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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
