The findings showed that temperamental shyness may exist in a distinct group of children over time, while a larger subset of children may experience shyness as an emotional state in some situations. To help better understand shyness in children, a new study released in the journal Child Development by researchers at McMaster University in Canada examined a child’s behavioral, affective, and physiological responses to a speech task. Shyness may also be conceptualized as an emotion that is felt in a certain social situation, which is described as state shyness. Longstanding theories note that shyness may be conceptualized as a trait that is relatively stable across development, which is described as temperamental shyness. Shyness can manifest on behavioral, affective, and physiological levels, but little is known about how these components cluster. What is shyness? Research has shown that shyness is characterized by fear and nervousness in response to social novelty and/or social evaluation. The research offers insight into children’s social, psychological, and academic adjustment. The findings provide empirical support for longstanding theories on the differences between temperamental and state shyness, and have implications for understanding children’s social, psychological, and academic adjustment.Ī new study explores shyness in children, finding that temperamental shyness may be a distinct trait in some, while others experience shyness as an emotional state in specific situations. Results indicated that temperamental shyness, a stable trait across development, may exist in a distinct group of children over time, while a larger subset may experience shyness as an emotional state in certain situations. I conclude by laying out the ways in which my analysis of data quality is relevant to, and informed by, recent debates about the replicability of experimental results.Researchers have conducted a study to better understand shyness in children, focusing on its behavioral, affective, and physiological components. Artifacts occur when one or more of these background assumptions are false, such that the data do not reliably serve the purposes they were generated for. My analysis construes experimental results as the outcomes of inferences from the data that take material background assumptions as auxiliary premises. Highlighting the artificiality of experimental data, I raise (and answer) the question of what distinguishes a genuine experimental result from an experimental artifact. But what are experimental artifacts and what is the most productive way of dealing with them? In this paper, I approach these questions by exploring the ways in which experimenters in psychology simultaneously exploit and suppress the reactivity of their subject matter in order to produce experimental data that speak to the question or subject matter at hand. The latter are connected to the worry about distorted data and experimental artifacts. I argue that reactivity is a ubiquitous feature of the psychological subject matter and that this fact is a precondition of experimental research, while also posing potential problems for the experimenter. While the term “reactivity” has come to be associated with specific phenomena in the social sciences, having to do with subjects’ awareness of being studied, this paper takes a broader stance on this concept. Data Quality, Experimental Artifacts, and the Reactivity of the Psychological Subject Matter.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |