Page 37 - Like me, or else... - Michelle Achterberg

Social evaluation in childhood
35
SD=790), compared to neutral feedback (M=2024 msec; SD=775, p<.001, d= 1.10), and positive feedback (M=1501 msec; SD=966, p<.001, d= 1.57). Noise blast duration after neutral feedback was also significantly longer than after positive feedback (p<.001, d= 0.57), see Figure 2. A similar pattern was found in the replication sample (F(2, 52)=34.18, p<.001, ω2=0.39). Participants in the replication sample also gave significant longer noise blast after negative feedback (M=2967 msec; SD=573) compared to neutral feedback (M=1967 msec; SD=636, p<.001, d= 1.65) and positive feedback (M=1537 msec; SD=942, p<.001, d= 1.86). Noise blast duration after neutral feedback was also significantly longer than after positive feedback (p=.007, d= 0.50), see Figure 2.
To combine the results of the three different samples, we performed a meta-analysis. The difference between neutral and negative feedback showed a large combined effect size (d=1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-1.84, p<.001). The difference between positive and negative feedback also showed a large combined effect size (d=1.74, 95% CI: 1.19-2.29, p<.001). The combined effect for the difference between positive and neutral was medium in size (d=0.55, 95% CI: 0.39 - 0.723, p<.001). Study outcomes were homogeneous; there was no heterogeneity in the results.
Figure 2. Noise blast duration across the different social feedback conditions for the pilot, test, and replication sample. Error bars display standard error of mean. * significant differences for sample with matching color. ˟ significant combined effect sizes in the meta-analysis.
2