Is the worldview of qualitative inquiry a proper guide for psychological research?

Qualitative methods are becoming increasingly popular in psychology. Although the distinction between qualitative and quantitative often is stated in terms of methods, the real distinction is between worldviews: that favored by most qualitative methodologists, which emphasizes subjective experience and multiple realities, and that commonly accepted in science. The worldview accepted by most adherents of qualitative inquiry suggests the exclusive use of methods that include verbal reports of lived experience. Qualitative methods serve an important function in psychology, but their use as recommended by their adherents is limited in 2 respects: The adherents use a narrow and unconventional approach to qualitative methods that differs from that normally understood, and they favor use of a restricted range of qualitative methods over other qualitative methods and quantitative methods. If qualitative inquiry is to make a greater contribution to psychology, researchers in that tradition must acquire a better understanding of contemporary science, correct their misunderstandings of the rationale for quantitative methods, and address the apparent limitations of their methods emphasizing reported experience.     

Does right-left prevalence occur for the Simon effect?

In four experiments, we investigated whether a right-left prevalence effect occurs for the Simon task, in which stimulus location is irrelevant, when the stimulus and the response sets vary along horizontal and vertical dimensions simultaneously. Simon effects were evident for both dimensions, and they were of similar magnitude, indicating no prevalence effect. Manipulations of the relative salience of the dimensions for the stimulus and the response sets resulted in a larger Simon effect for the more salient dimension than for the less salient one, but there was no overall prevalence effect. The results indicate that manipulations of salience affect the relative magnitudes of automatic response activation for the vertical and the horizontal dimensions but that the right-left prevalence effect is due to a coding bias in intentional response selection processes when stimulus location is relevant.     

The up-right/down-left advantage occurs for both participant- and computer-paced conditions: an empirical observation on Adam, Boon, Paas, and Umiltà (1998)

When up and down stimuli are mapped to left and right keypresses or "left" and "right" vocalizations in a 2-choice reaction task, performance is often better with the up-right/down-left mapping than with the opposite mapping. J. J. Adam, B. Boon, F. G. W. C. Paas, and C. Umiltà (1998) presented evidence that the up-right/down-left advantage is obtained when trials are participant paced but not when they are computer paced. In all, 3 experiments are reported that show no difference in magnitude of the up-right/down-left advantage between computer-paced and participant-paced conditions. The advantage was eliminated, however, in Experiment 3 when a response deadline was imposed. Response speed, rather than participant or computer pacing of trials, is crucial.     

Effect of an initiating action on the up-right/down-left advantage for vertically arrayed stimuli and horizontally arrayed responses

When up and down stimuli are mapped to left and right keypresses or "left" and "right" vocalizations in a 2-choice reaction task, performance is often better with the up-right/down-left mapping than with the opposite mapping. This study investigated whether performance is influenced by the type of initiating action. In all, 4 experiments showed the up-right/down-left advantage to be reduced when the participant's initiating action was a left response compared with when it was a right response. This reduction occurred when the initiating action and response were both keypresses, both were spoken location names, and one was a spoken location name and the other a keypress. The results are consistent with the view that the up-right/down-left advantage is due to asymmetry in coding the alternatives on each dimension, and a distinction between categorical and coordinate spatial codes seems to provide the best explanation of the advantage.     

Referential coding contributes to the horizontal SMARC effect

The present study tested whether coding of tone pitch relative to a referent contributes to the correspondence effect between the pitch height of an auditory stimulus and the location of a lateralized response. When left-right responses are mapped to high or low pitch tones, performance is better with the high-right/low-left mapping than with the opposite mapping, a phenomenon called the horizontal SMARC effect. However, when pitch height is task irrelevant, the horizontal SMARC effect occurs only for musicians. In Experiment 1, nonmusicians performed a pitch discrimination task, and the SMARC effect was evident regardless of whether a referent tone was presented. However, in Experiment 2, for a timbre-judgment task, nonmusicians showed a SMARC effect only when a referent tone was presented, whereas musicians showed a SMARC effect that did not interact with presence/absence of the referent. Dependence of the SMARC effect for nonmusicians on a reference tone was replicated in Experiment 3, in which judgments of the color of a visual stimulus were made in the presence of a concurrent high- or low-pitched pure tone. These results suggest that referential coding of pitch height is a key determinant for the horizontal SMARC effect when pitch height is irrelevant to the task.     

Conceptual response distance and intervening keys distinguish action goals in the Stroop color-identification task

In previous studies, a physical response-distance effect was found in the two-choice Stroop color-identification task, with the Stroop effect being larger when the two response keys were physically close together than when they were far apart. In the present study, we found a conceptual response-distance effect, with the Stroop effect being larger when the response keys were conceptually close (labeled as “5” and “6”) than when they were conceptually far (labeled as “1” and “9”). Moreover, a response-distance effect due to pure physical distance was not evident; rather, the effect was found only when additional keys were placed between the two far response keys. These results are in agreement with a view that response keys are coded as action goals, with farther conceptual distance and additional keys helping distinguish the action goals. The results are difficult to reconcile with accounts that place emphasis on the physical separation of the effectors or their inanimate extensions.     

Letting Go: Conceptualizing Intervention De‐implementation in Public Health and Social Service Settings

The discontinuation of interventions that should be stopped, or de‐implementation, has emerged as a novel line of inquiry within dissemination and implementation science. As this area grows in human services research, like public health and social work, theory is needed to help guide scientific endeavors. Given the infancy of de‐implementation, this conceptual narrative provides a definition and criteria for determining if an intervention should be de‐implemented. We identify three criteria for identifying interventions appropriate for de‐implementation: (a) interventions that are not effective or harmful, (b) interventions that are not the most effective or efficient to provide, and (c) interventions that are no longer necessary. Detailed, well‐documented examples illustrate each of the criteria. We describe de‐implementation frameworks, but also demonstrate how other existing implementation frameworks might be applied to de‐implementation research as a supplement. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of de‐implementation in the context of other stages of implementation, like sustainability and adoption; next steps for de‐implementation research, especially identifying interventions appropriate for de‐implementation in a systematic manner; and highlight special ethical considerations to advance the field of de‐implementation research.     

Spatial coding in two dimensions

There has been growing interest in exploring human performance for situations in which stimuli and/or responses vary along both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Earlier studies indicated that there is a prevalence of the horizontal dimension over the vertical dimension in the spatial codes that are used for response selection. We review evidence about spatial coding for 2-D stimulus—response sets and accounts that have been proposed for explaining how it takes place. Particular attention is devoted to the relative salience account, which provides the most comprehensive explanation of 2-D spatial coding. We also evaluate the influence of speed of spatial code formation, number of reference frames, and learning on subjects’ performance in 2-D tasks.