Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
This article presents a meta-analysis of research on the affective compatibility effect: the relative facilitation of arm flexion and extension movements, in response to positive and negative stimuli, respectively. Across 68 effect sizes (computed on 3169 participants), a small, significant average compatibility effect emerged (ES = .118; 95% CI [.051, .185]). Importantly, analyses also revealed significant heterogeneity in the set of effect sizes. Moderator analyses were conducted to explain this observed heterogeneity with a view to testing between extant theoretical accounts of the compatibility effect. Affective compatibility effects were significantly larger (1) for face stimuli than for words or pictorial stimuli; (2) when the negative stimuli partly comprising the effect were anger-related; (3) for responses made using vertical button press; (4) when situated aspects of the processing task framed flexion as approach and extension as avoidance; and (5) when explicit response labels framed flexion as positive and extension as negative. Significant reverse compatibility effects emerged (1) when aspects of the processing context framed flexion as avoidance and extension as approach and (2) when explicit response labels framed flexion as negative and extension as positive. The results of the meta-analysis provide little support for the strong embodiment, specific muscle activation account of affective compatibility and are broadly consistent with distance regulation, and, in particular, evaluative coding accounts.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.968096 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!