1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
|
Explanation for binary files inside source package according to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/09/msg00332.html
This package contains a number of example data sets
Files: data/ks2013.3.rda
Documentation: man/ks2013.3.Rd
Example data set:
Data from Klauer & Singmann (2013, Experiment 3)
Klauer and Singmann (2013) attempted to replicate a hypothesis of Morsanyi
and Handley (2012) according to which individuals have an intuitive sense of
logicality. Specifically, Morsanyi and Handley apparently provided evidence
that the logical status of syllogisms (i.e., valid or invalid) affects
participants liking ratings of the conclusion of syllogisms. Conclusions
from valid syllogisms (e.g., Some snakes are poisonous. No poisonous animals
are obbs. Some snakes are not obbs.) received higher liking ratings than
conclusions from invalid syllogisms (e.g., No ice creams are vons. Some
vons are hot. Some ice creams are not hot.). It is important to noted that
in the experiments participants were simply shown the premises and
conclusion in succession, they were not asked whether or not the conclusion
follows or to generate their own conclusion. Their task was simply to judge
how much they liked the "final" statement (i.e., the conclusion).
Files: data/md_12.1.rda
Documentation: man/md_12.1.Rd
Example data set:
Data 12.1 from Maxwell & Delaney
Hypothetical Reaction Time Data for 2 x 3 Perceptual Experiment: Example
data for chapter 12 of Maaxwell and Delaney (2004, Table 12.1, p. 574) in
long format. Has two within.subjects factors: angle and noise.
Files: data/md_15.1.rda
Documentation: man/md_15.1.Rd
Example data set:
Data 15.1 / 11.5 from Maxwell & Delaney
Hypothetical IQ Data from 12 children at 4 time points: Example data for
chapter 11/15 of Maxwell and Delaney (2004, Table 15.1, p. 766) in long
format. Has two one within-subjects factor: time.
Files: data/md_16.1.rda
Documentation: man/md_16.1.Rd
Example data set:
Hypothetical Reaction Time Data for 2 x 3 Perceptual Experiment: Example
data for chapter 12 of Maaxwell and Delaney (2004, Table 12.1, p. 574) in
long format. Has two within subjects factors: angle and noise.
Files: data/md_16.4.rda
Documentation: man/md_16.4.Rd
Example data set:
Data 16.1 / 10.9 from Maxwell & Delaney
Hypothetical data collected from 29 children who participated in the study
assessing the effectiveness of the intervention to increase inductive
reasoning skills.
Files: data/obk.long.rda
Documentation: man/obk.long.Rd
Example data set:
O'Brien Kaiser's Repeated-Measures Dataset with Covariate
This is the long version of the OBrienKaiser dataset from the car package
adding a random covariate age. Originally the dataset ist taken from O'Brien
and Kaiser (1985).
Files: data/sk2011.1.rda
Documentation: man/sk2011.1.Rd
Example data set:
Data from Singmann & Klauer (2011, Experiment 1)
Singmann and Klauer (2011) were interested in whether or not conditional
reasoning can be explained by a single process or whether multiple processes
are necessary to explain it. To provide evidence for multiple processes we
aimed to establish a double dissociation of two variables: instruction type
and problem type. Instruction type was manipulated between-subjects, one
group of participants received deductive instructions (i.e., to treat the
premises as given and only draw necessary conclusions) and a second group of
participants received probabilistic instructions (i.e., to reason as in an
everyday situation; we called this "inductive instruction" in the
manuscript). Problem type consisted of two different orthogonally crossed
variables that were manipulated within-subjects, validity of the problem
(formally valid or formally invalid) and plausibility of the problem
(inferences which were consisted with the background knowledge versus
problems that were inconsistent with the background knowledge). The critical
comparison across the two conditions was among problems which were valid and
implausible with problems that were invalid and plausible.
Files: data/sk2011.2.rda
Documentation: man/sk2011.2.Rd
Example data set:
Data from Singmann & Klauer (2011, Experiment 2)
Singmann and Klauer (2011) were interested in whether or not conditional
reasoning can be explained by a single process or whether multiple processes
are necessary to explain it. To provide evidence for multiple processes we
aimed to establish a double dissociation of two variables: instruction type
and problem type. Instruction type was manipulated between-subjects, one
group of participants received deductive instructions (i.e., to treat the
premises as given and only draw necessary conclusions) and a second group of
participants received probabilistic instructions (i.e., to reason as in an
everyday situation; we called this "inductive instruction" in the
manuscript). Problem type consisted of two different orthogonally crossed
variables that were manipulated within-subjects, validity of the problem
(formally valid or formally invalid) and type of the problem. Problem type
consistent of three levels: prological problems (i.e., problems in which
background knowledge suggested to accept valid but reject invalid
conclusions), neutral problems (i.e., in which background knowledge
suggested to reject all problems), and counterlogical problems (i.e.,
problems in which background knowledge suggested to reject valid but accept
invalid conclusions).
|
