[tips] Psych science.?
This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant? Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe…. As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting and credibly carried out? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com http://www.thepsychfiles.com/ Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40276 or send a blank email to leave-40276-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Psych science.?
The key I think is replication and more skeptical and cautious reviews of the studies. I also have started to discuss differences between what Psych profs teach; correlation isn't causation, beware overgeneralization, the importance of replication, stat significance doesn't mean practical worth or importance, and how they violate these in their published research or public statements. Students enjoy pointing out to me how psych authors routinely describe findings as significant and imply more than statistical relevance to this word when discussing their findings. Just need more humility in research? However, the trends or opportunity for public marketing of our images, research, and products would seem to be inherently opposed to such scientific humility. Not an uncommon or new tension for scholar/professional paths. G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU On Nov 18, 2014, at 8:20 AM, Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.com wrote: This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant? Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe…. As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting and credibly carried out? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94bn=Tl=tipso=40276 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40276-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40277 or send a blank email to leave-40277-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] How Everyone Gets Pavlov Wrong
An extensive New Yorker review of Daniel Todes' new, mammoth biography of Ivan Pavlov. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/drool Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40282 or send a blank email to leave-40282-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Psych science.?
Dear Tipsters, I had always regarded the two nursing home studies (experiments, actually) as interesting and have regularly reported them in my classes. The significant finding of different death rates in the follow-up study was of particularly attention-grabbing and almost too good to be true, but I had not seen any reason to doubt it, even though the sample size was small. I went back to these two papers to see if I could detect serious errors in methodology and statistics. Of course, if there was something important that was not reported, we would not know that. Based on this re-reading I still do not see any serious errors, although the data on multiple measures could have been treated with MANOVA rather than ANOVA. The authors also report various attempt to keep extraneous variables constant – e.g. raters being blind as to the condition in which people were. In addition, they express their own surprise at the death rate data and admit that not everything was known about the patients. Of course, the matter of replication remains. If this has not occurred, we do not know what the outcome would be. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there has been a failure to replicate the results of the exercise-as-placebo experiment. So, overall, I still think that the original experiments, as reported, offer interesting results. Have there been serious criticisms of them that I have missed? Sincerely, Stuart ___ Floreat Labore [cid:image001.jpg@01D0033F.B6610920] Recti cultus pectora roborant Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of Psychology, Fax: 819 822 9661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.camailto:stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.camailto:smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psyblocked::http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Floreat Labore [cid:image002.jpg@01D0033F.B6610920] [cid:image003.jpg@01D0033F.B6610920] ___ From: Michael Britt [mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com] Sent: November 18, 2014 8:20 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Psych science.? This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant? Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe…. As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting and credibly carried out? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.commailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: smcke...@ubishops.camailto:smcke...@ubishops.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3n=Tl=tipso=40276 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40276-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-40276-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40285 or send a blank email to leave-40285-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Psych science.?
I don't see the beginning of the thread for some reason so I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to (although I have a good guess). Might you be referring to James Coyne's recent commentary about Ellen Langer's research? If not, you might find his thoughts on the matter interesting (although I suspect you may have already seen this that this is what you are referring to): http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack/ Trent On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Stuart McKelvie smcke...@ubishops.ca wrote: Dear Tipsters, I had always regarded the two nursing home studies (experiments, actually) as interesting and have regularly reported them in my classes. The significant finding of different death rates in the follow-up study was of particularly attention-grabbing and almost too good to be true, but I had not seen any reason to doubt it, even though the sample size was small. I went back to these two papers to see if I could detect serious errors in methodology and statistics. Of course, if there was something important that was not reported, we would not know that. Based on this re-reading I still do not see any serious errors, although the data on multiple measures could have been treated with MANOVA rather than ANOVA. The authors also report various attempt to keep extraneous variables constant – e.g. raters being blind as to the condition in which people were. In addition, they express their own surprise at the death rate data and admit that not everything was known about the patients. Of course, the matter of replication remains. If this has not occurred, we do not know what the outcome would be. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there has been a failure to replicate the results of the exercise-as-placebo experiment. So, overall, I still think that the original experiments, as reported, offer interesting results. Have there been serious criticisms of them that I have missed? Sincerely, Stuart ___ *F**loreat* *L**abore* *Recti cultus pectora roborant* *Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D*., *Phone*: 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of Psychology, *Fax*: 819 822 9661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy *F**loreat* *L**abore* ___ *From:* Michael Britt [mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com] *Sent:* November 18, 2014 8:20 AM *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) *Subject:* [tips] Psych science.? This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant? Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe…. As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting and credibly carried out? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: smcke...@ubishops.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3n=Tl=tipso=40276 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40276-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips
Re: [tips] Psych science.?
Whoever started this thread (I have forgotten now) mentioned that there was an obscure erratum that undermined the results. Would that person care to cite the erratum for us? Thanks, Chris ….. Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo ... On Nov 18, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Stuart McKelvie smcke...@ubishops.ca wrote: Dear Tipsters, I had always regarded the two nursing home studies (experiments, actually) as interesting and have regularly reported them in my classes. The significant finding of different death rates in the follow-up study was of particularly attention-grabbing and almost too good to be true, but I had not seen any reason to doubt it, even though the sample size was small. I went back to these two papers to see if I could detect serious errors in methodology and statistics. Of course, if there was something important that was not reported, we would not know that. Based on this re-reading I still do not see any serious errors, although the data on multiple measures could have been treated with MANOVA rather than ANOVA. The authors also report various attempt to keep extraneous variables constant – e.g. raters being blind as to the condition in which people were. In addition, they express their own surprise at the death rate data and admit that not everything was known about the patients. Of course, the matter of replication remains. If this has not occurred, we do not know what the outcome would be. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there has been a failure to replicate the results of the exercise-as-placebo experiment. So, overall, I still think that the original experiments, as reported, offer interesting results. Have there been serious criticisms of them that I have missed? Sincerely, Stuart ___ Floreat Labore image001.jpg Recti cultus pectora roborant Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of Psychology, Fax: 819 822 9661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Floreat Labore image002.jpg image003.jpg ___ From: Michael Britt [mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com] Sent: November 18, 2014 8:20 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Psych science.? This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant? Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe…. As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting and credibly carried out? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: smcke...@ubishops.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3n=Tl=tipso=40276 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40276-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu ---
RE: [tips] Psych science.?
The “obscure erratum” link in Coyne’s article leads to this: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/36/5/462/ L. Tollefsrud From: rtc...@gmail.com [mailto:rtc...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of R. Trent Codd III Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:37 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Psych science.? I don't see the beginning of the thread for some reason so I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to (although I have a good guess). Might you be referring to James Coyne's recent commentary about Ellen Langer's research? If not, you might find his thoughts on the matter interesting (although I suspect you may have already seen this that this is what you are referring to): http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack/ Trent On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Stuart McKelvie smcke...@ubishops.camailto:smcke...@ubishops.ca wrote: Dear Tipsters, I had always regarded the two nursing home studies (experiments, actually) as interesting and have regularly reported them in my classes. The significant finding of different death rates in the follow-up study was of particularly attention-grabbing and almost too good to be true, but I had not seen any reason to doubt it, even though the sample size was small. I went back to these two papers to see if I could detect serious errors in methodology and statistics. Of course, if there was something important that was not reported, we would not know that. Based on this re-reading I still do not see any serious errors, although the data on multiple measures could have been treated with MANOVA rather than ANOVA. The authors also report various attempt to keep extraneous variables constant – e.g. raters being blind as to the condition in which people were. In addition, they express their own surprise at the death rate data and admit that not everything was known about the patients. Of course, the matter of replication remains. If this has not occurred, we do not know what the outcome would be. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there has been a failure to replicate the results of the exercise-as-placebo experiment. So, overall, I still think that the original experiments, as reported, offer interesting results. Have there been serious criticisms of them that I have missed? Sincerely, Stuart ___ Floreat Labore [cid:image001.jpg@01D0033F.0D33DCB0] Recti cultus pectora roborant Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402tel:819%20822%209600%20x%202402 Department of Psychology, Fax: 819 822 9661tel:819%20822%209661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.camailto:stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.camailto:smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Floreat Labore [cid:image002.jpg@01D0033F.0D33DCB0] [cid:image003.jpg@01D0033F.0D33DCB0] ___ From: Michael Britt [mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.commailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com] Sent: November 18, 2014 8:20 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Psych science.? This is so discouraging. Eye opening perhaps, but discouraging. I remember well the nursing home study and I always thought positively of it. I have two parents in their 90s and I know they are frustrated by their lack of independence and the loss of control over their lives. But as I reflect on all this I had to ask myself, Why would I think that the participants in Langer's study would lead healthier, longer lives simply because of their ability to take care of a plant? Given how complex humans are, and how complex life is, why would I think that a simple “intervention” like giving people control over a plant would have such powerful effects? Maybe because I wanted to believe…. As for this counterclockwise “study”…oh boy..at least it is indeed an excellent point about how eminence doesn’t necessarily mean credible. I am additionally discouraged because I recently finished reading a published article which appeared to have been carefully carried out (and which was filled with all manor of impressive advanced statistical techniques) but in the end all they really found were essentially correlations. I kept going back to my underlined sentences and I still couldn’t figure out why this study was important enough to publish. The hypotheses and the conclusions were “tortured” into giving up some kind of “significance”. I need some cheering up: can anyone point to a recently published article they think was interesting
Re: [tips] How Everyone Gets Pavlov Wrong
Here is another reference to a bell in Pavlov (1927). There are more. I shall describe first an experiment conducted by Dr. Frolov illustrating the development of a secondary conditioned reflex: A [p. 34] dog has two primary alimentary conditioned stimuli firmly established, one to the sound of a metronome and the other to the buzzing of an electric bell. . , Michael Scoles micha...@uca.edu 11/18/2014 2:39 PM Bells were used, at least in attempts to produce backwards conditioning. With another dog the loud buzzing of an electric bell set going 5 to 10 seconds after administration of food failed to establish a conditioned alimentary reflex even after 374 combinations, whereas the regular rotation of an object in front of the eyes of the animal, the rotation beginning before the administration of food, acquired the properties of a conditioned stimulus after only 5 combinations. Conditioned Reflexes (1927) Hard to believe that was the only time a bell was used. Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Counseling University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR 72035 Phone: 501-450-5418 Fax: 501-450-5424 AVID: UCA dedicates itself to Academic Vitality, Integrity, and Diversity. Christopher Green chri...@yorku.ca 11/18/2014 11:29 AM An extensive New Yorker review of Daniel Todes' new, mammoth biography of Ivan Pavlov. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/drool Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: micha...@uca.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa657an=Tl=tipso=40282 or send a blank email to leave-40282-357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa6...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: micha...@uca.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa657an=Tl=tipso=40288 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40288-357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa6...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40291 or send a blank email to leave-40291-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] Rodin Langer's obscure erratum
Thank you Linda. If you follow that link, you only get a summary which says the z on mortality was re-calculated, whence if became “marginally significant.” When you actually go to the original erratum, you find that, upon recalculation: z dropped from 3.14 to 1.74, (p=.0818). There is no reason to get overly-moralistic about the .05 level, but I think it is fair to say that p.08 would not have been published, especially in JPSP. Going back to the original article, one sees that they calculated that z on the proportions, and did an arcsine transform on them first. Interesting because if you did a 2-way Chi-square on the raw frequencies (which would be the more common way to handle them): died lived Total plant 7 40 47 no-plant 13 31 44 Total 20 71 91 Chi-square (df=1) = 2.84, p .05 (chi-square crit = 3.84) One can only guess why they went for the more exotic statistic. Interestingly, these frequencies generate a whopping Odds Ratio of 2.40 but, still, it is not significant (z=1.66)… and no one in psychology was using Odds Ratios back in 1977. The more common (in psych) effect size measure of phi (.177) looks even worse because of the imbalance in the table. Chris ….. Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo ... On Nov 18, 2014, at 3:51 PM, Tollefsrud, Linda linda.tollefs...@uwc.edu wrote: The “obscure erratum” link in Coyne’s article leads to this: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/36/5/462/ L. Tollefsrud From: rtc...@gmail.com [mailto:rtc...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of R. Trent Codd III Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:37 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Psych science.? I don't see the beginning of the thread for some reason so I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to (although I have a good guess). Might you be referring to James Coyne's recent commentary about Ellen Langer's research? If not, you might find his thoughts on the matter interesting (although I suspect you may have already seen this that this is what you are referring to): http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/eminent-harvard-psychologist-mother-of-positive-psychology-new-age-quack/ Trent On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Stuart McKelvie smcke...@ubishops.ca wrote: Dear Tipsters, I had always regarded the two nursing home studies (experiments, actually) as interesting and have regularly reported them in my classes. The significant finding of different death rates in the follow-up study was of particularly attention-grabbing and almost too good to be true, but I had not seen any reason to doubt it, even though the sample size was small. I went back to these two papers to see if I could detect serious errors in methodology and statistics. Of course, if there was something important that was not reported, we would not know that. Based on this re-reading I still do not see any serious errors, although the data on multiple measures could have been treated with MANOVA rather than ANOVA. The authors also report various attempt to keep extraneous variables constant – e.g. raters being blind as to the condition in which people were. In addition, they express their own surprise at the death rate data and admit that not everything was known about the patients. Of course, the matter of replication remains. If this has not occurred, we do not know what the outcome would be. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there has been a failure to replicate the results of the exercise-as-placebo experiment. So, overall, I still think that the original experiments, as reported, offer interesting results. Have there been serious criticisms of them that I have missed? Sincerely, Stuart ___ Floreat Labore image001.jpg Recti cultus pectora roborant Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of Psychology, Fax: 819 822 9661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Floreat Labore image002.jpg image003.jpg ___ From: Michael Britt [mailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com] Sent: November 18, 2014 8:20 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Psych science.?
RE: [tips] How Everyone Gets Pavlov Wrong
I believe the point of the author in saying that no bells were used (and this is not contradicted by either of the examples cited below), was that there were none of the prototypical handbells you always see pictured in textbooks. A proper translation would be to refer to the bells as electronic buzzers (and in fact that is the image given by a reading of the examples provided below). Maybe this is a regional thing and there are places where the word bell evokes the sound of an electric buzzer but most of those hearing bell seem to interpret it as the metallic object with a clapper in the middle that is moved to produce a sound. The author's point was that the discrete sound of a handbell would not have been to Pavlov's purpose of making a continuous sound for the most effective CS. The use of the word bell can still lead to some confusion today on that point. People imagine a dog hearing a bell once and then sometime later tasting the food. Pavlov's buzzer CS, on the other hand, would actually continue to buzz until the food was delivered (delayed conditioning) instead of being a discrete one time stimulus (even in trace conditioning, the CS would probably last longer than the single ring of a bell). Rick Dr. Rick Froman Professor of Psychology Box 3519 John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edumailto:rfro...@jbu.edu (479) 524-7295 http://bit.ly/DrFroman From: Michael Scoles [mailto:micha...@uca.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:56 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] How Everyone Gets Pavlov Wrong Here is another reference to a bell in Pavlov (1927). There are more. I shall describe first an experiment conducted by Dr. Frolov illustrating the development of a secondary conditioned reflex: A [p. 34] dog has two primary alimentary conditioned stimuli firmly established, one to the sound of a metronome and the other to the buzzing of an electric bell. . , Michael Scoles micha...@uca.edumailto:micha...@uca.edu 11/18/2014 2:39 PM Bells were used, at least in attempts to produce backwards conditioning. With another dog the loud buzzing of an electric bell set going 5 to 10 seconds after administration of food failed to establish a conditioned alimentary reflex even after 374 combinations, whereas the regular rotation of an object in front of the eyes of the animal, the rotation beginning before the administration of food, acquired the properties of a conditioned stimulus after only 5 combinations. Conditioned Reflexes (1927) Hard to believe that was the only time a bell was used. Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Counseling University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR 72035 Phone: 501-450-5418 Fax: 501-450-5424 AVID: UCA dedicates itself to Academic Vitality, Integrity, and Diversity. Christopher Green chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca 11/18/2014 11:29 AM An extensive New Yorker review of Daniel Todes' new, mammoth biography of Ivan Pavlov. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/drool Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: micha...@uca.edumailto:micha...@uca.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa657an=Tl=tipso=40282 or send a blank email to leave-40282-357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa6...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-40282-357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa6...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: micha...@uca.edumailto:micha...@uca.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa657an=Tl=tipso=40288 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40288-357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa6...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-40288-357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa6...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edumailto:rfro...@jbu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8an=Tl=tipso=40291 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40291-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-40291-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40293 or send a blank email to leave-40293-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] How Everyone Gets Pavlov Wrong
In some places, Pavlov refers to an electric bell as a different stimulus than a buzzer. Maybe like a doorbell rather than a hand bell, but this fretting about bell has alway seemed silly. Rick Froman rfro...@jbu.edu 11/18/2014 4:32 PM I believe the point of the author in saying that no *bells* were used (and this is not contradicted by either of the examples cited below), was that there were none of the prototypical handbells you always see pictured in textbooks. A proper translation would be to refer to the bells as electronic buzzers (and in fact that is the image given by a reading of the examples provided below). Maybe this is a regional thing and there are places where the word *bell* evokes the sound of an electric buzzer but most of those hearing *bell* seem to interpret it as the metallic object with a clapper in the middle that is moved to produce a sound. The author*s point was that the discrete sound of a handbell would not have been to Pavlov*s purpose of making a continuous sound for the most effective CS. The use of the word *bell* can still lead to some confusion today on that point. People imagine a dog hearing a bell once and then sometime later tasting the food. Pavlov*s buzzer CS, on the other hand, would actually continue to buzz until the food was delivered (delayed conditioning) instead of being a discrete one time stimulus (even in trace conditioning, the CS would probably last longer than the single ring of a bell). Rick Dr. Rick Froman Professor of Psychology Box 3519 John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu (479) 524-7295 http://bit.ly/DrFroman From: Michael Scoles [mailto:micha...@uca.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:56 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] How Everyone Gets Pavlov Wrong Here is another reference to a bell in Pavlov (1927). There are more. I shall describe first an experiment conducted by Dr. Frolov illustrating the development of a secondary conditioned reflex: A [p. 34] dog has two primary alimentary conditioned stimuli firmly established, one to the sound of a metronome and the other to the buzzing of an electric bell. . , Michael Scoles micha...@uca.edu 11/18/2014 2:39 PM Bells were used, at least in attempts to produce backwards conditioning. With another dog the loud buzzing of an electric bell set going 5 to 10 seconds after administration of food failed to establish a conditioned alimentary reflex even after 374 combinations, whereas the regular rotation of an object in front of the eyes of the animal, the rotation beginning before the administration of food, acquired the properties of a conditioned stimulus after only 5 combinations. Conditioned Reflexes (1927) Hard to believe that was the only time a bell was used. Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Counseling University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR 72035 Phone: 501-450-5418 Fax: 501-450-5424 AVID: UCA dedicates itself to Academic Vitality, Integrity, and Diversity. Christopher Green chri...@yorku.ca 11/18/2014 11:29 AM An extensive New Yorker review of Daniel Todes' new, mammoth biography of Ivan Pavlov. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/drool Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: micha...@uca.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa657an=Tl=tipso=40282 or send a blank email to leave-40282-357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa6...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: micha...@uca.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa657an=Tl=tipso=40288 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40288-357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa6...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8an=Tl=tipso=40291 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40291-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: micha...@uca.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa657an=Tl=tipso=40293 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-40293-357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa6...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=40298 or send a
