Chapter 48 References

Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? The American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932

Derrfuss, J., Danielmeier, C., Klein, T. A., Fischer, A. G., & Ullsperger, M. (2021). Unbiased post-error slowing in interference tasks: A confound and a simple solution. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01673-8

Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.

Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., & Perry, G. (2014). Meta-Milgram: An empirical synthesis of the obedience experiments. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e93927. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093927

Lamme, V. A. F., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2000). The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends in Neurosciences, 23(11), 571–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01657-X

Miller, A. G. (2009). Reflections on "Replicating Milgram" (Burger, 2009). The American Psychologist, 64(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014407

Smith, G. A., & Brewer, N. (1995). Slowness and age: Speed-accuracy mechanisms. Psychology and Aging, 10(2), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.10.2.238

Turowetz, J., & Hollander, M. M. (2018). From “Ridiculous” to “Glad to Have Helped”: Debriefing news delivery and improved reactions to science in Milgram’s “obedience” experiments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 81(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272518759968