Browsing by Author "Drummond A"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Antecedents of bullying victimisation in adolescents: a fresh look at Aotearoa New Zealand
    (Taylor & Francis Group, 2024-08-13) Birchall M; Drummond A; Williams M
    Research has consistently demonstrated that the prevalence of school bullying in Aotearoa New Zealand exceeds those observed in other developed countries. Despite the need to understand the risk and protective factors for bullying victimisation, there remains a paucity of research in the New Zealand context. The present study aimed to investigate the risk factors for bullying victimisation by conducting a secondary data analysis on a large and representative sample of 15-year-olds from New Zealand using data collected during the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (N = 4137). A multiple regression analysis identified eight risk factors which were significantly associated with at least one form of school bullying. The strongest effects indicated that increased parental support and school belonging were associated with lower victimisation, while classroom disorder and school competitiveness were associated with greater victimisation risk. The implications of these findings for future research are discussed.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Contribution to O’Donnell et al. (2017, in press). Registered replication report: Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg (1998).
    (Association for Psychological Science, 2018) Philipp MC; Williams MN; Cannon PC; Drummond A
    Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (“professor”) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence (“soccer hooligans”). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%–3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and −0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the “professor” category and those primed with the “hooligan” category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cultural tightness does not predict action on the collective threat of climate change.
    (Elsevier B.V., 2021-05-05) Drummond A; Hall LC; Palmer MA; Hughes J; Sauer JD
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Misinformation effects in an online sample: results of an experimental study with a five day retention interval
    (PeerJ Inc, 2021-11-18) Sievwright O; Philipp M; Drummond A; Knapp K; Ross K
    Traditional face-to-face laboratory studies have contributed greatly to our understanding of how misinformation effects develop. However, an area of emerging concern that has been relatively under-researched is the impact of misinformation following exposure to traumatic events that are viewed online. Here we describe a novel method for investigating misinformation effects in an online context. Participants (N = 99) completed the study online. They first watched a 10-min video of a fictional school shooting. Between 5 and 10 days later, they were randomly assigned to receive misinformation or no misinformation about the video before completing a recognition test. Misinformed participants were less accurate at discriminating between misinformation and true statements than control participants. This effect was most strongly supported by ROC analyses (Cohen’s d = 0.59, BF10 = 8.34). Misinformation effects can be established in an online experiment using candid violent viral-style video stimuli.