Measuring automatic retrieval: a comparison of implicit memory, process dissociation, and speeded response procedures

Using the stem completion task, we compared estimates of automatic retrieval from an implicit memory task, the process dissociation procedure, and the speeded response procedure. Two standard manipulations were employed. In Experiment 1, a depth of processing effect was found on automatic retrieval using the speeded response procedure although this effect was substantially reduced in Experiment 2 when lexical processing was required of all words. In Experiment 3, the speeded response procedure showed an advantage of full versus divided attention at study on automatic retrieval. An implicit condition showed parallel effects in each study, suggesting that implicit stem completion may normally provide a good estimate of automatic retrieval. Also, we replicated earlier findings from the process dissociation procedure, but estimates of automatic retrieval from this procedure were consistently lower than those from the speeded response procedure, except when conscious retrieval was relatively low. We discuss several factors that may contribute to the conflicting outcomes, including the evidence for theoretical assumptions and criterial task differences between implicit and explicit tests.     

The Limits Of Human Nature

It has become increasingly common recently to construe human natureas setting some pretty stringent limits to moral endeavour. Many consequentialists, in particular, take considerations concerning human nature to defeat certain demanding norms that would otherwise follow from their theory.One argument is that certain commitments ground psychological incapacitiesthat prevent us from doing what would maximize the good. Another is that we would be likely to suffer some kind of psychological demoralization if we tried to become significantly more selfless. I argue that influential versions of both of these arguments underestimate our deliberative resources, and also fail to examine the kind of moral sources that may be able to sustain rigorous moral endeavour. Pessimism about our capacities for such endeavour results from the neglect of these factors, rather than from uncovering any significant limitations in human nature.     

Disciplinary roots and branches of evaluation: Some lessons from agricultural research

Since its origins in North America in the 1960s, the field of program evaluation has grown considerably, and its concerns have broadened from accountability to program improvement, decision support, and institutional learning. Program evaluation is now commonly practiced in governmental organizations not only in North America but also in many countries of Western Europe and Oceania. Although program evaluation is a relatively new field with many controversies and lively debates, a unifying body of evaluation theory, methods, and standards is gradually emerging. Evaluation has recently been described as a “transdiscipline,” as are statistics and measurement. This article is based largely on my personal experiences working in agricultural research organizations in developing regions. Here, a number of different types of evaluation are carried out, but program evaluation as defined by Patton (1997) and as practiced by social scientists to assess public programs is largely unknown. Distinct branches of agricultural research evaluation can be identified, with disciplinary roots in the natural sciences and in agricultural economics. The most rigorous agricultural research evaluations are economic studies. Systematic internal evaluation is notably lacking. Current pressures to improve performance, transparency, and accountability are creating demands for more systematic evaluation, and many program evaluation concepts and methods would seem to be of value in agricultural research organizations. However, in the current scenario of declining funding for agricultural research, managers are yet to be convinced to expand their evaluation activities and explore unfamiliar paradigms and methods. Moreover, they are not yet convinced that social-science-based program evaluation would produce useful results. Natural scientists and economists tend to view program evaluation as “soft-science” or no science at all. Douglas Horton works at the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) in The Netherlands. Since joining ISNAR in early 1990, he has done research, training, and advisory work on agricultural research management, with an emphasis on evaluation. Previously, for fifteen years, Horton was head of the social science department of the International Potato Center (CIP) in Peru. With colleagues at CIP and in national agricultural research organizations, he documented patterns and trends in world potato production and use, engaged in participatory technology development and assessed the impact of CIP programs. Horton received B.S. and M.S. degrees in agricultural economics from the University of Illinois, and a Ph.D. in economics from Cornell University. While at Cornell, Horton worked with W.F. Whyte, pioneer in the fields of participant observation and participatory action research.     

Grading distractor-identification tests

On distractor-identification tests students mark as many distractors as possible on each test item. A grading scale is developed for this type testing. The scale is optimal in that it is the unique scale giving an unbiased estimate of the student's true score, i.e., the score that would result if no guessing occurred. If the test is administered as a usual multiple choice test and graded using the usual correction for guessing scale, the expected item score is the same as for the distractor-identification testing using the optimal grading scale. However, the variance of the item score is shown to be less for distractor-identification testing than for usual multiple choice testing under certain conditions.     

Fixed vs. Flexible Neuropsychological Test Batteries Under the Daubert Standard for the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence

In Chapple v. Ganger, (1994), the Daubert standard was applied for the very first time to the use of fixed (standardized) versus flexible (nonstandardized) neuropsychological test batteries in the federal court. In this personal injury case the Chapple court gave far greater weight to the results obtained from a fixed battery than to the results obtained from two flexible neuropsychological test batteries. Significantly, under the Daubert standard the District Judge noted the lack of medical and scientific evidence to support the conclusions made by the Plaintiffs' two expert witnesses, a psychologist and a neuropsychologist, even though each had administered a comprehensive and flexible neuropsychological test battery and had based their conclusions on the test results. However, the Judge accepted as scientific evidence the objective test results obtained from the fixed Halstead–Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery for Older Children administered by the Defendants' expert witness Dr. Ralph Reitan and also accepted his scientific expert medical testimony which was closely derived from these data. Applying the Daubert standard to the neuropsychological test results and opinions of the expert witnesses, the District Judge held that the entire reasoning process and not simply part of the reasoning process upon which the expert witness derives a conclusion must reflect scientific methodology.     

Reducing risk of head injury in youth soccer: An extension of behavioral skills training for heading

Recently, concerns regarding sport-related concussions have increased within the research literature, the media, and popular culture. One potential source of soccer-related concussions involves the purposeful striking of the ball with one's head (i.e., heading). There is currently limited research on an effective teaching method to improve safe heading technique. In the current study, Behavior Skills Training (BST) was evaluated as a method to teach correct heading techniques to youth soccer players. BST increased the percentage of correct steps for each player based on a task analysis of heading. Based on social validity questionnaires administered to players and the coach, BST was rated as an acceptable form of training. After the final training session, experienced coaches rated each player as having improved from baseline to training.     

Understanding the attraction process

A comprehensive model of interpersonal attraction is presented in which attraction is an emotion expressed to regulate interpersonal relationships. The model proposes that cognitive appraisals, the subjective experience, and the expression of affiliative behavior are fundamental to understanding how attraction operates. Specifically, we discuss how (a) cognitive appraisals (willingness and ability) are fundamental to the subjective experience of attraction, (b) social dilemma considerations affect when and why the subjective experience aligns with the expression of affiliative behavior, (c) the interplay of the components of attraction explain the panoply of extant attraction phenomena, and (d) the attraction process operates in both initial interactions and enduring relationships. We conclude with a discussion of methodological and theoretical directions to fuel future growth.