My vote: astounding and ridiculous, yes, but surprising, no. Scott--you've been reading too many articles in Psychological Science or JPSP and not enough in...well, certain other journals.
Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Specht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: astonishing Psy.D. dissertation Scott, I do share your concerns that there are some problems with design and potential interpretation of the results. But I doubt if any of our dissertations were "air-tight". Don't get me wrong, the design issues need to be addressed and any generalizations from this study would be, imho, tenuous at best. On the other hand, there are a significant number of "dissertations" from APA accredited Psy.D. programs which are not much more than extensive literature reviews or that may only involve only a couple survey instruments with relatively simple correlational analyses. Again, I am not defending these, but compared to that approach, I find at least an attempt at experimental manipulation encouraging. In addition, this individual seemed to be thinking outside the "baaa"ox. ;-) So I would say, problematic, "yes"; astounding and ridiculous "not". Cheers, -S On Jan 18, 2006, at 10:30 AM, Scott Lilienfeld wrote: > Just curious.... > > Am I the only TIPs member who finds it rather silly to conduct a > study that on attachment that: > > (1) relies exclusively on participants diagnosed with one of the most > poorly validated diagnoses in the DSM (reactive attachment disorder, > for which the validity evidence is very poor); > (2) attempts to measure changes in attachment among a group of > children with severe and lasting attachment deficits, who presumably > would be among the very children most resistant to short-term changes > in attachment; > (3) anticipates statistically (and presumably clinically) significant > changes in measured attachment behavior in children with severe and > lasting attachment deficits as a consequence of a single videotaped > presentation; > (4) relies exclusively on an independent variable that almost surely > exerts markedly multiple effects within and across participants (e.g., > empathy, disgust, curiosity, fascination), rendering negative (and > perhaps even positive) findngs difficult to interpret; > (5) relies on an independent variable that features both (a) the > birthing process itself and (b) modeling of parenting behavior with > children, rendering any positive findings difficult to interpret; > (6) relies on an independent variable that confounds two influences: > (a) the direct exposure of participants to cute animals with (b) the > direct witnessing of the birthing process in such animals, making it > impossible to determine whether any positive findings might be due to > (a), (b), or their interaction; and (7) relies solely on the birth of > an animal rather than a human as an independent variable yet uses > dependent measures that assess attachment to relationships with other > children, so that negative findings could readily be due to an absence > of generalization in attachment feelings across species? > > If so, I guess I'll just have to play the role of TIPS Grinch > today...... > > ....Scott > > > > Beth Benoit wrote: > >> I sent that info to a very bright student of mine who, with her >> husband, runs a farm with sheep and goats. I agree with her, and >> didn't find the paper to be ridiculous or astonishing at all. Below >> is an excerpt from her reply: >> >> Beth Benoit >> Granite State College >> Portsmouth NH >> >>> Do I take it that Scott Lilienfeld doubts the efficacy of the >>> experiment? Two years ago my neighbor brought her steadfastly >>> unattached >>> 21-year-old daughter to the farm to see the babies. They witnessed >>> twin >>> kids being born. The daughter promptly proposed to her boyfriend >>> and had a >>> baby. She says that seeing the birth and the mother goat's behavior >>> radically changed her feelings. Anecdotal but interesting. I'm a >>> firm >>> believer in animal behavior informing our own (for better and worse). >> >> >> >> --- >> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To unsubscribe send a blank email to >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. > Associate Professor Department of Psychology, Room 206 Emory University > 532 N. Kilgo Circle Atlanta, Georgia 30322 > > (404) 727-1125 (phone) > (404) 727-0372 (FAX) > > Home Page: http://www.emory.edu/PSYCH/Faculty/lilienfeld.html > > The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: > > www.srmhp.org > > > The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his > work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, > his education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual > passions. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his > vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide > whether he is working or playing. To him – he is always doing both. > > - Zen Buddhist text (slightly modified) > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ======================================================== Steven M. Specht, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Utica College Utica, NY 13502 (315) 792-3171 "Mice may be called large or small, and so may elephants, and it is quite understandable when someone says it was a large mouse that ran up the trunk of a small elephant" (S. S. Stevens, 1958) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
