A direct replication: Unconscious arithmetic processing

Across two experiments involving four presentation times in total, Sklar et al. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 2012, 19614) found that complex subtraction equations can be solved without awareness of the equations. These findings challenge the current position that consciousness is necessary for performing abstract, rule-following tasks. Given the important implications of their work, we aimed to directly replicate Sklar's findings using a larger sample (n = 94) from a different population. Using continuous flash suppression, we investigated if people were able to solve an equation after subliminal (1,300 ms) exposure to it. We found evidence of unconscious subtraction consistent with Sklar et al., albeit the effect is weak. Critical review of our results and implications for further research are discussed.     

WHEN IS A FAILURE TO REPLICATE NOT A TYPE II ERROR?

Zentall and Singer (2007) challenge our conclusion that the work-ethic effect reported by Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000) may have been a Type I error by arguing that (a) the effect has been extensively replicated and (b) the amount of overtraining our pigeons received may not have been sufficient to produce it. We believe that our conclusion is warranted because (a) the original effect has not been replicated despite multiple attempts to do so and (b) the statement that more extended overtraining may be needed itself suggests that the original effect is not reliable.     

“Other” behavior and the DRO: The roles of extinction and reinforcement

Jessel et al. (2015) provided some evidence to suggest that “other” behavior is strengthened in the differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO). The present study is a systematic replication of the Jessel et al. procedures. The effects of DRO and extinction on target responding, target-other responding (a response with an established history of reinforcement), and nontarget-other responding emitted by children with intellectual and developmental disabilities and children with no known diagnoses were compared. Other behavior increased in at least one DRO condition for each participant, suggesting that other behavior increases when using DRO, at least initially. Under extinction, target responding and target-other responding decreased to low rates for three of the five participants; however, rates of nontarget-other responding were elevated compared to the DRO condition. These results suggest that increased rates of target-other responding and nontarget-other responding during the DRO condition may be a result of extinction-induced variability.     

心理学研究的可重复性“危机”:一些积极应对策略

研究结果的可重复性不高是目前心理学研究面临的一个较为普遍的现象,造成这种情况不仅是由于人类心理与行为的复杂性及实验操作、环境等无关变量的影响,排除个别学术不端行为,许多研究者偏差性的操作也是影响可重复性的重要原因。由于一些偏差性操作可能已经被当成研究惯例,因而有必要明确具体操作来源并据此提出解决策略,为促进心理学界关于研究程序、数据分析、结果呈现等操作惯例的转变提供参照。     

The verifiability approach to deception detection: A preregistered direct replication of the information protocol condition of Nahari,Vrij, and Fisher (2014b)

Nahari, Vrij, and Fischer [(2014b), Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 122–128] found that, when participants were forewarned that their statements would be checked for verifiable details, truth tellers gave much more verifiable details than liars. In this direct replication (n = 72), participants wrote a statement claiming they had carried out their regular campus activities, whereas liars had actually stolen an exam. Statements were coded for verifiable details. Our primary prediction was confirmed: Truth tellers provided significantly more verifiable details than liars. Of note, the replication effect size (d = 0.49) was less than half that of the original (d = 1.14), and – like in the original study – was smaller than the lie‐truth effect size for total details (verifiable and unverifiable details combined; d = 0.80). We hope this will stimulate other independent investigations of VA to tell whether or not coding for verifiability will pass Ockham's razor test.     

Out with .05, in with Replication and Measurement: Isolating and Working with the Particular Effect Sizes that are Troublesome for Inferential Statistics

It is difficult to obtain adequate power to test a small effect size with a set criterion alpha of 0.05. Probably an inferential test will indicate non-statistical significance and not be published. Rarely, statistical significance will be obtained, and an exaggerated effect size calculated and reported. Accepting all inferential probabilities and associated effect sizes could solve exaggeration problems. Graphs, generated through Monte Carlo methods, are presented to illustrate this. The first graph presents effect sizes (Cohen's d) as lines from 1 to 0 with probabilities on the Y axis and the number of measures on the X axis. This graph shows effect sizes of .5 or less should yield non-significance with sample sizes below 120 measures. The other graphs show results with as many as 10 small sample size replications. There is a convergence of means with the effect size as sample size increases and measurement accuracy emerges.     

MCM蛋白与肿瘤

微小染色体维持蛋白(MCM)是真核生物DNA复制的主要调控因子,在DNA复制的起始和延伸过程中有重要作用,在每个细胞周期中仅发生一次,是标志细胞增殖活性的新指标,对于肿瘤的诊断及预后判断有重要意义。     

On science and the discriminative law of effect

This article considers the process of the dissemination of scientific findings from the point of view of the discriminative law of effect. We assume that the purpose of science is to describe the state of the world in an unbiased and accurate manner. We then consider a number of challenges to the unbiased consensual development of science that arise from differences between science that is done, submitted for publication, and published. These challenges arise from the differential reinforcers for both research and publication delivered by journals and editors for novel results, the undervaluation of systematic replication and findings of invariance, and general lack of reinforcers for failed replications. All these challenges bias science toward searching for, reporting, and valuing novel results and consequently lead to a biased and erroneous view of the world. We suggest that science should be approached more conservatively, and that a reevaluation of the value of replication, and especially failed replication, is in order.