Use them or lose them: Are manipulatives needed to assess numeracy and geometry performance in preschool?

In two studies, we investigated whether using three-dimensional (3D) manipulatives during assessment aided performance on a variety of preschool mathematics tasks compared to pictorial representations. On measures of children's understanding of counting and cardinality (n = 103), there was no difference in performance between manipulatives and pictures, with Bayes factors suggesting moderate evidence in favor of the null hypothesis. On a measure of children's shape identification (n = 93), there was no difference in performance between objects and pictures, with Bayes factors suggesting moderate evidence in favor of the null hypothesis. These results suggest flexibility in the materials that can be used during assessment. Pictures, or 2D renderings of 3D objects, which can be easily printed and reproduced, may be sufficient for assessing counting and shape knowledge without the need for more cumbersome concrete manipulatives.     

Modality-constrained statistical learning of tactile, visual, and auditory sequences

The authors investigated the extent to which touch, vision, and audition mediate the processing of statistical regularities within sequential input. Few researchers have conducted rigorous comparisons across sensory modalities; in particular, the sense of touch has been virtually ignored. The current data reveal not only commonalities but also modality constraints affecting statistical learning across the senses. To be specific, the authors found that the auditory modality displayed a quantitative learning advantage compared with vision and touch. In addition, they discovered qualitative learning biases among the senses: Primarily, audition afforded better learning for the final part of input sequences. These findings are discussed in terms of whether statistical learning is likely to consist of a single, unitary mechanism or multiple, modality-constrained ones.     

Do Self-Incentives and Self-Rewards Change Behavior? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Encouraging people to self-incentivize (i.e., to reward themselves in the future if they are successful in changing their behavior) or self-reward (i.e., prompt people to reward themselves once they have successfully changed their behavior) are techniques that are frequently embedded within complex behavior change interventions. However, it is not clear whether self-incentives or self-rewards per se are effective at bringing about behavior change. Nine databases were searched alongside manual searching of systematic reviews and online research registers. One thousand four hundred papers were retrieved, spanning a range of behaviors, though the majority of included papers were in the domain of “health psychology”. Ten studies matched the inclusion criteria for self-incentive but no studies were retrieved for self-reward. The present systematic review and meta-analysis is therefore the first to evaluate the unique effect of self-incentives on behavior change. Effect sizes were retrieved from 7 of the 10 studies. Analysis of the 7 studies produced a very small pooled effect size for self-incentives (k = 7, N = 1,161), which was statistically significant, d₊ = 0.17, CI [0.06, 0.29]. The weak effect size and dearth of studies raises the question of why self-incentivizing is such a widely employed component of behavior change interventions. The present research opens up a new field of inquiry to establish: (a) whether or not self-incentivizing and self-rewarding are effective behavior change techniques, (b) whether self-incentives and self-rewards need to be deployed alongside other behavior change techniques, and, (c) when and for whom self-incentives and self-rewards could support effective behavior change.     

Four New Works on the Mahābhārata

International Journal of Hindu Studies -     

Situated Behavior and the Place of Measurement in Psychological Theory

Measured values of human behavior may entail contradictory attributes of wave and particle by analogy with the wave/particle attributes of the electron. 1/f scaling is the wave attribute in this analogy and punctate data points are the particle attribute. One consequence of the wave/particle duality in physics was to elevate measurement to a primary place in physical theory, and one purpose of the present analogy is to likewise elevate measurement to a primary place in psychological theory. Another purpose is to emulate Robert Shaw's creative use of analogies, consistent with the brief quotation that begins this article.