Langston, Advanced Cognitive Psychology, Notes
1 -- Background/What is the cognitive psychology
paradigm?/Methodology Ruminations
These readings have multiple goals, but they serve to get the
conversation going. There is a lot here, you might want to keep in
mind that each of these readings has a specific purpose for being
chosen, and read for the purpose instead of every word. Of course,
every word is gold...
1. What is cognitive psychology? Have we got the paradigm right? Are
we overlooking anything?
- Individual differences:
- Zerr, C. L., Berg, J. J., Nelson, S. M., Fishell, A. K.,
Savalia, N. K., & McDermott, K. B. (2018). Learning
efficiency: Identifying individual differences in learning
rate and retention in healthy adults. Psychological
Science, 29, 1436-1450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797618772540
2. Methodological issues: How do we make inferences? How should
psychological science work?
- Climbing bullshit mountain (how degrees of freedom in research
allow for cheating). The scientific issue is best captured by
Popper in Conjectures and Refutations (https://nemenmanlab.org/~ilya/images/0/07/Popper-1953.pdf).
Look at number 7 in the first list in particular. Our concern
with psychology is whether theories are actually making testable
predictions, and whether the experiments are actually exposing
theories to risk. You need to get in the habit of asking these
questions.
- Klein, R. A. et al. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating
variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances
in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1,
443-490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225
(Just read the methods part sandwiching the results)
- Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011).
False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data
collection and analysis allows presenting anything as
significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
- LeBel, E. P., McCarthy, R. J., Earp, B. D., Elson, M., &
Vanpaemel, W. (1018). A unified framework to quantify the
credibility of scientific findings. Advances in Methods
and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 389-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2515245918787489
(This is for how you read articles; I'm looking for a handy
way to assign a score to determine how much attention to pay
to an article)
- Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2015).
Review and summary of research on the embodied effects of
expansive (vs. contractive) nonverbal displays. Psychological
Science, 26, 657-663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614566855
(These three are a package; we're interested in learning about
p-curves, the rest of this is in support of
understanding that)
- Simmons, J. P., & Simonsohn, U. (2017). Power posing: P-curving
the evidence. Psychological Science, 28, 687-693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797616658563
- Cuddy, A. J. C., Schultz, S. J., & Fosse, N. E. (2018).
P-Curving a more comprehensive body of research on
postural feedback reveals clear evidential value for
power-posing effects: Reply to Simmons and Simonsohn (2017). Psychological
Science, 29, 656-666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797617746749
Advanced Cognitive Psychology Notes 1
Will Langston
Back to Langston's
Advanced Cognitive Psychology Page