Harnessing the Power of Introductory Psychology to Combat Misconceptions About Psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than a million undergraduates take introductory psychology each year in North America. Numerous studies show that they soon forget the details of what they learn about psychological science but retain many misconceptions about behavior and mental processes that can misguide them in important personal, social, political, and economic matters. To confirm and elaborate on this picture, we administered a 72-item misconceptions survey before and after students took an introductory psychology course taught by one of 35 instructors at one of nine U.S. colleges and universities. Analysis of 430 pre-course responses and 471 post-course responses showed that the 10 misconceptions that were most confidently endorsed at the beginning of the course remained in the top 10 afterward, suggesting that, overall, belief in misconceptions did not change from pretest to posttest. Endorsement of misconceptions was negatively correlated with reported grade point average and, at pre-course, significantly higher for females. The scores of 90 students whose pre- and post-course responses could be matched showed a small but significant reduction in misconceptions, particularly those that introductory psychology instructors most often address. These results are consistent with other evidence that the introductory course has great potential for correcting socially significant misconceptions, but in our view, its traditional focus on overly detailed, easily forgotten content leaves instructors with too little time to exploit that potential. We offer suggestions for focusing the course on content that is more memorable as well as more likely to correct their misconceptions about psychology. Statement of public significance : Misconceptions about human behavior and mental processes are widespread and potentially harmful. Like other forms of misinformation, they may misguide actions and decisions taken by voters, jurors, parents, teachers, consumers, journalists, filmmakers, writers, and people in many other social roles. It is important to strengthen the effectiveness of introductory psychology at combating such misconceptions in the more than 1 million students who take the course each year.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".