Is hostility linked with affiliation among males and with achievement among females? A critique of Pollak and Gilligan.

Attempted to replicate and to clarify methodologically an investigation by S. Pollak and C. Gilligan (see record 1982-23594-001). Those investigators reported sex differences in violence imagery to TAT pictures depicting affiliation and achievement situations. Pollak and Gilligan concluded that men perceive danger in situations of affiliation whereas women perceive danger in situations of achievement. The present study demonstrated that Pollak and Gilligan incorrectly classified TAT cards into motivational categories, which may have resulted in incorrect inferences. In addition, their findings could not be replicated when 4 different systems for classifying TAT cards into motivational categories were used with 204 undergraduates. Other potential sources of error in their research, including a restrictive scoring scheme for hostility, unusual instructions, and failure to control for sex role in the TAT pictures, did not influence the results. (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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

The issue of sex bias in DSM-III: Comments on the articles by Spitzer, Williams, and Kass.

Responds to comments by J. B. Williams and R. L. Spitzer (see record 1984-06864-001) and by F. Kass et al (see record 1984-06848-001) on the present author's (see record 1984-06847-001) article, in which she argued that masculine-biased assumptions about what behaviors are healthy are codified in diagnostic criteria and may account for higher treatment rates in women. The present author responds to criticisms and reiterates her point that histrionic and dependent personality disorders as defined by the DSM-III correspond to stereotypes of femininity. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Addressing criticism of sex bias research on borderline personality disorder.

Replies to H. N. Garb's (see record 1996-08172-001) criticism that D. Becker and S. Lamb (see record 1994-29756-001) overlooked previous studies of sex bias in the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and overinterpreted their findings. The authors address specific methodological criticisms and discuss their study's strengths (e.g., the inclusion of psychologists and social workers as well as psychiatrists) in the context of studies by M. R. Ford and T. A. Widiger (see record 1989-26071-001), K. A. Henry and C. I. Cohen (see record 1984-06917-001), and D. A. Adler et al (see record 1991-15353-001). (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)     

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

Contends that B. D. Schwartz's (see record 1984-06866-001) critique does not accurately represent the present authors' (see record 1981-28173-001) previous paper. Schwartz misinterprets the critical stimulus duration and makes a number of critical omissions. The authors make 4 main points and show that Schwartz's criticisms have no basis in fact. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Orwin and Cordray.

The authors reply to criticisms by R. G. Orwin and D. S. Cordray (see record 1984-24829-001) concerning their reanalysis of the M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass (see record 1978-10341-001) psychotherapy outcome study. The authors defend their analysis and reject Orwin and Cordray's assertion that they overstated the case for psychotherapeutic effectiveness. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Haviland, McGuire, and Rothbaum's "A critique of Plomin and Foch's twin study."

Replies to the criticism of J. M. Haviland et al (see record 1984-11539-001) of the present authors' (see record 1981-25190-001) twin study of objectively assessed personality in childhood. No merit is found in the criticisms of Haviland et al concerning conceptual validity and stability of the measures, comparability of populations, the accuracy of the literature review, or the appropriate interpretation of broad heritability. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Controlled drinking: The controversy rages on.

Responds to criticisms of the present author's (see record 1984-13214-001) comments on the controlled drinking controversy in alcoholism research. Three issues are addressed: the distinction between alcoholism and problem drinking, the role of biological factors in the etiology of alcoholism, and the continuing concern about the validity of the work on controlled drinking by M. Sobell and L. Sobell (see record 1973-23611-001). (18 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)     

Comments on my critics.

Allan R. Buss responds to Bavelas' and Macdonald's criticisms of Buss's article (see record 1976-26634-001) on the evaluation of Canadian psychology departments. Buss says that Bavelas' (see record 2007-04411-001) criticisms are, in the main, important, insightful, and fundamentally correct and that Macdonald's (see record 2007-04410-001) criticisms are, in contrast to Bavelas', highly original, unimportant, and fundamentally incorrect. (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)     

Reply to Wieder on rape victims: Vulnerability does not imply responsibility.

The present authors respond to G. B. Wieder's (see record 1985-25692-001) criticisms of the results of their study (see record 1984-12510-001) on the coping ability of women who become rape victims. It is concluded that vulnerability to rape does not imply responsibility for being raped. Previous research had indicated that victimization in general is not a random process, and the present authors argue that conceptualization of rape victimization is congruent with such a frame of reference. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Counselor discrimination against women: Additional information.

Replies to M. L. Smith's (see record 1979-29888-001) and to T. E. Nygren and K. F. Widaman's (see record 1979-27728-001) criticisms of the author and J. W. Costar's (see record 1978-24142-001) finding that counselors discriminate against women. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Riposte to Spezzano.

Replies to C. J. Spezzano's (see record 1993-33442-001) defense of S. Reisner's (see record 1992-16438-001) article against R. R. Holt's (see record 1992-27289-001) earlier criticisms. Holt admits that the tone of his criticisms may have been harsh, but he reasserts that there is a need for concern regarding objective intellectual standards of scholarly work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Television violence and aggression: A rejoinder.

Replies to the criticisms by L. Friedrich-Cofer and A. C. Huston (see record 1987-09776-001) of the author's literature review (see record 1984-30860-001) on the effect of TV violence on aggression. The present author argues that there are sound reasons for exercising caution in generalizing from laboratory results and that research outside the laboratory provides only weak and inconsistent support for the causal hypothesis. Moreover, it is asserted that the bidirectional model suggested by Friedrich-Cofer and Huston is not supported by the available evidence. (35 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Support for the discharge model of emotion: A reply to Zuckerman.

Responds to criticisms by M. Zuckerman (see record 1984-11616-001) of a study by the present author et al (see record 1983-05644-001) which reported evidence in support of the discharge model of the relation between facial expressivity and physiological reactivity. It is argued that Zuckerman's challenge to the Notarius et al study and conclusions is unfounded for 2 reasons: (a) Zuckerman's critique contains several interpretative errors of the Notarius et al study, and (b) subsequent data analysis, recommended by Zuckerman, overwhelmingly supports the original interpretation of the study. (2 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)