 2). We then suggest two other strategies of model selection for these data, and show that these also lead to different best-fitting models than tha
- …
