The empirical claims of maximization theory: A reply to Rachlin and to Kagel, Battalio, and Green.

H. Rachlin (see record 1984-02970-001) and J. H. Kagel et al (see record 1984-02959-001) reported errors in the present author's (see record 1982-22589-001) critique of maximization theory. They presented new evidence that demonstrated that maximization accounts better for equilibrium behavior on schedules of reinforcement than did matching. In this article, Prelec argues that the allegations of mathematical and conceptual errors are without substance and the new data do not differentially favor maximization or matching. (12 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On social psychology and policy analysis.

Responds to criticisms by H. H. Kendler (see record 1984-12071-001), I. J. Mansdorf (see record 1984-12073-001), D. A. Resnick (see record 1984-12082-001), and G. Caplan (see record 1984-12061-001) of the present author's (see record 1983-32571-001) social-psychological assessment of the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace, based on an analysis of Yasser Arafat's cognitive style. The author upholds the validity of his use of psychological principles in policy analysis, responds to specific criticisms related to cultural and political realities in the Middle East, and argues that recent political events support his conclusions concerning the readiness of Palestinians to seek peace. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Some facets of consistency: Replies to Epstein, Funder, and Bem.

Identifies convergences and substantive differences in the comments made by S. Epstein (see record 1983-23443-001), D. C. Funder (see record 1983-30290-001), and D. J. Bem (see record 1984-04001-001) regarding the present authors' (see record 1983-05642-001) reanalysis of some issues and proposals in the search for cross-situational consistency in social behavior. (32 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Levy and to Zaidel.

Responds to J. Levy's (see record 1984-07813-001) and E. Zaidel's (see record 1984-07231-001) comments on the present author's (see record 1984-07149-001) review of right-hemisphere language in split-brain patients. The present author replies to Levy's issues-oriented criticisms in which Levy contended that Gazzaniga characterized the right hemisphere as passive and subhuman; Gazzaniga denies this. The present author then responds to Zaidel's comments by reiterating his belief that there is no right-hemisphere profile for natural language. (13 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Backward masking as a measure of slow processing in the schizophrenia spectrum: A reply to Saccuzzo and Schubert.

Argues that D. P. Saccuzzo and D. L. Schubert's (see record 1984-06961-001) reply to a comment by the present author (see record 1984-06967-001) concerning Saccuzzo and Schubert's (see record 1981-28173-001) original article does not address the point that performance by chronic schizophrenics on the masking task may be related to iconic quality that is independent of iconic or posticonic speed of processing. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A rejoinder to Notarius.

Responds to C. I. Notarius's (see record 1984-11607-001) rebuttal of the present author's (see record 1984-11616-001) criticisms of a study by Notarius et al (see record 1983-05644-001) which supported the discharge model of the facial expressivity/physiological reactivity relationship. It is concluded that only when all data from the Notarius et al study are examined will one know what their results have shown. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Freud and sociobiology.

Discusses comments made by M. Eber (see record 1984-00023-001) and E. I. Pollak (see record 1984-00042-001) on a synthesis of Freudian psychoanalysis and sociobiology by the present authors (Leak and Christopher; see record 1982-29262-001). Eber writes from the psychoanalytic perspective and criticizes the stress on the biological/scientific aspect of Freud's work. Pollak takes a more sociobiological approach and criticizes the present authors' article for stressing those aspects of sociobiological theory that place greater emphasis on biological determinism as opposed to behavioral plasticity. The present authors reply that (1) the original Freudian conception of psychoanalysis is the version that offers valuable insights for mainstream scientific psychology, and (2) many of Freud's notions are quite similar to contemporary sociobiological concepts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Implications for psychology: Reply to comments.

Replies to the comments of D. E. Leary (see record 1986-07955-001), S. A. Mulaik (see record 1986-07961-001), D. N. Robinson (see record 1986-07966-001), and W. L. Stroud (see record 1986-07976-001) on the earlier presentation of the present authors (see record 1984-00037-001) about the new philosophy of science. The present authors are pleased with what they have been able to communicate and discuss what they feel has been misunderstood. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Metareflections on the roles and functions of counseling psychologists.

Responds to comments by C. E. Watkins (see record 1984-32564-001) concerning the present author's (see record 1984-16046-001) discussion of the differing roles of counseling and clinical psychology. Although the 2 specialties share a number of professional activities and client groups, it is suggested that they are partially differentiated by the inclusion of normal populations in counseling treatment and severely disturbed populations in clinical psychology. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Compounding the errors: A reply to Pollak and Gilligan.

Responds to a rebuttal by S. Pollak and C. Gilligan (see record 1984-12283-001) of the present authors' (see record 1984-12235-001) criticisms of Pollak and Gilligan's (see record 1982-23594-001) study of males and females' violent TAT responses. In addition to not addressing the prior criticisms, it is argued that Pollak and Gilligan introduce 3 new sources of errors regarding their misunderstanding of experimental replication, fantasy classification, and statistical inference. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Age, plasticity, and equipotentiality: A reply to Smith.

Responds to comments by A. Smith (see record 1984-04428-001) on the present authors' (see record 1982-05864-001) discussion of recovery of function from brain damage. It is argued that current interpretations of the literature on hemispherectomy and childhood aphasia are not consistent with Smith's viewpoints on age, plasticity, and equipotentiality. An evaluation of these concepts and the issues underlying recovery of function must be based on research from normal children and a variety of brain-injured samples. (37 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Assessing symbol usage versus symbol competency.

Responds to comments by S. Sugarman (see record 1984-22390-001) and C. A. Ristau (see record 1984-22382-001) on the present authors' (see record 1984-22384-001) article on chimpanzee language acquisition. The assumption that chimpanzees use their acquired symboling capacity in a manner different from that of human children is addressed. It is concluded that these differences are not significant in that they reflect the need, with ape Ss, to report data that are not open to criticisms of cuing, rather than real differences in communicative purpose. It is argued that a distinction must be made between the totality of an ape's symbol production and the ape's capacity to respond correctly in particular test settings. This separation reveals the inappropriateness of criticizing the tests of ape capacities as though such tests were the only extant behavioral evidence of symboling capacity. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The alcoholism controversy revisited.

Responds to G. A. Marlatt's (see record 1986-02189-001) reply to the present author's (see record 1986-02199-001) criticism of Marlatt's (see record 1984-13214-001) earlier article regarding the effectiveness of controlled drinking treatment for alcoholics by refuting Marlatt's defense of the methodology used in M. B. Sobell and L. C. Sobell's (see record 1973-23611-001) research on controlled drinking for hospitalized patients; it is suggested that arguments over the outcome for the Sobell and Sobell experiment are moot since the treatment procedures employed did not result in either sustained controlled drinking or stable abstinence in the abstinence-trained Ss. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Nonparametric effect size estimation: A reply.

Responds to criticisms by J. Krauth (see record 1984-00282-001) of the nonparametric effect size proposed by the present author and G. Andrews (see record 1982-11171-001). It is noted that Krauth's argument indicates the existence of 2 types of effect size, individual- and population-specific, that are of interest in different contexts and disciplines. (2 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Associations and organization in cognitive psychology: A reply to Neisser.

Responds to comments by U. Neisser (see record 1984-30595-001) on the present author's (see record 1984-30581-001) study of the long-term retention of school-learned Spanish, in which it was found that Ss retained a portion of the acquired knowledge for long periods. It is suggested that both constructive and simple associative processes are involved in acquisition and retention and that retention is primarily determined by the "state" of the memory trace at the end of training rather than by conditions during the retention interval. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Cognitive-behavioral therapy in geriatric depression": Reply to Riskind, Beck, and Steer.

Responds to the challenge by J. H. Riskind et al (see record 1986-12531-001) to the interpretation by J. L. Steuer et al (see record 1984-21146-001) that changes observed on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) in depressed geriatric patients treated with cognitive-behavioral (CB) group psychotherapy did not demonstrate superiority for CB therapy over a psychodynamic approach. Riskind et al proposed that somatic items on the other rating instruments used might not be valid in geriatric patients and thus might render those scales less sensitive. Reanalyses of the psychotherapy data and data from a placebo-controlled study of tricyclic antidepressants by the present 3rd author et al (see record 1983-21474-001) did not support this assertion. Somatic items proved to be sensitive to change in both studies. (8 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Public and professional myths about mental hospitalization: Reply to Manderscheid et al.

Responds to the comments of R. W. Manderscheid et al (see record 1984-29600-001) on the present author's (see record 1983-24077-001) views of public and professional myths about mental hospitalization. The present author contends that Manderscheid et al focus on details without examining the way national data are aggregated and determining the level of inferential precision. It is suggested that the conclusions of the present author's earlier work are undisturbed by the comments. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Unsuccessful redefinitions of the term placebo..

Argues that J. W. Critelli's (see record 1986-12543-001) modifications of his earlier definition of the term placebo in response to the present author's (see record 1986-01780-001) comment on Critelli and K. F. Neumann's (see record 1984-26517-001) article on placebo effects render it impossible to decide whether a given procedure should be assigned the placebo label. (7 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A time to speak, or a time to keep silence?

Responds to E. F. Loftus's (see record 1984-06608-001) comments on M. McCloskey and H. E. Egeth's (see record 1984-06612-001) previous article in which the authors argue against psychologists testifying in court as expert witnesses on the validity of eyewitness testimony. Loftus presents documented cases of convictions of innocent people based on faulty eyewitness accounts, and she argues that expert testimony by psychologists could correct misconceptions jurors may hold. The present authors answer Loftus's criticisms and contrast their views with hers in the areas of empirical support for conclusive statements, perspectives on interventions, and focus on innocence. (10 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)