Hi,
I have been asked to teach baby Stats (again) for psychology at a school where my teacher evaluations have been generally decent but the faculty evaluator, who looks at our course materials, does not like my choice of book. I use Bluman Brief Edition (4th) which is not a "Psych Stats" book. The examples and practice problems (of which there are a lot, that's why I like the book) cover a variety of social, educational, criminal justice and business applications...there are a few pure psych problems mixed in, not many. The course includes lecture time (during which I teach concepts and lots of by hand-solving of problems) and an SPSS lab. I would like to keep my job at this CSU (a concern in our current budget environment), but I am reluctant to part with my book. I like it. Other "stats for psych" books I've used have had far fewer practice problems available and emphasize "teaching the concepts". I hate that. I know I can supply my own problems but I was hoping that someone out there knows of a "stats for psych" book that at least provides a balance between conceptual understanding and teaching students to grasp and perform the processes of statistical calculation with lots of real practice problems, related to psych and the social sciences closely allied to it. Before I go through the nuisance of doing this and having to learn someone else's way of doing some of the procedures (every book has a few of its own idiosyncratic presentations of formulae), I thought I might at least find a book, with your help, that provides a decent number of practice problems. PS. I don't want to discuss whether teaching the hand calculations is necessary. I could never learn mathematics by reading descriptions of how to do it. Before they learn SPSS, they need to learn at least a very basic version of what SPSS does. It's like teaching someone to use a calculator without teaching them to add, subtract, multiply etc. with his or her own brain first. Thanks for your help - and have a good weekend too. Nancy Melucci Long Beach CIty College Long Beach CA -----Original Message----- From: Gerald Peterson <[email protected]> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:12 pm Subject: Re: [tips] Seligman's Explanatory Style ould his ideas constitute a model, a formal theory, a moderator variable, a heoretical line of research, or in other words, just a theoretical idea? I ust teach undergrads about features of formal scientific theories, but they oon find that anything passes for theory in psych textbooks and journals, and uthors research various principles, effects, etc., without necessarily seeking he explanatory prowess of a developed theory. Learned helplessness in animals an be shown, but indeed, the human equivalent seems linked to styles/habits of ttribution while its causal involvement in producing such experiences remains oot. It may be more relevant when covering cognitive therapies for these undamentally neurobiological disorders. I enjoy mentioning the attributional tyle ideas when covering issues in adjustment, abnormal, etc., but am not onvinced it deserves more than a gleeful mention allowing me to express my ocial-cognitive biases. erald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. rofessor, Department of Psychology aginaw Valley State University niversity Center, MI 48710 89-964-4491 [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- rom: "Scott O Lilienfeld" <[email protected]> o: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> ent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:07:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern ubject: RE: [tips] Seligman's Explanatory Style Gary et al.: Seligman's attributional model has been presented and tested in any peer review articles over the past three decades, e.g., Abrahamson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned elplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal sychology, 87, 49–74. (just noticed that this article has been cited a whopping 4181 times ccording to Google Scholar). In dozens of published studies, the stability and globality attributional imensions have held up well as correlates of depression, the internality imension somewhat less so (although admittedly I haven't tracked this iterature all that closely of late). There is, as Gary notes, lively debate bout causal directionality. Lauren Alloy and others have conducted ongitudinal studies of these dimensions as predictors of depression in high isk samples; such studies may strengthen the argument for causal irectionality, although of course they do not demonstrate it definitively given he inherent logical problem with post-hoc ergo hoc conclusions. ...Scott cott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. rofessor ditor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice epartment of Psychology, Room 473 Psychology and Interdisciplinary Sciences PAIS) mory University 6 Eagle Row tlanta, Georgia 30322 [email protected] 404) 727-1125 Psychology Today Blog: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: ttp://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513111X.html Scientific American Mind: Facts and Fictions in Mental Health Column: ttp://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/ The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and is play, is labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his ecreation, is love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which is which. e simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, eaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. o him – he is always doing both. - Zen Buddhist text (slightly modified) -----Original Message----- rom: Gerald Peterson [mailto:[email protected]] ent: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:52 PM o: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) ubject: Re: [tips] Seligman's Explanatory Style es, I like some of his ideas but is his "theory" presented in peer-reviewed ournals or just in his popular books? Does he spell out clear explanations or s he merely describing what he thinks is an important moderating factor namely, ttribution or post-event thinking? While such attributional processes are nteresting, I think even he has noted (with actual research citations) that it oes not really predict well depression or similar problems. Most likely this ttribution process is promoted by the proneness to depression. Just wonderin' ary erald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. rofessor, Department of Psychology aginaw Valley State University niversity Center, MI 48710 89-964-4491 [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- rom: "Beth Benoit" <[email protected]> o: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> ent: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:32:46 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern ubject: Re: [tips] Seligman's Explanatory Style It's a favorite of mine too. I always cover it in just about every class. I even anage to sneak it into my Psychology of Love and Sex class. (Use your magination for the example I use in that class!) I think it gives students a orld of information about looking at behavioral explanations for depression. I ntroduce the basic concept of learned helplessness, then the negative xplanatory style. I'm attaching the PowerPoint slides I made to use when xplaining the "IGS" (internal, global, stable) explanatory style. Feel free to se it. The example I usually use to go through the points is, "You applied for job, but didn't get it. How will you explain to yourself why you didn't get he job?" eth Benoit ranite State College lymouth State University ew Hampshire n Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Britt, Michael < [email protected] wrote: ne of my favorite theories (which has now found a home in the "positive sychology" movement) is Seligman's ideas regarding the effects of your xplanatory style (especially in your reaction to negative events) on your mood. n the early days he talked about a negative style as one that is Internal ("I'm tupid!"), Stable ("I'll never get this!") and Global ("I'm going to fail at ther things as well!"). Recently in his more popular books I see that he has hanged these terms to Personal, Persistent and Pervasive. Whatever you call hem, I rather like the whole theory and certainly think it's worth teaching at he introductory level. I checked a couple of intro books and to my surprise I ound very little in-depth coverage of these ideas. I found explanatory style overed briefly in the Personality chapter, and then in the Stress chapters of wo other intro books. Too bad - for such a useful theory. Why do you think it oesn't get more exposure? Too much material to cover in one book I suppose. Michael Michael Britt [email protected] ww.thepsychfiles.com -- o make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ( [email protected] ) --- o make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- o make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of he intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged nformation. If the reader of this message is not the intended ecipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution r copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly rohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact he sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the riginal message (including attachments). --- o make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- o make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
