Recruiting from the shallow end of the pool: Differences in cognitive and compliance measures for subject pool participants based on enrollment time across an academic term

References

• Adamo, S. H., Cain, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2013). Self-induced attentional blink: A cause of errors in multiple-target search. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2569–2574. doi: 10.1177/0956797613497970
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adamo, S. H., Cox, P. H., Kravitz, D. J., & Mitroff, S. R. (2019). How to correctly put the “subsequent” in subsequent search miss errors. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics. doi: 10.3758/s13414-019-01802-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aviv, A. L., Zelenski, J. M., Rallo, L., & Larsen, R. J. (2002). Who comes when: Personality differences in early and later participation in a university subject pool. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(3), 487–496. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00199-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, M. W., Anderson, K., & Brascamp, J. W. (2019 , May). Eye tracking during search for two unique targets to investigate categorical effects in subsequent search misses & the typical method of calculating SSM is biased; an unbiased method suggests some SSM effects may be spurious. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society, St. Pete Beach, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, L. (2000). Variations in subject pool as a function of earlier or later participation. Psychological Reports, 86(2), 659–668. doi: 10.2466/pr0.2000.86.2.659
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2013). Memory for found targets interferes with subsequent performance in multiple-target visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(5), 1398–1408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, D., Rajsic, J., & Pratt, J. (2017). Go-getters and procrastinators: Investigating individual differences in visual cognition across university semesters. Vision Research, 141, 317–324. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2016.09.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, H., Baumgardner, A. H., & Strathman, A. (1991). Do students with different characteristics take part in psychology experiments at different times of the semester? Journal of Personality, 59(1), 109–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00770.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Allen, J. M., Banks, J. B., … Brown, E. R. (2016). Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 68–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimm, L. R., Markman, A. B., & Maddox, W. T. (2012). End-of-semester syndrome: How situational regulatory fit affects test performance over an academic semester. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 376–385. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2012.693427
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harber, K. D., Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (2003). Participant self-selection biases as a function of individual differences in time perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(3), 255–264. doi: 10.1207/S15324834BASP2503_08
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29. doi: 10.1038/466029a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, I. W., Rotton, J., & Culver, R. (1985). The moon was full and nothing happened. Skeptical Inquirer, 11, 129–133.
   Google Scholar
• Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What's new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36, ECVP Abstract Supplement.
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, J. W. (2003). Theory-testing, generalization, and the problem of external validity. Sociological Theory, 21(3), 236–253. doi: 10.1111/1467-9558.00187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitroff, S. R., Biggs, A. T., Adamo, S. H., Dowd, E. W., Winkle, J., & Clark, K. (2015). What can 1 billion trials tell us about visual search? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholls, M. E., Loveless, K. M., Thomas, N. A., Loetscher, T., & Churches, O. (2015). Some participants may be better than others: Sustained attention and motivation are higher early in semester. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(1), 10–18. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.925481
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450–461. doi: 10.1086/323732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2005). Non-response in student surveys: The role of demographics, engagement and personality. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 127–152. doi: 10.1007/s11162-004-1597-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richert, A. J., & Ward, E. F. (1976). Experimental performance and self-evaluation of subjects sampled early, middle, and late in an academic term: Sex and task. Psychological Reports, 39(1), 135–142. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1976.39.1.135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richter, D. O., Wilson, S. D., Milner, M., & Senter, R. J. (1981). Some differences among students volunteering as research subjects. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17(6), 261–263. doi: 10.3758/BF03333734
   Google Scholar
• Robison, M. K., & Unsworth, N. (2016). Do participants differ in their cognitive abilities, task motivation, or personality characteristics as a function of time of participation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(6), 897–913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharpe, D., & Poets, S. (2017). Canadian psychology department participant pools: Closing for the Season? Canadian Psychology, 58(2), 168–177. doi: 10.1037/cap0000090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sieber, J. E., & Saks, M. J. (1989). A census of subject pool characteristics and policies. American Psychologist, 44(7), 1053–1061. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.7.1053
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steyer, R., Schmitt, M., & Eid, M. (1999). Latent state–trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 13(5), 389–408. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199909/10)13:5<389::AID-PER361>3.0.CO;2-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, A. Y., & Jentsch, F. G. (1998). Point-of-time effects across the semester: Is there a sampling bias? The Journal of Psychology, 132(2), 211–219. doi: 10.1080/00223989809599160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, R., Chen, F., Chen, Z., Li, T., Harari, G., Tignor, S., … Campbell, A. T. (2014). StudentLife: Assessing mental health, academic performance and behavioral trends of college students using smartphones. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, Seattle, WA (pp. 3–14). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Orlando, M. J. (2011). Timing and selection effects within a psychology subject pool: Personality and sex matter. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 355–359. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zelenski, J. M., Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (2003). Consistency in the time of experiment participation and personality correlates: A methodological note. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 547–558. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00218-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar