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.     

How expert witnesses' counterfactuals influence causal and responsibility attributions of mock jurors and expert judges

Past research has shown that counterfactual (“If…then…”) thoughts influence causal and responsibility attribution in the judicial context. However, little is known on whether and how the use of counterfactuals in communication affects lay jurors' and judges' evaluations. In two studies, we asked mock lay jurors (Study 1) and actual judges (Study 2) to read a medical malpractice case followed by an expert witness report, which included counterfactuals focused on either the physician, the patient, or external factors. Results showed that counterfactual focus had a strong effect on both lay jurors' and judges' causal and responsibility attributions. Counterfactual focus also moderated the effect of outcome foreseeability on responsibility attribution. Discussion focuses on how counterfactual communication can direct causal and responsibility attribution and reduce the importance of other factors known to influence judicial decision‐making. The potential implications of these findings in training programs and debiasing interventions are also discussed.     

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.     

Ethical Decision Making in Autonomous Vehicles: The AV Ethics Project

Science and Engineering Ethics - The ethics of autonomous vehicles (AV) has received a great amount of attention in recent years, specifically in regard to their decisional policies in accident...     

Use of the Beck Scale for suicide ideation with psychiatric inpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia,schizoaffective, or bipolar disorders

To ascertain how useful the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (BSI; Beck & Steer, Manual for Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (1991)) would be for assessing the severity of suicidal ideation in patients who were diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or bipolar disorders, 142 inpatients were asked to complete the BSI. Eight (6%) patients refused, and four patients (3%) were unable to complete the BSI because they were unable to concentrate. Of the 130 patients who completed the BSI, 53 (41%) had schizoaffective, 37 (28%) had paranoid schizophrenia, 30 (23%) had manic bipolar, and 10 (8%) had depressed bipolar disorders. The coefficient alpha for the BSI was .96, and its one-week test-retest reliability for a subsample of 15 inpatients was 0.88, p < 0.001. The BSI total scores were positively correlated with having ever attempted suicide, r = 0.46, p < 0.001. According to the BSI, 36 (28%) patients were classified as current suicide ideators. The results were discussed as supporting the use of the BSI with inpatients who are diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or bipolar disorders.     

Conceptual structure and social functions of behavior explanations: beyond person--situation attributions

The traditional approach to studying behavior explanations involves treating them as either person causes or situation causes and assessing them by using rating scales. An analysis of people's free-response behavior explanations reveals, however, that the conceptual distinctions people use in their explanations are more complex and sophisticated than the person-situation dichotomy suggests. The authors, therefore, introduce a model of the conceptual structure of folk behavior explanations (the network of concepts and assumptions on which explanations are based) and test it in 4 studies. The modes and features of behavior explanations within this conceptual structure also have specific social functions. In 2 additional studies, the authors demonstrate that people alter distinct features of their explanations when pursuing particular impression-management goals and that listeners make inferences about explainers' goals on the basis of these features.