Basic emotions do not reliably co-occur with predicted facial expressions: Reply to Witkower et al. (2023).

Replies to the comments made by Witkower, et al. (see record 2023-63008-004) on the current authors original article (see record 2022-03375-001). A core assumption of Basic Emotion Theory is that the conscious experience of a basic emotion co-occurs with a facial expression signal of that same emotion. Our analysis of available evidence found co-occurrence in only 13% of cases-thus calling into question basic and applied studies in which the emotion is inferred from the face. Our second analysis counted as a co-occurrence even when only part of the facial signal was observed. Co-occurrence was found in only 23% of cases. Witkower et al.'s rebuttal failed to undermine these important findings. They claimed that similar degrees of correlation are found in other areas of psychology, but they confuse co-occurrence of two intrinsic manifestations of the same event (expression and experience of emotion) with the correlation between one potential causal antecedent and an observed event (e.g., effects of meditation on anxiety). Our results stand as a major challenge to Basic Emotion Theory. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Methods for estimating the sampling variance of the standardized mean difference.

One of the most widely used effect size indices for meta-analysis in psychology is the standardized mean difference (SMD). The most common way to synthesize a set of estimates of the SMD is to weight them by the inverse of their variances. For this, it is necessary to estimate the corresponding sampling variances. Meta-analysts have a formula for obtaining unbiased estimates of sampling variances, but they often use a variety of alternative, simpler methods. The bias and efficiency of five different methods that have been proposed and that are implemented in different computerized calculation tools are compared and assessed. The data from a set of published meta-analyses are also reanalyzed, calculating the combined estimates and their confidence intervals, as well as estimates of the specific, between-studies variance, using the five estimation methods. This test of sensitivity shows that the results of a meta-analysis can change noticeably depending on the method used to estimate the sampling variance of SMD values, especially under a random-effects model. Some practical recommendations are made about how to choose and implement the methods in calculation resources. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

On the set of emotions with facial signals.

Which, if any, emotions have a facial signal? Studies from AI to Zoology sometimes presuppose an answer to this question. According to one important and influential research program, the basic (fundamental and discrete) emotions can be identified by their possession of a biologically based unique and universally recognized facial signal. To the classic set of six such emotions, researchers recently advanced 12 new candidates, which were examined in the present study with a standard free-labeling procedure in three samples: English-speaking Americans (n = 200), Mandarin-speaking Chinese (n = 101), and Malayalam-speaking Indians (n = 200). In the three samples, respectively, a majority of respondents chose the predicted label for only one, one, and none of the 12 faces. That is, a majority of respondents failed to choose the predicted label for 11 of the 12 faces in the English-speaking (proportion of respondents range for the 11: .04 to .45) and Mandarin-speaking (proportion of respondents range for the 11: .00 to .44) samples; a majority of respondents failed to choose the predicted label for any of the 12 faces in the Malayalam-speaking sample (proportion of respondents range: .00 to .42). The modal choice in the three samples was the predicted label for five, six, and one, respectively, of the 12 faces. "Recognition" of the predicted emotion was negligible (< 15% of respondents) for five, eight (two of which were modal), and 10, respectively, of the 12 faces. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The Fear of COVID-19 Scale: A Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis.

A reliability generalization meta-analysis was carried out to estimate the average reliability of the seven-item, 5-point Likert-type Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S), one of the most widespread scales developed around the COVID-19 pandemic. Different reliability coefficients from classical test theory and the Rasch Measurement Model were meta-analyzed, heterogeneity among the most reported reliability estimates was examined by searching for moderators, and a predictive model to estimate the expected reliability was proposed. At least one reliability estimate was available for a total of 44 independent samples out of 42 studies, being that Cronbach's alpha was most frequently reported. The coefficients exhibited pooled estimates ranging from .85 to .90. The moderator analyses led to a predictive model in which the standard deviation of scores explained 36.7% of the total variability among alpha coefficients. The FCV-19S has been shown to be consistently reliable regardless of the moderator variables examined.

Do emotions result in their predicted facial expressions? A meta-analysis of studies on the co-occurrence of expression and emotion.

That basic emotions produce a facial signal would-if true-provide a foundation for a science of emotion. Here, random-effects meta-analyses tested whether happiness, sadness, anger, disgust, fear, and surprise each co-occurs with its predicted facial signal. The first meta-analysis examined only those studies that measured full expressions through Facial Actions Coding System (FACS). Average co-occurrence effect size was .13. The second meta-analysis included both full and partial expressions, as measured by FACS or another system. Average co-occurrence effect size rose to .23. A third meta-analysis estimated the Pearson correlation between intensity of the reported emotion and intensity of the predicted facial expression. Average correlation was .30. Overall, co-occurrence and correlation were greatest for disgust, least for surprise. What are commonly known as the six classic basic emotions do not reliably co-occur with their predicted facial signal. Heterogeneity between samples was found, suggesting a more complex account of facial expressions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Evaluación de la calidad de estudios de metaanálisis sobre la eficacia de las intervenciones en revistas españolas de psicología / Evaluation of the quality of studies in meta-analysis of intervention effectiveness in Spanish psychology journals

En este trabajo se revisa la evaluación de la calidad de los estudios primarios incluidos en los metaanálisis publicados en las principales revistas españolas de psicología. Concretamente se analiza la codificación y evaluación de la calidad de los estudios en metaanálisis sobre eficacia de intervenciones, así como el propósito de esta evaluación y la relación entre la calidad y tamaños del efecto. Se encuentra que el 79% de los metaanálisis analizados incluyeron una evaluación de la calidad. Se discute la relación entre la menor calidad de los estudios en los metaanálisis y los resultados con mayores tamaños del efecto. Finalmente, se enfatiza la necesidad de mejorar el informe de los metaanálisis aportando evidencias de gran calidad. (AU)

In this paper, we reviewed primary study quality assessments in meta-analyses published in the main Spanish psychology journals. Specifically, we analyzed whether the coding and evaluation of the quality of the primary studies in meta-analysis based on the efficacy of interventions is a common practice. The purpose of this evaluation is also to report the relationship between quality and the reported results (effect sizes). It is found that 79% of the meta-analyses analyzed included a quality assessment. The relationship between the lowest quality of studies included in meta-analyses and larger effect sizes is also discussed. Finally, we stress the need to improve the reporting of meta-analyses including high-quality evidence. (AU)

The small impact of p-hacking marginally significant results on the meta-analytic estimation of effect size / El pequeño impacto del haqueo de resultados marginalmente significativos sobre la estimación meta-analítica del tamaño del efecto

The label p-hacking (pH) refers to a set of opportunistic practices aimed at making statistically significant p values that should be non-significant. Some have argued that we should prevent and fight pH for several reasons, especially because of its potential harmful effects on the assessment of both primary research results and their meta-analytical synthesis. We focus here on the effect of a specific type of pH, focused on marginally significant studies, on the combined estimation of effect size in me-ta-analysis. We want to know how much we should be concerned with its biasing effect when assessing the results of a meta-analysis. We have calculated the bias in a range of situations that seem realistic in terms of the prevalence and the operational definition of pH. The results show that in most of the situations analyzed the bias is less than one hundredth (± 0.01), in terms of d or r. To reach a level of bias of five-hundredths (± 0.05), there would have to be a massive presence of this type of pH, which seems rather unrealistic. We must continue to fight pH for many good rea-sons, but our main conclusion is that among them is not that it has a big impact on the meta-analytical estimation of effect size

La etiqueta p-hacking (pH) se refiere a un conjunto de prácticas oportunistas destinadas a hacer que sean significativos algunos valores p que deberían ser no significativos. Algunos han argumentado que debemos prevenir y luchar contra el pH por varias razones, especialmente debido a sus posibles efectos nocivos en la evaluación de los resultados de la investigación primaria y su síntesis meta-analítica. Nos focalizamos aquí en el efecto de un tipo específico de pH, centrado en estudios marginalmente significativos, en la estimación combinada del tamaño del efecto en el meta-análisis. Queremos saber cuánto deberíamos preocuparnos por su efecto de sesgo al evaluar los resultados de un meta-análisis. Hemos calculado el sesgo en una variedad de situaciones que parecen realistas en términos de prevalencia y de la definición operativa del pH. Los resultados muestran que en la mayoría de las situaciones analizadas el sesgo es inferior a una centésima (± 0.01), en términos de d o r. Para alcanzar un nivel de sesgo de cinco centésimas (± 0.05), tendría que haber una presencia masiva de este tipo de pH, lo que parece poco realista. Hay muchas buenas razones para luchar contra el pH, pero nuestra conclusión principal es que entre esas razones no se incluye que tenga un gran impacto en la estimación meta-analítica del tamaño del efecto

A meta-analytical answer to the crisis of confidence of Psychology / Una respuesta meta-analítica a la crisis de confianza de la psicología

Meta-analysis is a firmly established methodology and an integral part of the process of generating knowledge across the empirical sciences. Meta-analysis has also focused on methodology and has become a dominant critic of methodological shortcomings. We highlight several problematic issues on how we research in psychology: excess of heterogeneity in the results and difficulties for replication, publication bias, suboptimal methodological quality, and questionable practices of the researchers. These and other problems led to a "crisis of confidence" in psychology. We discuss how the meta-analytical perspective and its procedures can help to overcome the crisis. A more cooperative perspective, instead of a competitive one, can shift to consider replication as a more valuable contribution. Knowledge cannot be based in isolated studies. Given the nature of the object of study of psychology the natural unit to generate knowledge must be the estimated distribution of the effect sizes, not the dichotomous decision on statistical significance in specific studies. Some suggestions are offered on how to redirect researchers' research and practices, so that their personal interests and those of science as such are better aligned

El meta-análisis es una metodología firmemente establecida y una parte integral del proceso de generación de conocimiento en las ciencias empíricas. El meta-análisis también se ha centrado en la metodología y se ha convertido en uno de los principales críticos de las deficiencias metodológicas. Destacamos varios puntos problemáticos sobre cómo investigamos en psicología: exceso de heterogeneidad en los resultados y dificultades para la replicación, sesgo de publicación, calidad metodológica sub-óptima y prácticas cuestionables de los investigadores. Estos y otros problemas condujeron a una "crisis de confianza" en psicología. Discutimos cómo la perspectiva meta-analítica y sus procedimientos pueden ayudar a superar la crisis. Una perspectiva más cooperativa, en lugar de competitiva, puede ayudar a cambiar para que consideremos la replicación como una contribución más valiosa. El conocimiento no puede basarse en estudios aislados. Dada la naturaleza del objeto de estudio de la psicología la unidad natural para generar conocimiento debe ser la distribución estimada del tamaño del efecto, no la decisión dicotómica sobre la significación estadística en estudios específicos. Se ofrecen algunas sugerencias sobre cómo redirigir la investigación y las prácticas de los investigadores, de modo que sus intereses personales y los de la ciencia en sí estén más alineados

On the Reality of Illusory Conjunctions.

The reality of illusory conjunctions in perception has been sometimes questioned, arguing that they can be explained by other mechanisms. Most relevant experiments are based on migrations along the space dimension. But the low rate of illusory conjunctions along space can easily hide them among other types of errors. As migrations over time are a more frequent phenomenon, illusory conjunctions can be disentangled from other errors. We report an experiment in which series of colored letters were presented in several spatial locations, allowing for migrations over both space and time. The distribution of frequencies were fit by several multinomial tree models based on alternative hypothesis about illusory conjunctions and the potential sources of free-floating features. The best-fit model acknowledges that most illusory conjunctions are migrations in the time domain. Migrations in space are probably present, but the rate is very low. Other conjunction errors, as those produced by guessing or miscategorizations of the to-be-reported feature, are also present in the experiment. The main conclusion is that illusory conjunctions do exist.