|
| #psynom20 |
 |













|
Special Coverage
WoMAAC: Working Memory Across the Adult Lifespan: Adversarial Collaboration (106)
Robert Logie (University of Edinburgh), Nelson Cowan (University of Missouri), Valerie Camos (Université de Fribourg), Pierre Barrouillet (University of Geneva), Moshe Naveh-Benjamin (University of Missouri), Jason Doherty (University of Edinburgh), Clement Belletier (Université Clermont Auvergne), Agnieszka Jaroslawska (Queen's University Belfast), Stephen Rhodes (Rotman Research Institute), Alicia Forsberg (University of Missouri)
Summary by Taylor Curley, Digital Content Associate Editor
This recap is part of a special series of session summaries
from the Psychonomic Society's 61st Annual Meeting. To read the rest of the series, click here.
Adversarial Collaborations: Turning Disagreements Into Collaborations
What do three sets of researchers do when they cannot agree with each other? For the researchers on the WoMAAC team, the answer is surprising: Collaborate.
Robert Logie of the University of Edinburgh and his co-investigators - Nelson Cowan and Moshe Naveh-Benjamin of the University of Missouri, Valerie Camos of the Université de Fribourg, and Pierre Barrouillet of the Université de Genève – are an unlikely cast. They don’t always agree about working memory. In fact, they subscribe to three different working memory theories: multiple components, embedded processes, and time-based resource sharing. Instead of running three separate research projects to test the theories, they engaged in an adversarial collaboration to test each theory together. They named their four-year collaborative project “Working memory across the lifespan: An adversarial collaboration,” or WoMAAC for short.
The results from WoMAAC do not conclusively support one theory over another. Still, they demonstrate that the strategies participants used in experimental tasks change, which helps account for discrepancies that the separate theoretical frameworks cannot do by themselves. Along with advancing psychological theory, the WoMAAC researchers hope that their adversarial approach is a template for future research among researchers with conflicting views. Want to learn more about the project? Visit their site and follow them on Twitter @WoMAAC.

|
|
|