How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk List Price: $16.00 Price: $7.99 Read Reviews

Interview with Adele Faber on Parenting by thepsychfiles

Links for Adele Faber

• Episode 135: Adele Faber Interview on Parenting (Part 1)
• Episode 136: Adele Faber Interview on Parenting (Part 2)
• the Faber Mazlish Website

Resources on the Controversy of Daryl Bem’s Psi Phenomenon Research

Below is a concept map with loads of resources on this topic. You can also click on this link to see this map on Bem’s research.

Click the image above to open the map in a new window

• Retraction Watch
• Psi Your Mind?
• More Bem Fallout
• False Positive Psychoogy
• Richard Wiseman on Bem
• Joseph P. Simmons, Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (2011).
  False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection
  and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant
  Psychological Science October 2011

Resources for this Episode

• Here’s the ThingLink homepage
• The link to my interactive neuron
• Wikimedia Commons: where you can find all kinds of public domain images

How to Contact Nathalie Nahai

• Check out The Web Psychologist website
• Contact Nathalie on Twitter

Psychological Theories Discussed in this Episode

• Social Norms: behaviors that society expects of everyone. Examples: being quiet in the library or bookstore, saying thank you when someone holds the door for you, holding the door for the next person, etc.
• Social Roles: behaviors expected from you when you’re in a predefined role. Examples: “students” are respectful of teachers and they hold up their hands when they have a question.
• Group Polarization: the tendency for a group, after a discussion, to hold a more extreme attitude than any individuals might have held prior to a discussion. This may happen because during discussion, members of the group provide several reasons for why the group should have a certain position, and this convinces group members of the “rightness” of their attitudes.

Resources for this Episode

• Thank you to This Week in Technology for allowing me to take excerpt from episode 339, Somewhere Between Murder And A Messy Room
• One of the co-hosts on this episode was Baratunde Thurston
• The other co-host was Brian Brushwood
• The TED talks episode I excerpted is from a talk by Eli Pariser: Beware online “filter bubbles”

As web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, there’s a dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a “filter bubble” and don’t get exposed to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview. Eli Pariser argues powerfully that this will ultimately prove to be bad for us and bad for democracy.

Types of Test Validity

• Face Validity: does the test measure what it appears to measure? The Distorted Tunes test has high face validity, i.e., it’s pretty obvious what the test is measuring. The Rorshach, on the other hand, has low face validity: it’s not all clear to the test-taker what the test is measuring. Sometimes you want low face validity. If you think people won’t tell the truth, or that they really don’t know what their personality is like, or you’re afraid of the Social Desirability effect (people will give you responses that make them look good) then you might want to use a projective test like the Rorshach or the Thematic Apperception test (TAT).
• Concurrent validity: do the results of the test agree with other aspects of the person’s current life? If, for example, the results of an achievement test indicate that you have a high achieving personality, then you should probably have high grades in school or you should make a good deal of money in your job. The test should correlate in a predictable way with data this is currently available from you.
• Predictive validity: do the results of the test predict some future state of your life? If the test says you’re a high achiever, then 10 years from now you should probably be making good money in your job. If the test says you have high musical ability, then 10 years from now you might likely be employed in some way in the music industry.
• Convergent validity: your test results should agree with other tests that measure similar concepts (or constructs as we often call them in psychology). Example: high achievers are probably outgoing people, so if you score highly on an achievement personality test then you should probably also score highly on a test of extroversion.
• Divergent validty: your test results should disagree (or not correlate at all) with tests that have nothing to do with the concept the test measures. An achievement-orientation test, for example, probably shouldn’t correlate at all with a test of whether or not you are a “trusting” person. The two ideas really don’t have much to do with one another. Achievement-orientation might, however, correlate negatively (diverge) with a test of your tendency to avoid conflict. High achievers probably don’t avoid conflict – in face, they may enjoy it.

Resources on Personality and Validty

• Miserandino, M. (2006). “I Scream, You Scream: Teaching Validity and Reliability Via the Ice Cream Personality Test.” Teaching Psychology. 33(4), 265-68.
• Dr. Marianne Miserandino’s homepage at Arcadia University
• If you’re interested in personality, then you should sign up for Dr. Miserandino’s Personality Pedagogy newsletter.
• The ice cream personality test
• The Distorted Tunes test
• The What is Reliability page on psychology.about.com lists a few more types of test reliability.

In this episode we take a look at the first thing you should demand from any test – reliability. If you’re interested in psychology you are going to learn A LOT about the different kinds of reliability.

Types of Test Reliability

• Test-Retest reliability: people should get about the same score every time they take your test. You can’t score highly on an introversion scale one week and then low the next week (well, you could, but then we’d know that the test is no good).
• Split-Half reliability: if your test had 20 questions (and was measuring just one concept, like shyness) and we correlated the odd questions with the even ones we should get a high positive correlation.
• Alternate Form reliability: in this scenario, psychologists create two questionnaires, both of which measure the same concept (again, such as shyness). We give you one form one week and the other form a week (or month) later. You should score about the same on both forms.

Resources on Personality and Reliability

• Miserandino, M. (2006). “I Scream, You Scream: Teaching Validity and Reliability Via the Ice Cream Personality Test.” Teaching Psychology. 33(4), 265-68.
• Dr. Marianne Miserandino’s homepage at Arcadia University
• If you’re interested in personality, then you should sign up for Dr. Miserandino’s Personality Pedagogy newsletter.
• The ice cream personality test
• The Distorted Tunes test
• The What is Reliability page on psychology.about.com lists a few more types of test reliability.

Here’s the video of the crow having fun (?):