Table 6.
Effect sizes for Cueing Manipulations: Estimated subcategory averages (and SEM) from the Cueing manipulation-only meta-analytic model and individual-publication effect sizes.
| Subcategory or Study |
Population | Manipulation | DV | Effect on Impulsivity |
Effect Size | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature | 0.89 (0.31) | .005 | |||||
| Berry et al. (2014) | College students | Nature cues (vs. built environment) | AUC | ↓ | 0.39 | ||
| (vs. geometric shapes) | ↓ | 0.39 | |||||
| Berry et al. (2015) | College students | Nature cues (vs. built environment) | AUC | ↓ | 0.52 | ||
| Van der Wal et al. (2013) | College students | Nature cues (vs. built environment, or vs. no images) | Indifference point | ↓ | 1.54* | ||
| Community sample | Walk in nature (vs. built environment) | ↓ | 0.70 | ||||
| Learned Cues | 0.29 (0.77) | .71 | |||||
| Dixon & Holton (2009) | Pathological gamblers | Relational training (vs. pre-training baseline) | AUC | ↓ | 3.65 | ||
| Sellito & di Pellegrino (2014) | Female college students | High error rate cue (vs. low error rate) | k | ↓ | 0.08 (within-Ss) | ||
AUC, area under the discounting curve
*
Effect sizes averaged across experiments or comparable conditions.