Scott's concern is similar to a running argument that a colleague
and I have had for a long time on the importance of main effects
vs. interaction effects. He maintains that interaction effects
are more important because they show differential effects and
what we are interested in are variables that produce differences
among people. My reply is that we should be investigating
variables that affect all people, first, and thus an interaction
may be interesting but the main effect may be more important.
Ken
Lilienfeld, Scott O wrote:
This study, which I haven’t read, raises another question (in addition
to the correlation-causation question) that I always find interesting to
ponder…when does detecting an effect in one group (e.g.,
African-Americans) but not another (e.g., Hispanics) constitute a
legitimate statistical interaction vs. a failed replication? And is the
author justified in interpreting it as the former rather than latter, as
he seems to be? It’s something I struggle with, and I’d be curious to
hear others’ thoughts. ….Scott
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Professor
Editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice
Department of Psychology, Room 473 Psychology and Interdisciplinary
Sciences (PAIS)
Emory University
36 Eagle Row
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
[email protected]
(404) 727-1125
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [email protected]
Professor
Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3099
or send a blank email to
leave-3099-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
