Table 1.
Comparison of overall participant agreement with confederate reliability
| testimony reliability | participant agreement | t (participant agreement vs. testimony reliability) | df | p | Cohen’s d | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment 1 | |||||||
| unreliable | 10% | 21% | 6.696 | 33 | <.001 | 1.15 | [18%–24%] |
| mixed reliability | 50% | 65% | 4.8 | 31 | <.001 | 0.85 | [59%–71%] |
| reliable | 90% | 92% | 1.652 | 35 | 0.108 | 0.28 | [90%–95%] |
| Experiment 2 | |||||||
| unreliable | 10% | 19% | 10.49 | 28 | <.001 | 1.95 | [17%–20%] |
| mixed reliability | 50% | 52% | 0.73 | 28 | 0.472 | 0.14 | [46%–59%] |
| reliable | 90% | 86% | −1.354 | 30 | 0.186 | −0.24 | [79%–92%] |
Note: A post-hoc sensitivity analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) for a one-tailed t-test, error probably of .05, power of .80, and sample size of 29 (i.e., the smallest group in the study) reveals a critical t-value of 1.70 and effect size d of 0.47. These values are exceeded in the significant contrasts reported above.