@article{HoltfrerichPfisterElGammaletal.2018,
  author    = {Holtfrerich, Sarah K. C. and Pfister, Roland and El Gammal, Alexander T. and Bellon, Eugen and Diekhof, Esther K.},
  title     = {Endogenous testosterone and exogenous oxytocin influence the response to baby schema in the female brain},
  series = {Scientific Reports},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Scientific Reports},
  doi       = {10.1038/s41598-018-26020-4},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-322285},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Nurturing behavior may be critically influenced by the interplay of different hormones. The neuropeptide oxytocin is known to promote maternal behavior and its reduction has been associated with postpartum depression risk and child neglect. Contrariwise, the observed decrease in testosterone level during early parenthood may benefit caretaking behavior, whereas increased testosterone may reduce attention to infants. Here we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate the interactive influence of testosterone and oxytocin on selective attention to and neural processing of the baby schema (BS). 57 nulliparous women performed a target detection task with human faces with varying degree of BS following double-blinded placebo-controlled oxytocin administration in a between-subjects design. Our results support the idea that oxytocin enhances attention to the BS. Oxytocin had a positive effect on activation of the inferior frontal junction during identification of infant targets with a high degree of BS that were presented among adult distractors. Further, activation of the putamen was positively correlated with selective attention to the BS, but only in women with high endogenous testosterone who received oxytocin. These findings provide initial evidence for the neural mechanism by which oxytocin may counteract the negative effects of testosterone in the modulation of nurturing behavior.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{TrafimowAmrheinAreshenkoffetal.2018,
  author    = {Trafimow, David and Amrhein, Valentin and Areshenkoff, Corson N. and Barrera-Causil, Carlos J. and Beh, Eric J. and Bilgi{\c{c}}, Yusuf K. and Bono, Roser and Bradley, Michael T. and Briggs, William M. and Cepeda-Freyre, H{\´e}ctor A. and Chaigneau, Sergio E. and Ciocca, Daniel R. and Correa, Juan C. and Cousineau, Denis and de Boer, Michiel R. and Dhar, Subhra S. and Dolgov, Igor and G{\´o}mez-Benito, Juana and Grendar, Marian and Grice, James W. and Guerrero-Gimenez, Martin E. and Guti{\´e}rrez, Andr{\´e}s and Huedo-Medina, Tania B. and Jaffe, Klaus and Janyan, Armina and Karimnezhad, Ali and Korner-Nievergelt, Fr{\"a}nzi and Kosugi, Koji and Lachmair, Martin and Ledesma, Rub{\´e}n D. and Limongi, Roberto and Liuzza, Marco T. and Lombardo, Rosaria and Marks, Michael J. and Meinlschmidt, Gunther and Nalborczyk, Ladislas and Nguyen, Hung T. and Ospina, Raydonal and Perezgonzalez, Jose D. and Pfister, Roland and Rahona, Juan J. and Rodr{\´i}guez-Medina, David A. and Rom{\~a}o, Xavier and Ruiz-Fern{\´a}ndez, Susana and Suarez, Isabel and Tegethoff, Marion and Tejo, Mauricio and van de Schoot, Rens and Vankov, Ivan I. and Velasco-Forero, Santiago and Wang, Tonghui and Yamada, Yuki and Zoppino, Felipe C. M. and Marmolejo-Ramos, Fernando},
  title     = {Manipulating the Alpha Level Cannot Cure Significance Testing},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  number    = {699},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00699},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-189973},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {We argue that making accept/reject decisions on scientific hypotheses, including a recent call for changing the canonical alpha level from p = 0.05 to p = 0.005, is deleterious for the finding of new discoveries and the progress of science. Given that blanket and variable alpha levels both are problematic, it is sensible to dispense with significance testing altogether. There are alternatives that address study design and sample size much more directly than significance testing does; but none of the statistical tools should be taken as the new magic method giving clear-cut mechanical answers. Inference should not be based on single studies at all, but on cumulative evidence from multiple independent studies. When evaluating the strength of the evidence, we should consider, for example, auxiliary assumptions, the strength of the experimental design, and implications for applications. To boil all this down to a binary decision based on a p-value threshold of 0.05, 0.01, 0.005, or anything else, is not acceptable.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PfisterSchwarz2018,
  author    = {Pfister, Roland and Schwarz, Katharina A.},
  title     = {Should we pre-date the beginning of scientific psychology to 1787?},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  number    = {2481},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02481},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-177641},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {No abstract available.},
  language  = {en}
}