On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 21:04:30 -0700, Claudia Stanny wrote:
I've heard people express concern about the implications of the
"replication crisis" on the application of memory findings to teaching
strategies in higher education (e.g., benefits of "deep processing,"
self-reference effect, generation effect, massed and distributed
practice,
etc.). These effects are so robust that many of us use them as
classroom
demonstrations and they work like a charm. I've seen levels of
processing
manipulations work beautifully as part of conference talks (with large
audiences). They are a presentation staple for the science of learning
consultation crowd.
On a philosophy of science email list I had made the comment
that there was a list of reliable results that could be made and
were the results were robust enough that they could even
demonstrated in classes -- I have a data set the is composed
of background variables and performance on two versions of
the levels of processing experiment that I use in statistics class
(one is a between-subjects design, the other is a within-subject
design). However, I got an email from a list member who asked
for such a list. I made up a list of about 10 effects and pointed him
to the Online Psychological Lab (opl.apa.org) -- which our Sue
Frantz is in charge of -- and said that he could obtain the data
from the experiments for the these results and examine them
himself (pointing out that the implementation of some of the
experiments is not ideal but works well enough, especially
when N is large). So I am somewhat puzzled by the "crisis"
even though I wrote about it when I reviewed Geoff Cumming's
"Understanding the New Statistics", pointing out the problem
that meta-analysis had with data that showed the "decline
effect" (i.e., the effect got smaller with replications until it
could no longer be reproduced - Rhine came up with the
term to describe the performance of "psychics").
Perceptual findings are also incredibly robust (e.g., dark adaptation).
And not to mention illusions, figure ground situations, and
so on.
I've never had Stroop fail me in a class demonstration.
So, it appears that a fair number of social psych experiments,
especially those that rely on priming effect (borrowed from
memory research), are not as robust as, say, traditional
experimental psychologists are used to. Seems like there's
a meta-psychology problem here that is not being clearly
articulated.
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Mike Palij somehow managed
to scribble::
Although I have been somewhat following the "replication crisis"
I did not know the "sad face" result and its apparent importance.
Failure to replicate this result is the focus of this article in
Slate;
see:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story
/2016/08/can_smiling_make_you_happier_maybe_maybe_not_we_have_no_idea.html
I think there are various problems with the presentation but
it does make some useful points. One problem, however,
is the focus on social psychological research -- how many
classic results in experimental psychology (conditioning,
memory, perception, reaction time, etc.) have not been
replicated? Has there been a failure to replicate or a
"decline effect" for the Stroop task?
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=49345
or send a blank email to
leave-49345-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
