The use of teachers as behavioral observers

The effect of using teachers as behavioral observers on both student and teacher behavior was examined with eight teachers and 32 elementary school children. The frequency of prompts (but not praise or criticism) to those students observed by the teacher increased significantly from nonobserver to teacher observed experimental phases. In addition, students observed by the teacher showed more change in appropriate behavior than students who were not observed. The significance of these findings for research and therapy is discussed.     

Group participation and intergroup relations: An experimental study of negotiation groups

Negotiations were conducted to investigate the effects on settlement-points andon the attitudes and perceptions of participants of (i) group participation and (ii)belief in own group's point of view, in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Ninety-six school children prepared cases in groups of four before representing their group's position against an individual of a similarly prepared opposed group. Group participation was manipulated by groups either participating in preparatory discussions or observing video films of another group's discussions. Belief was manipulated by systematically varying the composition of groups according to scores on a pre-test of attitudes towards the raising of the school-leaving age. In general the belief manipulation operated as expected, ‘believers’ exhibiting less variability, more tit-for-tat agreements and less opinion change than the ‘disbelievers’. Group participation did not influence the measures as predicted, and measures of interpersonal perception did not conform to the pattern of findings in recent experiments on intergroup discrimination. The results are discussed in terms of (i) their relevance to the issue of the appropriate relationship of the representative to his group in a negotiation and (ii) their implications for intergroup relations theory.     

Training teachers as mediators: Efficacy of a workshop versus the bug-in-the-ear technique

The implementation of behavior modification techniques in school settings often relies on effective training of teachers as mediators. At the conclusion of Phase I, the performance of an experimental group of 13 teachers who were taught behavior modification by means of an inservice workshop was compared with a no-treatment control group. Although the experimental group scored higher on a paper-and-pencil test of behavior modification, there were no differences between the two groups on selected observed in-class behaviors. During Phase II, half of the experimental group of teachers received two hours of bug-in-the-ear (BIE) training in their own classrooms. BIE resulted in changes in the classroom behaviors of praise and contingency statements. These results are discussed in terms of the situation and response mode specificity of behavior and in terms of the implications for future workshops and research.     

Pre‐registration is a Game Changer. But,Like Random Assignment,it is Neither Necessary Nor Sufficient for Credible Science

We identify 15 claims Pham and Oh (2020) make to argue against pre‐registration. We agree with 7 of the claims, but think that none of them justify delaying the encouragement and adoption of pre‐registration. Moreover, while the claim they make in their title is correct—pre‐registration is neither necessary nor sufficient for a credible science—this is also true of many our science’s most valuable tools, such as random assignment. Indeed, both random assignment and pre‐registration lead to more credible research. Pre‐registration is a game changer.     

Pre‐registration: Why and How

In this article, we (1) discuss the reasons why pre‐registration is a good idea, both for the field and individual researchers, (2) respond to arguments against pre‐registration, (3) describe how to best write and review a pre‐registration, and (4) comment on pre‐registration’s rapidly accelerating popularity. Along the way, we describe the (big) problem that pre‐registration can solve (i.e., false positives caused by p‐hacking), while also offering viable solutions to the problems that pre‐registration cannot solve (e.g., hidden confounds or fraud). Pre‐registration does not guarantee that every published finding will be true, but without it you can safely bet that many more will be false. It is time for our field to embrace pre‐registration, while taking steps to ensure that it is done right.     

Gamma is a Measure of the Accuracy of Predicting Performance on One Item Relative to Another Item,not of the Absolute Performance on an Individual Item Comments on Schraw (1995)

The recent paper by Schraw ( Measures of feeling-of-knowing accuracy: a new look at an old problem , Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1995, 9, 321—332) is flawed by several inaccuracies and by Schraw's failure to distinguish between two fundamentally different aspects of the accuracy of metacognitive predictions: (1) calibration (aka absolute accuracy, defined in terms of whether the predicted value assigned to a single item is followed by the occurrence of that value on the criterion test), and (2) resolution (aka relative accuracy, defined in terms of whether the predicted performance on one item relative to another item is followed by the occurrence of that ordering of the two items on the criterion test). Because of these (and other) problems, his recommendations seem misleading and counterproductive.