Comments on: I Find Your Lack Of Theory (And Replications) Disturbing http://popsych.org/i-find-your-lack-of-theory-and-replications-disturbing/ The Internet's Best Evolutionary Psycholo-guy Wed, 03 Jan 2018 01:05:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Welcome To Introduction To Psychology | Pop Psychology http://popsych.org/i-find-your-lack-of-theory-and-replications-disturbing/#comment-826 Welcome To Introduction To Psychology | Pop Psychology Sat, 11 May 2013 05:19:37 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1848#comment-826 [...] Post navigation ← Previous [...] [...] Post navigation ← Previous [...]

]]> By: Jeff Sherman http://popsych.org/i-find-your-lack-of-theory-and-replications-disturbing/#comment-823 Jeff Sherman Fri, 03 May 2013 19:04:00 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1848#comment-823 At the heart of it, all theories of all kinds of priming are functional in nature. There are learning functions, adaptational functions to approach good and avoid bad things, social functions, and more. If you want more detail than that, you'll have to read the work yourself. Good luck with the move. At the heart of it, all theories of all kinds of priming are functional in nature. There are learning functions, adaptational functions to approach good and avoid bad things, social functions, and more. If you want more detail than that, you’ll have to read the work yourself. Good luck with the move.

]]> By: Jesse Marczyk http://popsych.org/i-find-your-lack-of-theory-and-replications-disturbing/#comment-822 Jesse Marczyk Fri, 03 May 2013 18:37:02 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1848#comment-822 I don't have to the time to read through all the sources at the moment, as I'm currently in the process of moving. From the research I've seen, they have not made any use of any functional theory to guide the research. One quote that stood out to me in particular was the following: <blockquote> "<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763379/" rel="nofollow">our empirical knowledge has outstripped our ability to understand and conceptualize just what is going on here—what exactly is being primed, and how are these impressive effects produced?</a>"</blockquote> That doesn't strike me as theory-driven. That strikes me as description masquerading as theory. If you wouldn't mind summarizing the relevant theory you think I'm missing, I'd be happy to consider it. I don’t have to the time to read through all the sources at the moment, as I’m currently in the process of moving. From the research I’ve seen, they have not made any use of any functional theory to guide the research. One quote that stood out to me in particular was the following:

“our empirical knowledge has outstripped our ability to understand and conceptualize just what is going on here—what exactly is being primed, and how are these impressive effects produced?“

That doesn’t strike me as theory-driven. That strikes me as description masquerading as theory. If you wouldn’t mind summarizing the relevant theory you think I’m missing, I’d be happy to consider it.

]]> By: Jeff Sherman http://popsych.org/i-find-your-lack-of-theory-and-replications-disturbing/#comment-821 Jeff Sherman Fri, 03 May 2013 17:57:22 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1848#comment-821 Well, have you read those papers I cited (not to mention the original Dijksterhuis paper)? That is precisely what some of them attempt to do. Your charge that the research is atheoretical seems to primarily reflect your lack of familiarity with the research. Well, have you read those papers I cited (not to mention the original Dijksterhuis paper)? That is precisely what some of them attempt to do. Your charge that the research is atheoretical seems to primarily reflect your lack of familiarity with the research.

]]> By: Jesse Marczyk http://popsych.org/i-find-your-lack-of-theory-and-replications-disturbing/#comment-820 Jesse Marczyk Fri, 03 May 2013 17:50:47 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1848#comment-820 No; you don't need a distinct mechanism, but you do need to explain how multiple mechanisms interact to produce the effect. There needs to be explanation as to why some mechanisms should be expected to be sensitive to certain inputs and why those mechanisms should be expected to generate the output you're trying to explain. For instance, there need not be a distinct mechanism for generating a placebo effect, but you need to explain why and how that outcome is plausible with reference to different functional pieces. This is a good example: http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2012/09/the-health-governor/ No; you don’t need a distinct mechanism, but you do need to explain how multiple mechanisms interact to produce the effect. There needs to be explanation as to why some mechanisms should be expected to be sensitive to certain inputs and why those mechanisms should be expected to generate the output you’re trying to explain. For instance, there need not be a distinct mechanism for generating a placebo effect, but you need to explain why and how that outcome is plausible with reference to different functional pieces. This is a good example: http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2012/09/the-health-governor/

]]> By: Jeff Sherman http://popsych.org/i-find-your-lack-of-theory-and-replications-disturbing/#comment-819 Jeff Sherman Fri, 03 May 2013 17:22:35 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1848#comment-819 The important point raised in some of the theoretical pieces I cited is that you may not need distinct mechanisms to account for the varied influences of primed, free-floating knowledge on a wide array of behaviors. In my opinion, the onus is on those who would argue that some kinds of priming effects are to be expected and others not. The important point raised in some of the theoretical pieces I cited is that you may not need distinct mechanisms to account for the varied influences of primed, free-floating knowledge on a wide array of behaviors.

In my opinion, the onus is on those who would argue that some kinds of priming effects are to be expected and others not.

]]> By: Jesse Marczyk http://popsych.org/i-find-your-lack-of-theory-and-replications-disturbing/#comment-818 Jesse Marczyk Fri, 03 May 2013 16:29:19 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1848#comment-818 It's less a question of what behaviors could be primed and more to do with lack of discussion about tradeoffs. If some otherwise important skill, like, say, intelligence (however you conceptualize that), can be improved on the basis of thinking about a professor, it raises the question of why that prime is necessary in the first place. Without that consideration, priming becomes a "getting something for free" type of explanation. An association between bread and butter is a different kind of explanation than suddenly getting smarter on the basis of hearing a word (or some similar stimulus). For example, why would the phrase "you're about to take a general knowledge test" not activate the relevant cognitive mechanisms that thinking about a professor would? These answers are missing from what I've seen. And no, we don't know whether the failed replication attempts are anymore real than the published one. They do, however, pose a discrepancy that needs resolution. I consider the stereotype threat failure to replicate important because of the tremendous sample size used. If the effect is there to be found, it should have showed up in the near 1,000 subjects. If it didn't, there's some explaining to do as to why. It’s less a question of what behaviors could be primed and more to do with lack of discussion about tradeoffs. If some otherwise important skill, like, say, intelligence (however you conceptualize that), can be improved on the basis of thinking about a professor, it raises the question of why that prime is necessary in the first place. Without that consideration, priming becomes a “getting something for free” type of explanation. An association between bread and butter is a different kind of explanation than suddenly getting smarter on the basis of hearing a word (or some similar stimulus). For example, why would the phrase “you’re about to take a general knowledge test” not activate the relevant cognitive mechanisms that thinking about a professor would? These answers are missing from what I’ve seen.

And no, we don’t know whether the failed replication attempts are anymore real than the published one. They do, however, pose a discrepancy that needs resolution. I consider the stereotype threat failure to replicate important because of the tremendous sample size used. If the effect is there to be found, it should have showed up in the near 1,000 subjects. If it didn’t, there’s some explaining to do as to why.

]]> By: Jeff Sherman http://popsych.org/i-find-your-lack-of-theory-and-replications-disturbing/#comment-817 Jeff Sherman Fri, 03 May 2013 16:14:04 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=1848#comment-817 There are a number of active and competing theories designed to explain these and other priming effects. Below is a small sampling. Of course, there are many models attempting to explain more mundane priming effects (e.g., bread-butter), including a variety of formalized models that I won't bother to cite here. An interesting theoretical question for you to consider is what kinds of behaviors you would and would not expect to be prime-able, and why. Priming the behavior of identifying and responding to "butter" appears mundane to most observers. What about priming a trait that influences impressions of other people? Plenty of data on that. What about primes that influence more molar behavior (e.g., how fast you walk, how well you perform a knowledge test). Is there a theoretical basis for expecting some kinds of behaviors to be prime-able but not others? Where is the demarcation point? Finally, I find your treatment of failed replications unfortunate. We do not know if failed replications are more "real" than the original data. The kinds of effects we study are generally not Real or False. Rather, hopefully, we will eventually arrive at some consensus as to the robustness and effect size of different effects. Stereotype threat is one of the most highly and independently replicated phenomena in all of psychology. I find it odd that you should consider one failed replication to outweigh all of those successful replications. Bargh, J.A. (2006). Agenda 2006: What have we been priming all these years? On the development, mechanisms, and ecology of nonconscious social behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 147–168. Cesario, J., Plaks, J.E., & Higgins, E.T. (2006). Automatic social behavior as motivated preparation to interact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 893–910. Loersch, C., & Payne, B.K. (2011). The situated inference model: An integrative account of the effects of primes on perception, behavior, and motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 234-252. Higgins, E.T. (1996). Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford. Schröder, T., & Thagard, P. (2013). The affective meanings of automatic social behaviors: Three mechanisms that explain priming. Psychological Review, 120, 255-280. Wheeler, S.C., DeMarree, K.G.,&Petty, R.E. (2007). Understanding the role of the self in prime-to-behavior effects: The active self account. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 234–261. There are a number of active and competing theories designed to explain these and other priming effects. Below is a small sampling. Of course, there are many models attempting to explain more mundane priming effects (e.g., bread-butter), including a variety of formalized models that I won’t bother to cite here.

An interesting theoretical question for you to consider is what kinds of behaviors you would and would not expect to be prime-able, and why. Priming the behavior of identifying and responding to “butter” appears mundane to most observers. What about priming a trait that influences impressions of other people? Plenty of data on that. What about primes that influence more molar behavior (e.g., how fast you walk, how well you perform a knowledge test). Is there a theoretical basis for expecting some kinds of behaviors to be prime-able but not others? Where is the demarcation point?

Finally, I find your treatment of failed replications unfortunate. We do not know if failed replications are more “real” than the original data. The kinds of effects we study are generally not Real or False. Rather, hopefully, we will eventually arrive at some consensus as to the robustness and effect size of different effects. Stereotype threat is one of the most highly and independently replicated phenomena in all of psychology. I find it odd that you should consider one failed replication to outweigh all of those successful replications.

Bargh, J.A. (2006). Agenda 2006: What have we been priming all these years? On the development, mechanisms, and ecology of nonconscious social behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 147–168.

Cesario, J., Plaks, J.E., & Higgins, E.T. (2006). Automatic social behavior as motivated preparation to interact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 893–910.

Loersch, C., & Payne, B.K. (2011). The situated inference model: An integrative account of the effects of primes on perception, behavior, and motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 234-252.

Higgins, E.T. (1996). Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford.

Schröder, T., & Thagard, P. (2013). The affective meanings of automatic social behaviors: Three mechanisms that explain priming. Psychological Review, 120, 255-280.

Wheeler, S.C., DeMarree, K.G.,&Petty, R.E. (2007). Understanding the role of the self in prime-to-behavior effects: The active self account. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 234–261.

]]>