BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//pretalx//pretalx.com//sips2025-budapest//speaker//PQYYUT
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:CET
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20001029T040000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=10
TZNAME:CET
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20000326T030000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=3
TZNAME:CEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:pretalx-sips2025-budapest-ZKJHT8@pretalx.com
DTSTART;TZID=CET:20250626T144000
DTEND;TZID=CET:20250626T145000
DESCRIPTION:We replicated Hsee (1998)\, which found that when evaluating ch
 oices jointly\, people compare and judge the option higher on desirable at
 tributes as better (“more is better”). However\, when people evaluate 
 options separately\, they rely on contextual cues and reference points\, s
 ometimes resulting in evaluating the option with less as better (“less i
 s better”). Results support the (surprising) “less is better” effect
  across all studies (N=403\; Study 1 original d = .70\, replication d = .9
 9\; Study 2 original d = .74\, replication d = .32\; Study 4 original d = 
 .97\, replication d = .76)\, with weaker support for the (obvious) “more
  is better” (Study 2 original d = .92\, replication dz = .33\; Study 4 o
 riginal d = .37\, replication dz = .09). I will discuss interpreting the m
 eaning of a study when the “surprising” part replicates but the “obv
 ious” part doesn’t. It suggests the purported mechanism behind the eff
 ect may not be supported.
DTSTAMP:20260512T120800Z
LOCATION:Second floor 214
SUMMARY:LT39: Interpreting studies where the main finding replicates but no
 t the control condition - Andrew Vonasch
URL:https://pretalx.com/sips2025-budapest/talk/ZKJHT8/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR