Psych 225 Lecture 13 Outline of Last Lecture 1) Paper Questions2) Reliability and Validity 3) Pinkerton Article Outline of Current Lecture 1) Lab Checks Day 22) Ray Chapter 14 ReviewCurrent LectureLab ChecksRunquist (1986)The effect of testing on the forgetting of related and unrelated associatesWould immediate testing reduce forgetting of unrelated as well as related pairs?~immediate testing may establish effective retrieval operations -ran relation of paired words as a between subjects variablelarger amount of error (with between)P’s can’t get the same benefit from relatedness if they can’t see the contrast -how did relation of paired words affect forgetting from test 10 min. after encoding to test 2 days later? # of words P’s forgot from 1st 10 minutes test to 2nd 48 hour test (possible range 0-12): those who saw unrelated words forgot the most than those who saw related words whether they were weak or strongly related *questionable the difference between weakly related and strongly related words; is the relation that different: sort of a judgment callThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.-how did relation of paired words and immediate testing combine to affect forgetting?High rate of forgetting for those who were immediately tested despite the relation; when immediately tested, there wan an effect of relation of the words Castel, McCabe and Roediger (2007)-illusions of competence and overestimation of associative memory for identical items: evidencefrom judgments of learningP’s viewed words pairsIv: semantic relation between paired words (between)DV: -did P’s use the semantic relation on JOL? YES; as words were more and more related, the P’s thought they would remember more and more -recall just as few target words of identical pairs as they did of related pairs -why in exp. 2 did they study length of time P’s studied pairs?To see how ease of processing makes them spend more or less time studying more time (results: study identical pairs for less time) Matvey, Dunlosky and Schwartz (2006)Effects of categorical relatedness on JOLs ~stimuli: individual words~sets of categorically related and unrelated nouns-categorical relatedness of words (within subjects) -measures?JOLSFree recall measure -P’s thought they would remember more related sets than unrelated-P’s recalled more related sets than unrelated sets as well The effect of categorical relatedness was larger on recall compared to JOLs How did position within set affect JOL?Paper-treat dv’s separately then synthesize them together Chapter 143. Grammar, clarityA. use clear, precise languageExample: workers who are always late should receive low paycompletely disagree________completely agree ~what does always mean? B. avoid double-barreled, compound QsExample: To what extent would you like more flexibility and less supervision~confusing to answer together, better to separate C. If potentially ambiguous, specify the meaning of the midpoint Example: not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very much4= don’t know, don’t care, ambivalent, moderate amount, neutral (better label for midpoint4. All Choices Should be Perceived as AcceptableOption 1: Have you ever had sex with a person under 13 y.o. ?Yes or no (circle one)If you circled yes above, indicate how often. Once__ twice__ Option 2: How often have you sex with a person under 13 years of age?0 times__ 1 time__ 2 times___3t times___ *Option 2 is preferable because it makes it seem like an acceptable thing to do: will get more honest answer5. Prevent response sets-acquiescence, yeah-saying -nay saying *if people think the pattern is agree or disagree they will mark the same answer that fits with their opinion all the way down (will agree or disagree with everything) 6. Avoid restricting range (consider SST)A. rely on prior research, pilot testingB. include sufficient range 1 2 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 C. avoiding leading QsExample: To what extent do you agree that very lazy workers should receive low pay? D. ceiling and floor effects Ex. really high or really low scoresE. Social Desirability-don’t want only a small range of responses to be socially desirable F. Avoid Barnum QsBarnum Qs: horoscopes or personality tests that exactly describe you…and everyone else; make things vague enough that you can relate in some way Example: Do you feel that others don’t fully understand?Example: Do you feel as though you have untapped talents? 7. Avoid too wide of a range-likelihood of remembering-measures without end point# of marks on peer reviewamount of time spent on peer review-consider potential SDs Chapter 3: Developing the Hypothesis 1. Interest in addressing a real word problem2. Observation & intuition -real world labobserve what in real worldaddress why in lab-applied research: looking for solution to problemOrigins of Ideas-real world observationsExample: Murder of Kitty Genovese (Latne and Darley) Example: acts of Nazis during Holocaust (Milgram) Example: pitches of cars sales peoplePsych theories via observationExample: Freud’s theory of personality (Id, Ego, Superego) Example: Piaget’s theory of cognitive development 3. Existing Researchexamples attempts to: a: broaden, generalize prior findingsb: limit prior findings, design condition(s) to reveal qualifiers ExampleEffect: people like similar others more than dissimilar others possible qualifiers-if perceived similarity: Reflects poorly on the selfImplies a burdensome obligation to assistMeans settling for 2nd best Effect: people prefer those who have positive attributes vs. those who do notPossible qualifiersTesser self evaluation model -comparison with people who only have positive attributes can be depressing If positive attributes are not central to self-conceptAronson et. Al. (1966)Aronson study: Between Subjects ~DV attraction Manipulated the competence of a candidate (moderate or extremely high) and a blunder (absent or present) Results: For moderate competence: presence of a blunder made low attraction and absence of blunder made moderate attractionFor high competence: presence of blunder made high attraction and absence of blunder made moderate attraction *attraction defined in liking as a person, not romantic attraction*-Possibly findings show that high competence person that makes a blunder are more