Remarkably reproducible psychological (memory) phenomena in the classroom: some evidence for generality from small-N research.
Experimental design
History of psychology
Memory
NHST
Replication
Reproducibility
Small-N designs
Journal
BMC psychology
ISSN: 2050-7283
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101627676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Nov 2022
22 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
14
12
2021
accepted:
09
11
2022
entrez:
24
11
2022
pubmed:
25
11
2022
medline:
26
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mainstream psychology is experiencing a crisis of confidence. Many of the methodological solutions offered in response have focused largely on statistical alternatives to null hypothesis statistical testing, ignoring nonstatistical remedies that are readily available within psychology; namely, use of small-N designs. In fact, many classic memory studies that have passed the test of replicability used them. That methodological legacy warranted a retrospective look at nonexperimental data to explore the generality of the reported effects. Various classroom demonstrations were conducted over multiple semesters in introductory psychology courses with typical, mostly freshman students from a predominantly white private Catholic university in the US Midwest based on classic memory experiments on immediate memory span, chunking, and depth of processing. Students tended to remember 7 ± 2 digits, remembered more digits of π following an attached meaningful story, and remembered more words after elaborative rehearsal than after maintenance rehearsal. These results amount to replications under uncontrolled classroom environments of the classic experiments originally conducted largely outside of null hypothesis statistical testing frameworks. In light of the ongoing replication crisis in psychology, the results are remarkable and noteworthy, validating these historically important psychological findings. They are testament to the reliability of reproducible effects as the hallmark of empirical findings in science and suggest an alternative approach to commonly proffered solutions to the replication crisis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Mainstream psychology is experiencing a crisis of confidence. Many of the methodological solutions offered in response have focused largely on statistical alternatives to null hypothesis statistical testing, ignoring nonstatistical remedies that are readily available within psychology; namely, use of small-N designs. In fact, many classic memory studies that have passed the test of replicability used them. That methodological legacy warranted a retrospective look at nonexperimental data to explore the generality of the reported effects.
METHOD
METHODS
Various classroom demonstrations were conducted over multiple semesters in introductory psychology courses with typical, mostly freshman students from a predominantly white private Catholic university in the US Midwest based on classic memory experiments on immediate memory span, chunking, and depth of processing.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Students tended to remember 7 ± 2 digits, remembered more digits of π following an attached meaningful story, and remembered more words after elaborative rehearsal than after maintenance rehearsal. These results amount to replications under uncontrolled classroom environments of the classic experiments originally conducted largely outside of null hypothesis statistical testing frameworks.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In light of the ongoing replication crisis in psychology, the results are remarkable and noteworthy, validating these historically important psychological findings. They are testament to the reliability of reproducible effects as the hallmark of empirical findings in science and suggest an alternative approach to commonly proffered solutions to the replication crisis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36419180
doi: 10.1186/s40359-022-00982-7
pii: 10.1186/s40359-022-00982-7
pmc: PMC9685964
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
274Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Neuroscience. 2015 Jun 18;296:116-29
pubmed: 24880153
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015 Nov;10(6):886-99
pubmed: 26581743
PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124
pubmed: 16060722
Behav Anal. 1999 Fall;22(2):87-92
pubmed: 22478324
Behav Sci (Basel). 2017 Aug 14;7(3):
pubmed: 28805739
J Appl Behav Anal. 2020 Sep;53(4):2126-2138
pubmed: 32383784
Behav Modif. 2015 Jul;39(4):510-41
pubmed: 25878161
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Mar;100(3):407-25
pubmed: 21280961
J Exp Anal Behav. 2018 Sep;110(2):267-274
pubmed: 30047125
Am Psychol. 1968 Mar;23(3):149-157
pubmed: 4868396
Behav Anal. 1999 Fall;22(2):109-16
pubmed: 22478328
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):645-54
pubmed: 26168125
Front Psychol. 2021 Jun 22;12:696025
pubmed: 34239487
PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33423
pubmed: 22432019
Am Psychol. 2002 Jan;57(1):65-6
pubmed: 11885304
Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):81-97
pubmed: 13310704
Anim Cogn. 2015 Sep;18(5):1039-47
pubmed: 25964095
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):655-6
pubmed: 26168126
Science. 2011 Dec 9;334(6061):1427-30
pubmed: 22158823
Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Dec;19(6):975-91
pubmed: 23055145
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Dec;25(6):2083-2101
pubmed: 29557067
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2014 Jan;9(1):40-8
pubmed: 26173239
BMC Psychol. 2016 Jun 01;4(1):30
pubmed: 27251381
J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Jan;71(1):91-113
pubmed: 10028693
Front Psychol. 2016 Jun 17;7:934
pubmed: 27379004
J Exp Anal Behav. 2021 Jan;115(1):115-128
pubmed: 33336404
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):178-206
pubmed: 28176294
Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Feb;24(1):87-114; discussion 114-85
pubmed: 11515286
Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2015 Sep;49(3):323-49
pubmed: 25876996
Am Psychol. 2016 Apr;71(3):236-7
pubmed: 27042884
Am J Psychol. 1953 Jul;66(3):421-35
pubmed: 13080478
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2014 Jan;9(1):49-58
pubmed: 26173240
Psychol Methods. 2000 Jun;5(2):241-301
pubmed: 10937333
Behav Brain Sci. 2018 Jan;41:e141
pubmed: 31064541
Psychol Sci. 2011 Nov;22(11):1359-66
pubmed: 22006061
J Exp Anal Behav. 2021 Jan;115(1):44-55
pubmed: 33185276
Behav Brain Sci. 2018 Jan;41:e127
pubmed: 31064540
Psychol Bull. 1960 Sep;57:416-28
pubmed: 13744252
Am Psychol. 2015 Sep;70(6):527-42
pubmed: 26348335
J Physiol. 2021 Jun;599(11):2989-2990
pubmed: 33963767
Science. 1969 Oct 10;166(3902):245-7
pubmed: 5809598
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 06;10(7):e0120644
pubmed: 26148023
Psychol Bull. 1965 Jul;64:74-9
pubmed: 14346306
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):528-30
pubmed: 26168108
J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jan;23(1):141-7
pubmed: 1117247
Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 01;6:341
pubmed: 25883574
Psychol Sci. 2014 Jan;25(1):7-29
pubmed: 24220629
Am J Psychol. 1954 Dec;67(4):573-89
pubmed: 13228721
J Exp Anal Behav. 2021 Jan;115(1):102-114
pubmed: 33330993
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Nov;37(11):1371-1381
pubmed: 31531833
J Am Coll Health. 2019 Apr;67(3):181-188
pubmed: 29952723
Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Oct;14(5):779-804
pubmed: 18087943