> This is a perfect demonstration of cognitive dissonance: when
> research findings are not consistent with our preconceptions, we
> go over the findings with a fine tooth comb to find some detail
> that might possibly explain the results so that we don't have to
> change our preconceptions. Random assignment is going to minimize
> the between group attrition you're worried about here. And even if
> you can convince yourself that the possible confound of attrition
> is a fatal flaw in this study, get out your reading glasses--you
> have a few hundred other research findings in social psychology
> with similar research results to find fatal flaws in. Let's see--
> which is more plausible: hundreds of studies that converge on
> the conclusion that humans are motivated by cognitive
> consistency, or the idea that all these studies are flawed in
> some way or other?
That's not going to fly. The mechanism I outlined systematically selects out some individuals from the low reward group (the ones who found the task least enjoyable). If studies to independently confirm the results follow the same methodology (ignore the people who "tell the truth"), they will get the same bogus confirmations for the same reasons. "Random assignment" will not help your case here, since the selecting out is done AFTER the random assignment.
As for your plausibilty question, I'll go with "all these studies are flawed in some way or other." The one you cited is touted as a "Classic in the History of Psychology", and it has serious methodological flaws. I assume the others live up to this "standard".
While we're assigning "cognitive dissonance" to people, you're not a Cognitive Psychologist by any chance are you? You don't have any preconceptions of your own do you? Of course not.
>> How do you account for the fact the behavioral curricula outperformed
>> cognitive curricula in virtualy every measure reported?
>>
>> How do you account for the fact that cognitive curricula were recommended
>> despite their poor performance?
>>
>> How do you account for the fact that the cognitive curricula were actually
>> harmful to the students and yet were still adopted?
>>
>
> I'm not sure who you are arguing with here. Yes, behavioral interventions
> are often effective; as I stated earlier, it is clear that operant
> conditioning can influence behavior. But to claim, as Skinner did,
> that behavior is completely determined by reinforcement contingencies is
> patently false.
The point is that "cognitive interventions" are not only ineffective, they seem, according to Follow Through, to produce results directly at odds with what they set out to achieve. The reason I mentioned this study is that it puts the one type of "intervention" up against the other, and demonstrates that the behaviorial model WORKS in practice in the real world with human beings, while cognitive models DON'T. Is that difficult?
Let me ask again: how do you account for the fact that the behavioral curricula outperformed the cognitive curricula? (Perhaps we'll return to the other two questions, which I find much more interesting, after we've hashed this one out.)
-- bill
"Those who so triumphantly announce the death of behaviorism are announcing their own escape from the canons of scientific method." - B.F. Skinner