Table 2.

Effect sizes (r) for the effect of working memory capacity on distractor processing (reaction time effects, unless stated otherwise; high vs. low score on working memory span measure, unless stated otherwise).

Source	Experiment	Effect size (r)	Effect of working memory capacity on
Conway et al. (2001)		0.416	Shadowing cost during presentation of irrelevant own name
Kane and Engle (2003)	1	0.289	Stroop interference (error rate)
Kane and Engle (2003)	2	0.232	Stroop interference with feedback (error rate)
Kane and Engle (2003)	3	0.295	Stroop interference
Kane and Engle (2003)	4	0.218	Stroop interference
De Fockert et al. (2009)		0.535	Interference from irrelevant faces (young vs. old participants)
Poole and Kane (2009)	1	0.217	Visual search in the presence of distractors
Poole and Kane (2009)	2	0.323	Visual search in the presence of distractors
Poole and Kane (2009)	3	0.246	Visual search in the presence of distractors
Shipstead et al. (2012)		0.367	Flanker interference in displays without placeholders
Shipstead et al. (2012)		0.020	Flanker interference in displays with placeholders
Sörqvist et al. (2012)		0.271	Effect of auditory deviant on target processing

In all cases, distractor processing was greater in participants with low (vs. high) working memory capacity. Effect sizes in bold are statistically significant effects at p < 0.05. Papers included in the meta-analysis were first identified via PubMed (search terms “working memory selective attention”). The search returned 750 articles, from which relevant papers were selected, i.e., when they measured distractor processing in selective attention as a function of working memory capacity. In addition, any relevant work was included that was cited in the selected papers, but had not been identified in the PubMed search.