...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of personality and social psychology >Panero et al. (2016): Failure to Replicate Methods Caused the Failure to Replicate Results
【24h】

Panero et al. (2016): Failure to Replicate Methods Caused the Failure to Replicate Results

机译:Panero等人。 (2016):未能复制方法导致未能复制结果

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Contrary to Kidd and Castano (2013), Panero et al. (2016) fail to find that reading literary fiction improves performance on an advanced test of theory of mind (ToM), the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test. However, this commentary shows that the findings presented in Panero et al. (2016) are not reliable due to two striking threats to the internal validity of their studies that were not clearly disclosed or discussed in the manuscript or supplementary materials. First, no effective strategy was implemented to ensure that participants read their assigned texts, and examination of the data revealed many participants whose reading times indicate that they were not exposed to the manipulation. Second, further examination shows that two of the largest studies contributing to Panero et al. (2016) are not valid experiments due to a clear failure of random assignment to conditions. These threats to experimental internal validity make the conclusions presented in Panero et al. (2016) untenable. After removing cases in which participants were not exposed to the manipulation and the data from the two studies without random assignment, an analysis reveals that reading literary fiction improves ToM compared to reading popular genre fiction. This result is consistent with prior studies and indicates that a failure to carefully replicate the methods of Kidd and Castano (2013) led to the failure to replicate Kidd and Castano's (2013) results. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
机译:与Kidd和Castano(2013年)相反,Panero等人。 (2016)未能发现阅读文学小说提高了对心灵理论的高级测试的性能(汤姆),在眼中的读物中读取心灵。然而,这项评论表明,在Panero等人中呈现的结果。 (2016年)由于在稿件或补充材料中没有明确披露或讨论的研究的内部有效性,这两个令人威胁是不可靠的。首先,没有实施有效的策略,以确保参与者读到其指定的文本,并对数据的审查显示许多参与者,其阅读时间表明它们没有暴露于操纵。其次,进一步检查表明,两项最大的研究有助于Panero等人。 (2016)由于随机分配对条件明确失败,不是有效的实验。这些对实验性内部有效性的威胁得出了Panero等人的结论。 (2016)伸手可食。除了在没有随机分配的情况下,除了从操纵中没有接触到操纵和数据的情况之后,与阅读流行的类型小说相比,读取文学小说的分析会提高读取文学小说。这一结果与先前的研究一致,并表明未能仔细复制基德和Castano(2013)的方法导致未能复制KIDD和CASTANO(2013)结果。本文档由美国心理协会或其联盟出版商的文档受版权保护。本文仅用于个人用户的个人使用,并且不得广泛传播。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号