1. Pragmatic not Psychological Overview How WEIRD are they? Disentangling Psychological in addition to Pragmatic Processes



The Above Picture is Related Image of Another Journal


1. Pragmatic not Psychological Overview How WEIRD are they? Disentangling Psychological in addition to Pragmatic Processes

Cleveland Institute of Music, US has reference to this Academic Journal, How WEIRD are they? Disentangling Psychological in addition to Pragmatic ProcessesThomas HoltgravesDept. of Psychological ScienceBall State UniversityOverviewOverreliance on WEIRD participants distorts behavioral research; wrong so that assume one can generalize from research alongside WEIRD Ps. Old in addition to perennial issue in social psychology.Three responses1. Some psychological differences may reflect differences in pragmatic rules rather than differences in psychological processes.2. A focus on phenotypic differences may hinder detection of underlying genotypic principles3. Generalizability is an empirical question that is now easier so that address1. Pragmatic not PsychologicalHenrich et al. examples are all psychological, many social psychologicalVisual perception (Muller-Lyer illusion), cooperation in economic decision making, self-concept, moral reasoning, etc.Some observed differences in these variables may be due so that methodological differences (Schweder; Baumard & Sperber)Even if identical methods are used, the manner in which those methods are interpreted by Ps may differ; i.e., pragmatic differences

 Goldberg, Alex Cleveland Institute of Music www.phwiki.com


Related University That Contributed for this Journal are Acknowledged in the above Image


Pragmatics of ExperimentsAll behavioral science experiments involve communicationE explains so that P what the study is about, what they are so that do, in addition to so on Some psychological effects may in fact be pragmatic effects (N. Schwarz; R. Wyer)Rather than psychological effects, these reflect pragmatic effects (i.e., principles regarding conversation, etc.)Pragmatics of ExperimentsExample: Representativeness heuristic (Kahneman & Tversky)Ps given individuating (Jack is conservative, apolitical, spends time on his hobbies, etc.) in addition to base-rate (description comes from a panel of 30 engineers in addition to 70 lawyers) informationWhat is probability Jack is engineer? Ps indicate engineer Interpreted as a cognitive bias (Ps ignore base-rate info)However, information provided by E comes alongside a presumption of relevance; in addition to so Ps use it (even if logically, they shouldn?t).Pragmatics of ExperimentsFundamental Attribution Error (FAE) = Tendency so that make dispositional attributions in consideration of behavior in addition to ignore situation factors (e.g., Fred slipped because he is clumsy).Henrich et al. Western/Individualistic Ps more likely so that demonstrate FAE than non-Western PsAttribution difference or pragmatic difference?

Pragmatics of ExperimentsClassic Fundamental Attribution Error studies (e.g., Jones & Davis): Ps provided alongside information about another?s (Joe) behavior in addition to asked so that make a judgment (what is Joe?s true opinion)Some of the information is not relevant in consideration of an attributional judgment e.g., Joe was told so that write a pro-Castro essayPs read Joe?s essay in addition to are asked about Joe?s opinion Ps indicate that Joe has a favorable attitude toward Castro (even though he was told so that write the favorable essay; FAE). Pragmatics of ExperimentsPragmatic alternative: Ps assume that information (the writer?s essay) is given so that them in consideration of a reason (i.e., it?s relevant).And so they use itPossible pragmatic differences: The presumption of relevance may be less strong in non-Western culturesORWhat counts as relevant may vary over culturesPsychological Difference vs. Pragmatic DifferenceEconomic games WEIRD Ps understand the ?as if? nature of the games; they have a schema that makes it understandableNon-WEIRD Ps have no schema in consideration of this. They try so that make sense by?

Bring It Back: Bringing National Nursing Conferences Back so that PCTU Connie Myres MSN, RN, CCRN in addition to Sarah Beelman BSN, RN Purpose Background Methods Results Conclusion / Implications The purpose is so that provide a tool in consideration of nurses so that bring back lessons learned at national conferences supported by unit funds in addition to report it in a useful format. Historically when unit funds have been used in consideration of conference attendance there is an expectation that the attendees will bring back the information they learned in addition to share it alongside the rest of the unit. In practice it has been difficult so that find a venue so that do this in a manner that is useful in addition to easy so that access by staff. A lack of standardization in addition to resources is a contributing factor. A tool was created in addition to given so that nurses who were attending a national conference. Each nurse was assigned a lecture so that report on. They were so that list the name of the session, three things they remembered most about the presentation, in addition to how they would incorporate this knowledge into the PCTU nursing practice. Utilizing technology was of interest so the information was presented in a U-tube video. The video could only be viewed by invitation in addition to could be accessed by nurses on their mobile devices, home computers in addition to on the unit. Each nurse completed the tool in addition to submitted it so that the ENC. She then created the video using the information. All PCTU nurses were invited electronically so that view in addition to give feedback on the presentation. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Using a different forum that is accessible alongside technology in addition to user friendly made it more desirable so that everyone. We plan so that expand this tool in addition to form through the ERC committee in addition to the PCTU so all conference attendees have the opportunity so that share their lessons learned at national conferences funded by unit funds. Lessons Learned: Next time we need so that label each video alongside what topics are in it, because each video could only be ten minutes so we had so that break it up. References Form used at conference: Title: Title of lecture Three things I remember most about this presentation were: 1 2 3 I can utilize this information in my PCTU nursing practice by: 1 2 3 Bringing it Back! Links so that U-tube videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRgdJ3BBpEc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpB63hK6N0k PCTU Nurses Attend National Pediatric Congenital Heart Conference Fall 2010

2. Different Manifestations of Same Underlying ProcessIdentical underlying psychological process may be expressed differently across culturesObserved differences (phenotypic expression) may be explicable at more abstract level of analysis (genotypic process)Overemphasis on differences can be misleadingExample: Is self-enhancement universal?Henrich et al., argue unique so that WEIRD PsGaertner et al. argue self-enhancement is universal but that cultures vary in terms of what traits they enhance on (West = individualistic traits – independence; East = collectivist traits; devotion so that family)Pragmatics: Politeness in addition to Conversation ProcessingBrown & Levinson Politeness TheoryPoliteness (via facework) is assumed so that be universalBut, much cultural variability in terms of:How politeness is expressedWhat is face-threateningAnd so onSo, even though much cultural variability in linguistic politeness, that variation reflects an underlying universal motivation (face)Politeness as Universal in addition to VariableEmpirical evidence: Holtgraves & Yang (1992)Examined levels of reported politeness as a function of Power, Distance, in addition to Imposition in U.S. in addition to S. KoreaResults:Culture in addition to gender differences in overall politeness in addition to positive politeness

Underlying Cultural in addition to Gender Similarities in addition to DifferencesSimilarity: Politeness varied as a function of power in addition to distance in consideration of U. S. in addition to S. Korean, in addition to in consideration of male in addition to female.Difference: Power weighted more heavily by S. Koreans than U.S.Power weighted more heavily by males than by femalesDistance weighted more heavily by females than by malesRequest Politeness as a Function of Distance in consideration of U.S. in addition to S. Korean PsRequest Politeness as a Function of Hearer Power in consideration of Male in addition to Female Ps

Maxims as Universal in addition to VariableGrice?s maxims (quantity, quality, etc.) probably not universalHowever, violations of maxims (regardless of what they are) prompt deeper processing (i.e., extra-cognitive activity in order so that make sense of the violation).Hence, both universality in addition to variability3. Generalizability as a Tractable Empirical QuestionWhether results using WEIRD samples generalize is an empirical issueNow easier so that undertake these types of analysesInternet in addition to survey platformsAmazon Mechanical TurkPossible so that recruit in addition to pay Ps in consideration of participationPossible so that select relevant samples (e.g., male S. Koreans between 18 in addition to 35)Mechanical Turk Especially useful in consideration of pragmatics researchCan create in addition to present scenarios, stimulus sets, etc.Collect judgments of appropriateness, interpretations, reaction times, etc.Can specify non-WEIRD samplesCan include validity checks (fake items so that leave blank)

Internet (Mturk) Data Quality in addition to LimitationsInternet/Mturk data quality (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011)Data are as reliable as data collected via traditional methodsCompensation (e.g., $.01 U.S.) doesn?t effect quality (but does have an effect on speed).LimitationsIRBInternet availabilityRecap1. Some psychological differences are pragmatic differences.E.g. Fundamental Attribution error.Others?2. Observed differences may reflect universal principles3. Tests of generalizability now easier in addition to encouraged

Goldberg, Alex Managing Editor

Goldberg, Alex is from United States and they belong to Managing Editor and work for Event Solutions in the AZ state United States got related to this Particular Article.

Journal Ratings by Cleveland Institute of Music

This Particular Journal got reviewed and rated by and short form of this particular Institution is US and gave this Journal an Excellent Rating.