- [[220427_133707 meta-analysis - warm_repub and ideology|results: warm_repub and ideology for studies 1-4 & study 5]] # overview of models - all continuous predictors z-scored within study - binary variables coded -0.5/0.5 - one bayesian logistic regression multilevel model per study (black) - `share [0/1] ~ predictors + (1|participant) + (1|stimulus)` - i.e., cluster on participant and stimulus - if `veracity [-0.5/0.5]` is a predictor, then `share [0/1] ~ predictors + (1 + veracity|participant) + (1|stimulus)` - i.e., slope for `veracity` can vary across participants - meta-analytic multilevel models (red) - participants nested within studies - `share [0/1] ~ predictors + (1|study/participant) + (1|stimulus)` - `share [0/1] ~ predictors + (1+veracity|study/participant) + (1|stimulus)` - our last [preregistration](https://osf.io/8cnyx) **Note about `ideology` predictor: In our studies, the `ideology` variable is `demrep_c`. Asher said `warm_repub` is better in studies 1-4 and we included their measure of conservatism in study 5, so we could refit the models using `warm_rep` for studies 1-4 and their measure for study 5.** # model 1: fail to replicate two-way interaction - our preregistration model 2 (false and true headlines) - `share ~ ideology * conscientiousness` - the simplest effect/model; we can't replicate their basic effect ![[models_demrep-c.png]] # model 2: don't see three-way-interaction with veracity - our preregistration model 3 (false and true headlines) - exclude studies with only false headlines - `share ~ ideology * conscientiousness * veracity [-0.5/0.5]` - there's no three-way interaction with veracity ![[models_demrep-c-veracity.png]] # model 3: three-way interaction with AOT - exclude studies with only false headlines - `share ~ ideology * veracity [-0.5/0.5] * aot` ![[models_demrep-veracity-aot.png]] # model 4: three-way interaction with AOT but not conscientiousness - exclude studies with only false headlines - `share ~ ideology * veracity [-0.5/0.5] * (conscientiousness + aot)` - AOT better predictor than conscientiousness when both predictors are in the model ![[models_full.png]] # model 5: three-way interaction with AOT but not conscientiousness - preregistered model 5 - exclude studies with only false headlines - `share ~ headline veracity [-0.5/0.5] * ideology * (o + c + e + a + n + age + gender + edu + attention + aot)` - AOT still a better predictor than conscientiousness when both predictors are in the model - [[220502_102553 probe negative three-way interaction]] ![[models5_full.png]]