29 ms·

> But were they indeed confirmed? This is the problem that keeps cropping up. The book is carefully researched and exquisitely footnoted. Can you cite somethi

• apathy 10y ago
  I can't quite understand your last sentence -- I publish, as do most academics, so that can't be it. But Cialdini is the "pre-suasion" guy, and that one has certainly failed to replicate. So I guess I have a prior skepticism about anything from a standard textbook publisher covering similar topic. I've found too many errors in exercises, etc. to believe that their editors are doing much of a job; it's a drag when you're teaching a stats methods class and the book questions have major numeric errors so you can't use it for homework. What's the purpose of the book at that point? Next time I teach (actually the past few as well) I'm not going to bother with a textbook. Go pull these primary research articles, pull the data, and see if the methods were used correctly. The end. As previously, I've had some surprised looks when students did this with biological data sets. It's not like psychology is some rogue's gallery; it's a widespread problem. Only solution is to verify results before building upon them.