[From Rick Marken (971203.2215)]
Bruce Abbott (971202.1045 EST) --
If all the people are affected differently, then whatever average
effect is shown by the group-based method will be weak and certainly > not the sort of thing that shows sufficient regularity (under the
conditions studied) to be worth additional effort. It is quite easy
to see which case you have if you are using the right kind of
group-based design (repeated measures).
I have already set up a spreadsheet, using a repeated measures
design, showing that this is not true. Each person in the group
was affected differently by the IV (the people were S-R devices
like those assumed by this methodology), some linearly, some
non-linearly (and often non-monotonicly) and some not at all.
But the result is a highly significant group effect that
"resembles" the effect seen for some subjects. I'd show you
the results but, as Bill said, it's probably better if you try
to do it yourself.
If I am arguing that there are cases in which such an approach
will work, and then demonstrate such a case, that is no
"elementary logical error" of reasoning.
Sure it is. You forget that there is no way for the person
doing the group research to know that this is a case that "works"
(where the group results reflect the results for each individual)
except by examining each individual case -- in which case the
"group" approach is moot; the researcher is studying subjects
on an individual basis.
Bruce Abbott (971203.1955 EST) --
By the way, when I noted that cognitive dissonance was a
type of control theory about a week ago, no one seemed to
find that interesting.
It's not particularly interesting now, either, because (like
other non-PCT applications of control theory in psychology)
their has been no individual research done to see if the kind
of controlling predicted by the theory actually happens.
Best
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/