Psychology

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/54

The Department of Psychology will provide a collaborative environment for innovation and scientific discovery in psychological science and for attainment of psychological literacy.

Browse

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5

Data from: The Nature of the Arguments for Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution [dataset]
(Montana State University ScholarWorks, 2017-02) Barnes, Ralph M.; Church, Rebecca A.; Draznin-Nagy, Samuel
Type and topic codes for each argument in our 72 source documents.
The effect of ad hominem attacks on the evaluation of claims promoted by scientists
(2018-01) Barnes, Ralph M.; Johnston, Heather M.; MacKenzie, Noah; Tobin, Stephanie J.; Taglang, Chelsea M.
Two experiments were conducted to determine the relative impact of direct and indirect (ad hominem) attacks on science claims. Four hundred and thirty-nine college students (Experiment 1) and 199 adults (Experiment 2) read a series of science claims and indicated their attitudes towards those claims. Each claim was paired with one of the following: A) a direct attack upon the empirical basis of the science claim B) an ad hominem attack on the scientist who made the claim or C) both. Results indicate that ad hominem attacks may have the same degree of impact as attacks on the empirical basis of the science claims, and that allegations of conflict of interest may be just as influential as allegations of outright fraud.
Identifying and clarifying arguments in a recent debate regarding measures based on memory-based methods
(2019-04) Barnes, Ralph M.
Two recent commentaries published in this journal argued against the usefulness of memory-based dietary assessment methods (M-BMs). A pair of responding commentaries disputed those negative claims regarding M-BMs and defended the usefulness of M-BMs. This article is intended to clarify the claims made in the four commentaries cited previously, identify the manner in which those claims have been supported, and suggest possible ways forward. In service of the goals of this article, I have identified the main arguments found in each of the four commentaries cited previously. I then partitioned each argument into two principle components: data and claim. I then identified the type of data used to support each claim. Finally, I have identified some of the potential reasons for the disagreements between the two parties and have suggested potential opportunities for progress on the issues at the heart of the controversy.
Replication Rate, Framing, and Format Affect Attitudes and Decisions about Science Claims
(Montana State University ScholarWorks, 2016-06) Barnes, Ralph M.; Tobin, Stephanie J.; Johnston, Heather M.; MacKenzie, Noah; Taglang, Chelsea M.
The data include attitude difference scores, choices, and demographic responses for individual participants. Associated article: Barnes RM, Tobin S J, Johnston HM, MacKenzie N, Taglang CM (2016) Replication Rate, Framing, and Format Affect Attitudes and Decisions about Science Claims. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01826
Replication Rate, Framing, and Format Affect Attitudes and Decisions about Science Claims
(2016-11) Barnes, Ralph M.; Tobin, Stephanie J.; Johnston, Heather M.; MacKenzie, Noah; Taglang, Chelsea M.
A series of five experiments examined how the evaluation of a scientific finding was influenced by information about the number of studies that had successfully replicated the initial finding. The experiments also tested the impact of frame (negative, positive) and numeric format (percentage, natural frequency) on the evaluation of scientific findings. In Experiments 1 through 4, an attitude difference score served as the dependent measure, while a measure of choice served as the dependent measure in Experiment 5. Results from a diverse sample of 188 non-institutionalized U.S. adults (Experiment 2) and 730 undergraduate college students (Experiments 1, 3, and 4) indicated that attitudes became more positive as the replication rate increased and attitudes were more positive when the replication information was framed positively. The results also indicate that the manner in which replication rate was framed had a greater impact on attitude than the replication rate itself. The large effect for frame was attenuated somewhat when information about replication was presented in the form of natural frequencies rather than percentages. A fifth study employing 662 undergraduate college students in a task in which choice served as the dependent measure confirmed the framing effect and replicated the replication rate effect in the positive frame condition, but provided no evidence that the use of natural frequencies diminished the effect.