↓ Skip to main content

The (un)reliability of item-level semantic priming effects

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
The (un)reliability of item-level semantic priming effects
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, April 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13428-018-1040-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom Heyman, Anke Bruninx, Keith A. Hutchison, Gert Storms

Abstract

Many researchers have tried to predict semantic priming effects using a myriad of variables (e.g., prime-target associative strength or co-occurrence frequency). The idea is that relatedness varies across prime-target pairs, which should be reflected in the size of the priming effect (e.g., cat should prime dog more than animal does). However, it is only insightful to predict item-level priming effects if they can be measured reliably. Thus, in the present study we examined the split-half and test-retest reliabilities of item-level priming effects under conditions that should discourage the use of strategies. The resulting priming effects proved extremely unreliable, and reanalyses of three published priming datasets revealed similar cases of low reliability. These results imply that previous attempts to predict semantic priming were unlikely to be successful. However, one study with an unusually large sample size yielded more favorable reliability estimates, suggesting that big data, in terms of items and participants, should be the future for semantic priming research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Professor 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 44%
Linguistics 4 15%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Design 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,195,760
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#228
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,023
of 343,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,387 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.