Chapter 80 References

Berger, A., & Kiefer, M. (2021). Comparison of different response time outlier exclusion methods: A simulation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, e675558.
Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? The American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11.
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, 54(3), 1416–1427.
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception &Amp; 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.
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.
Miller, A. G. (2009). Reflections on "Replicating Milgram" (Burger, 2009). The American Psychologist, 64(1), 20–27.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. The American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101.
Smith, G. A., & Brewer, N. (1995). Slowness and age: Speed-accuracy mechanisms. Psychology and Aging, 10(2), 238–247.
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.