Syntes: Schneider, Wirzberger & Rey (2019) — the seductive-details harm vanished under a faster false heartbeat

Källa: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3473 (Applied Cognitive Psychology 33(1), 71–84)

Verified content

• [full text] 100 German university students (communication and media studies, mean age 22.8), randomised 25 per cell to a 2 (with vs without seductive text passages) × 2 (looped false heartbeat at 70 vs 90 beats per minute) design. Self-paced six-page web lesson on sleep (12–18 minutes; mean 899 s); retention and transfer (8 questions, α = 0.80; both scored 0–32) right after learning.
• [full text] The faster heartbeat raised self-reported energy (F(1,96) = 16.39, p < .001), not tension or valence.
• [full text] Transfer means: without extras 23.72 (slow) and 23.96 (fast); with extras 20.24 (slow) and 24.44 (fast). Seductive details main effect F(1,96) = 8.99, p = .003; interaction F(1,96) = 15.66, p < .001, ηp² = .14. The authors: under the slower heartbeat the extras lowered learning, under the faster one the effect disappeared. Time on task similar in all groups (870–919 s).
• [full text] Extraneous load rose with extras under the slow heartbeat only (interaction F(1,96) = 7.14, p = .009).

Limits

• [full text] One lab experiment, 25 per cell, university students; the authors say the results are not replicated.
• [assessment] Some printed statistics do not add up: the transfer main effect of heart rate is printed as F(1, 65) where (1, 96) is expected, and the retention interaction is printed with the same value as the retention main effect of heart rate (F(1,96) = 12.84). Simple effects are shown in figures only. Not reported as preregistered.

Role for C8

• [assessment] Not applied as a narrowing: held as open question 15 (2026-10-23) — does the learner's arousal decide whether extras do harm?

Added 2026-10-23 by the project (nightly attack run, widened search for C8). [abstract] = from the published abstract; [full text] = read in the full text; [assessment] = the project's own assessment.