Comment on Misuse of Covariance.

Responds to comments made by D. R. Harris, C. T. Bisbee, and S. H. Evans (see record 1971-09169-001) on the original article "Note on Evans and Anastasio on the Analysis of Covariance," by D. A. Sprott (see record 1970-09565-001), which corrected data in the article by S. H. Evans and L. J. Anastasio (see record 1968-09688-001). The purpose of the current author's note was to show that there is no substitute for thought. The analysis of covariance, even when treatment and covariate are correlated, can be useful and valid when in the hands of a scientist who knows his data, knows what he is doing, and is prepared to think about the interpretation of his analyses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comment on Joe's "Comment on Overall And Spiegel's 'Least squares analysis of experimental data.'"

Responds to the comments by G. W. Joe (see record 1971-25969-001) on the original article "Concerning least squares analysis of experimental data," by J. E. Overall and D. K. Spiegel (see record 1970-01534-001). The general linear model is discussed with respect to the conditions of orthogonality and equal subjects per cell in an analysis of variance application. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Another reply to Eysenck.

The present article disputes Eysenck's attempt to show that the results of the 1971 survey of Luborsky, Chandler, Auerbach, Cohen, and Bachrach (see record 1971-10064-001) "may be simply artifacts." Basic disagreements are pointed out, particularly with Eysenck's reliance upon "spontaneous remission" rates, and his neglect of controlled psychotherapy studies, and of the evidence that not only patient factors but also therapist and treatment factors have an impact on the outcome. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Minority rights or public health? The smoky logic of Hadaway and Beyerstein.

Replies to comments made by Hadaway and Beyerstein (see record 2007-09096-001) on the current author's original record (see record 1989-01264-001). Hadaway and Beyerstein defended the right of smokers to expose others to second-hand smoke, arguing that, in the absence of evidence that passive smoking causes injury to others, society has no right to restrict individual liberties. If Hadaway and Beyerstein are genuine proponents of John Stuart Mill's civil libertarian philosophy, then regardless of the difficulties inherent in developing legislation, they are obligated to reverse their position in order to defend the rights of the true victims: those forced to breathe second-hand smoke. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effects of child sexual abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998).

Comments on the article by B. Rind, P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman (see record 1998-04232-002) which examined the long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) by meta-analyzing studies of college students. The authors reported that effects "were neither pervasive nor typically intense" and that "men reacted much less negatively than women" (p. 22) and recommended value-neutral reconceptualization of the CSA construct. The current analysis revealed numerous problems in that study that minimized CSA-adjustment relations, included use of a healthy sample, an inclusive definition of CSA, failure to correct for statistical attenuation, and misreporting of original data. Rind et al.'s study's main conclusions were not supported by the original data. As such, attempts to use their study to argue that an individual has not been harmed by sexual abuse constitute a serious misapplication of its findings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Wethinks the author doth protest too much: A reply to Esterson (2002).

A. Esterson (see record 2002-10275-005) responded to the authors' (see record 1999-01068-004) analysis of recent reformulations of Freud's seduction theory and alleged sexual abuse discoveries. Esterson gave several additional examples of the same type of problematic writing the authors discussed in their original article. His commentary is largely a repetition of several already-published arguments, and his numerous criticisms of the article are, in the authors' opinion, without merit. The authors address confusion over inferring abuse from symptoms, treatment of symptoms versus resolution of cases, and fathers as perpetrators of abuse. It is clear that, as long as the topic of child sexual abuse elicits heated debate, so will Freud's seduction theory, but there may be times when one needs to step back to allow a debate to move forward. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Bridging science and practice to improve patient care.

Replies to the comments by Tyron (see record 2009-06923-008), Silverstein and Auerbach (see record 2009-06923-009), and Raps (see record 2009-06923-010) on the authors original article (see record 2008-03389-001). I was very pleased to read these comments about the priority of bridging research and clinical practice and to have the benefit of further perspectives on how this goal might be achieved. The article to which these comments were addressed suggested changes in both clinical research and practice that might develop or strengthen such a bridge. Suggestions for clinical research included evaluating the mechanisms of change in psychotherapy so we know what is critical to include in practice, evaluating who responds to treatment in ways that can be integrated into practice, and increasing the use of qualitative research. Suggestions for practice included using systematic measures to evaluate patient progress, codifying the experiences of practitioners so they contribute to our accumulated knowledge base, and promoting direct collaborations of researchers and practitioners. The above commentaries emphasized specific points about research on mechanisms, qualitative research methods, and the challenges of providing treatments given the nature and scope of the problems that clients present. These commentaries add to the discussion in novel ways and also illustrate the obstacles that may compete with bridging. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Play therapy and psychopharmacology: What the play therapist needs to know": Correction.

Reports an error in "Play therapy and psychopharmacology: What the play therapist needs to know" by Daniel S. Sweeney and Ross J. Tatum (International Journal of Play Therapy, 1995, Vol 4[2], 41-57). The table "Childhood DSM-IV Diagnoses and Psychotropic Medications That May Be Indicated" on pages 46-47 contained three (3) errors. A corrected copy of the table is included with the erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1997-05134-004.) Provides a basic overview of pediatric psychopharmacology and examines specific related considerations for the play therapist. The article also addresses some medication considerations specific to the treatment modality of play therapy. It is argued that possession of even a cursory knowledge about child psychopharmacology places the play therapist in a better position to provide quality treatment. A list of childhood Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) diagnoses and psychotropic medications that may be indicated is provided. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On False Premises and the Hypnotic Enhancement Effect: Reply to Schnall (2004).

Replies to the comments by E. Schnall (see record 2004-13299-016) on the current author's original article (see record 2003-05896-014), which examined whether adding hypnosis enhances cognitive-behavioral pain treatments. Here, the author addresses Schnall's critique point-by-point, and concludes that--Schnall aside--a a voluminous body of research has clearly established that both hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral treatments are useful for reducing pain, and all evidence from a small but growing literature currently suggests that there is no benefit in adding one procedure to the other. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Physiological arousal, dissonance, and attitude change: Evidence for a dissonance-arousal link and a "Don't remind me" effect.

Two experiments, with 80 undergraduates, replicated and extended research by R. T. Croyle and J. Cooper (see record 1984-11595-001) indicating that cognitive dissonance involves physiological arousal. In Exp I, Ss wrote counterattitudinal essays under conditions of high or low choice and, to assess arousal effects owing to effort, with or without a list of arguments provided by the experimenter. In high-choice conditions only and regardless of effort, Ss showed both arousal (heightened galvanic skin response) and attitude change. Arousal, however, did not decline following attitude change. The more effortful task (no arguments provided) produced increased arousal but not greater attitude change. In Exp II, the opportunity to change one's attitude following a freely chosen counterattitudinal essay was manipulated. As in Exp I, arousal increased following the essay but did not decline following a postessay attitude change opportunity. When Ss were not given an attitude change opportunity, however, arousal did decline. It is suggested that if dissonance is a drive state, drive reduction typically may be accomplished through gradual cognitive change or forgetting. (47 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Another rejoinder to Burgess.

Burgess (1971; see record 1972-29396-001) criticized Berger and Tedeschi (1969; see record 1970-05345-001), following which Tedeschi sent Burgess a copy of the Tedeschi and Levy (1971) paper, along with a short note. The note indicated that Burgess would probably not like the Tedeschi and Levy paper because it contained many of the same factors that he had criticized in the Berger and Tedeschi study. It is clear that the note contained an hypothesis that has now been confirmed. Those who missed the first discussion will be treated to a repeat performance--only the study has been changed. We will follow our critic's outline. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Callaghan: Stages of Change and Termination From Psychotherapy.

Replies to the comments by Russell C. Callaghan (see record 2005-07703-011) on the original article written by M. Brogan, J. O. Prochaska, and J. Prochaska (1999; see record 1999-11589-001). The present author replies to each of Callagan's concerns: that Figure 1 misrepresented the findings of the analyses related to the three-group discriminant function analysis (DFA); that some of the variables in the two-group DFA run contrary to predictions of the transtheoretical model (TTM) and to some of the results in the three-group DFA; that the ratio between the sample size (N) and number of predictors (p) in the DFA was insufficient because it did not meet the N/p rule of 20 to 1; and that the study lacked cross-validation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Errata.

Reports an error in "Alpha-adrenergic receptors in hypothalamus for the suppression of feeding behavior by satiety" by D. L. Margules (Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 1970[Oct], Vol 73[1], 1-12; see record 1971-03588-001). On page 3, paragraph 1 of the Method section, the angle of implantation of cannulas was 6° from the perpendicular; in paragraph 2 of the Method section, the following sentence was omitted: All rats were maintained on a reversed dark-light cycle (lights off at 0800 hr. and on at 2000 hr. EST) and were drugged in the dark. On page 10, paragraph 6, line 10 of the Discussion section, "abolishes" should read "enhances." In "Precocious mating in male rats following treatment with androgen or estrogen" by Michael J. Baum (Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 1972[Mar], Vol. 78[3], 356-367; see record 1972-22393-001), on page 367 the date of receipt should read August 24, 1970. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Postscript: Theory development should not end (but always begins) with good empirical fits: Response to Roberts and Pashler's (2002) reply.

Presents a response to Roberts and Pashler's reply (see record 2002-13781-009) to the current author's original article (see record 2002-13781-008). Roberts and Pashler (2002) have shifted their original criterion to make it appear that we "have failed to come up with even one clear counterexample" (Roberts & Pashler, 2002, p. 607). However, no one ever argued that goodness of fit stands alone (note the title of our original criticism). Their original challenge was, exactly, to find "theories originally supported mainly or entirely by good fits to data that eventually found support from other sources" (Roberts & Pashler, 2000, p. 362). Roberts and Pashler (2002) rejected our analogy between criticism of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) and their criticism of using goodness of fit as a starting point in the development of theories. We believe that Roberts and Pashler (2000, 2002) made important statements about theory development. Although those statements are embedded in an extreme, unreasonable, and unacceptable position as regards goodness of fit, we can still extract great value from their principles for theory development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Measuring the strength of the effect of violent media on aggression.

Responds to comments made by Block and Crain (see record 2007-04834-015) to the current author's original article (see record 2001-17729-001). In their critique of our article, Block and Crain claimed, "There is no data transformation that converts an odds ratio or relative risk into a correlation". They further stated that our transformation method is "wrong" and "faulty". They are incorrect. In fact, there are many different methods for transforming an odds ratio or relative risk into a correlation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Response to Gargiulo (2007) and Mills (2007).

Replies to comments made by G. J. Garguilo (see record 2007-16468-013) and J. Mills (see record 2007-16468-014) on the current author's original article (see record 2007-00135-012). The author responds to her critics, who feel she was accusing them of being unethical and even immoral by having a home office. She clarifies that at no time did she use any of this language, nor was this her intent. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the importance of White preference and the comparative difference of Blacks and others: Reply to Williams and Morland.

Replies to J. E. Williams and J. K. Morland's (see record 1979-30799-001) criticisms of the 1st author's (see record 1977-21037-001) study showing that there is no "White preference in Blacks." The present paper argues that even within those examples set forth of the significant demonstration of White preference in Blacks, insufficient evidence is presented to reject the null hypothesis of nonpreference. Whether empirical evidence supports the validity of such a phenomenon as a measure of self-concept of social behavior preferences is considered. (19 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Stereotype Threat and the Social and Scientific Contexts of the Race Achievement Gap.

Comments on an article by Paul Sackett, Chaitra Hardison and Michael Cullen entitled On Interpreting Stereotype Threat as Accounting for African American-White Differences on Cognitive Tests (see record 2004-10043-001). In their article, Sackett, Hardison, and Cullen (see record 2000-16592-021) critiqued misrepresentations of the original stereotype threat findings presented by Steele and Aronson. They criticized representations of the research that suggest that stereotype threat explains all the racial achievement gap in academic performance when, in fact, the original studies statistically equated the ability of Black students and White students by using SAT scores as a covariate. As Sackett et al. acknowledged, Steele and Aronson did not claim that stereotype threat explains all the racial achievement gap, though as they suggested in their critique, it may have been a claim made implicitly and even explicitly in some media and textbook coverage of the work. The authors of this comment wish to make three points that Sackett and colleagues did not make. These points highlight the social and scientific contexts in which Sackett et al.'s critical commentary, and stereotype threat research in general, can be interpreted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)