Ate an ES. When the correlation was not readily available we assumedAte an ES. When

Ate an ES. When the correlation was not readily available we assumed
Ate an ES. When the correlation was not available we assumed that the scores inside the two situations are correlated at the degree of r 0.5. To pool person impact sizes, we applied a randomeffects model (DerSimonian Laird, 986). Whereas the fixedeffects model assumes that all research that go in to the metaanalysis come in the identical population, the randomeffects model assumes that studies are drawn from distinct populations that may have diverse true impact sizes (e.g study populations that differZeitschrift f Psychologie (206), 224(three), 68Coding ProcedureIf readily available, we collected and coded each and every experiment in terms of the moderators recommended by theory or empirical evidence (see Introduction). With regards to experimenter effects, we coded experiments as blinded, in the event the authors stated explicitly that the experimenter was not conscious of your hypotheses or situation or when the experimenter was206 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed beneath the Hogrefe OpenMind License http:dx.doi.org0.027aM. Rennung A. S. G itz, Prosocial Consequences of Interpersonal SynchronyTable . Interrater and intrarater reliability for coded variables Variable Intentionality Muscles involved Familiarity PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12172973 with interaction companion Gender of interaction companion Quantity of interaction partners Music Experimenter blindedness Manipulation check Design and style Kind of MSIS Comparison group Outcome g se Measure ICC ICC Interrater 0.70 0.85 .00 0.57 0.92 0.76 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0.96 0.999 .00 IntraraterNotes. Cohen’s ; ICC the intraclass correlation coefficient; g Hedges’ g; se normal error of g.in qualities that may have an effect on effect size, including intensity of remedy, age of participants, and so forth.). Consequently, beneath a fixedeffects model all variation in impact sizes across research is assumed to become because of sampling error, whereas the randomeffects model permits the studylevel variance to be an extra source of variation. As we expected heterogeneity in impact sizes, the randomeffects model was additional appropriate (Hedges Vevea, 998). For the general analysis (RQ), we utilised only a single data point per experiment. For moderator analyses (RQ2), we performed two separate metaanalyses for every single class of outcome variables (attitudes vs. behavior) and again integrated only 1 data point per experiment in every single of those analyses to make sure 4-IBP chemical information independence amongst data points. Choices regarding the collection of data points had been depending on the following guidelines. If experiments incorporated comparisons of the experimental group with two or extra manage groups, we chose the group that differed in the experimental group in as couple of other characteristics (except synchrony) as you can to stop biases because of confounds (Table two). In situations in which experiments included two or a lot more synchronous groups (e.g synchrony established intentionally vs. incidentally), we chose the synchronous group that was anticipated to yield the greatest effect on prosociality. Expectations regarding the effectiveness of a manipulation had been derived from prior research (e.g intentional synchrony was preferred over incidental synchrony). Similarly, if studies included greater than one particular handle group with the exact same category, we chose the handle group that was expected to possess the greatest effect on prosociality. Again we produced these predictions a priori andbased on prior research. If research reported more than 1 social outcome, we calculated a combined impact size by averaging across outcomes since it is the far more conserv.