Topic: Discussion Question from Caring for People God’s Way – Chapter 3
A position addressed in Chapter 3 supported the perspective that cognitive-behavioral models of counseling are “necessary but insufficient for full Christian counseling”, that “changed thinking is not enough – a changed heart is also required,” and that a “purely cognitive therapy lacks the Spirit’s fullness and power.” Based on your analysis of Chapter 3, discuss how your developed insights into the nature and work of Jesus and the Spirit of God help you understand how God transforms an individual’s heart.
Before completing the recognition task, participants were instructed regarding the difference between remem- bering and knowing using an adapted form of Gardiner and Java’s (1990) instructions (see Appendix A). The experi- menter asked each participant to explain what it means to remember and the meanings of remembering and knowing were discussed until the distinction was clear.
Finally, participants completed the recognition task, wherein they viewed a randomized mixture of the 90 pre- viously presented words and 90 new words. During the recognition task, participants were asked if each word was previously presented (‘‘old”) or not presented before (‘‘new”). After an old response, participants were asked to report the basis for their recognition, giving either a remember or know response. All responses were self- paced. Participants had the option of contacting the exper- imenter later if they wanted to know what score they achieved.
Data analysis To examine the effects of value, recollection and famil-
iarity, we conducted dependent samples t-tests. Words
198 J.P. Hennessee et al. / Journal of Memory and Language 94 (2017) 195–205
with values of 1 through 3 were considered low-value, whereas words with values of 10 through 12 were consid- ered high-value. Prior to all analysis, only trials with response times (RTs) between 500 ms and 8000 ms were included. In line with advice by Ratcliff (1993) these crite- ria were chosen to eliminate the small proportion of responses that may have had abnormally high or low RTs due to factors such as a participant needing procedural clarification or a participant blindly making a quick response to progress through the study more quickly. This RT cutoff eliminated 2.13% of trials from the tails of the RT distribution (M = 2150 ms, SD = 1734 ms). Effect sizes were computed using Cohen’s d and partial eta squared.
