On the dynamics of generalization.

R. N. Shepard (see record 1988-28272-001) has proposed a universal exponential law of stimulus generalization, yet experimental data are often Gaussian in form. Shepard and others have proposed theories to reconcile the discrepancy, although, as proposed herein, a simple discrete diffusion process may underlie both types of gradient. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Time and distance in generalization and discrimination: Reply to Ennis (1988).

D. M. Ennis's (see record 1989-14369-001) numerical analysis supports a reconciliation of the seemingly different conclusions reached by Shepard and by Nosofsky concerning generalization and discrimination in psychological space. A complete account would need, however, to consider distances between stimuli not only in psychological space but also in time. The issue is discussed in relation to fundamentally different diffusion and cognitive mechanisms of stimulus generalization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Rational explanation of the selection task.

M. Oaksford and N. Chater (O&C, see record 1995-08271-001) presented the first quantitative model of R C. Wason's (1966) selection task in which performance is rational. J. St. B. T. Evans and D. E. Over (see record 83:25190) reply that O&C's account is normatively incorrect and cannot model K. N. Kirby's (see record 1995-04302-001) or R Pollard and J. St. B. T. Evans's (see record 1984-30572-001) data. It is argued that an equivalent measure satisfies their normative concerns and that a modification of O&C's model accounts for their empirical concerns. D. Laming (see record 83:25220) argues that O&C made unjustifiable psychological assumptions and that a "correct" Bayesian analysis agrees with logic. It is argued that O&C's model makes normative and psychological sense and that Laming's analysis is not Bayesian. A. Almor and S. A. Sloman (see record 83:25168) argue that O&C cannot explain their data. It is argued that Almor and Sloman's data do not bear on O&C's model because they alter the nature of the task. It is concluded that O&C's model remains the most compelling and comprehensive account of the selection task. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A theory of visual attention.

A unified theory of visual recognition and attentional selection is developed by integrating the biased-choice model for single-stimulus recognition (R. D. Luce, 1963; R. N. Shepard, 1957) with a choice model for selection from multielement displays (C. Bundesen et al; see record 1985-05669-001) in a race model framework. Mathematically, the theory is tractable, and it specifies the computations necessary for selection. The theory is applied to extant findings from a broad range of experimental paradigms. The findings include effects of object integrality in selective report, number and spatial position of targets in divided-attention paradigms, selection criterion and number of distracters in focused-attention paradigms, delay of selection cue in partial report, and consistent practice in search. On the whole, the quantitative fits are encouraging. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

History and accuracy of validity generalization equations: A response to the Callender and Osburn reply.

In a continuation of the discussion between the present authors (Schmidt et al; see record 1983-07150-001) and J. C. Callender and H. G. Osburn (see record 1983-07128-001), it is contended that neither Callender and Osburn (see record 1981-27033-001) nor F. L. Schmidt and J. E. Hunter (see record 1978-11418-001) have invented a model that accounts for the impact of artifacts on validity coefficients; this accomplishment is attributed to Spearman and to Fisher. An example is presented showing that in realistic situations, the present authors' noninteractive equation is more accurate than the Callender and Osburn equation. The 4-artifact equations are shown to be superior in either validity generalization values characterizing the findings of the field and those used in a specific application. (8 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Attitude organization and the attitude-behavior relation: A reply to Dillon and Kumar.

Analyzed W. R. Dillon and A. Kumar's (see record 1985-29911-001) reanalysis of data previously reported by M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen (see record 1974-24385-001) and subsequently reanalyzed by the present authors (see record 1980-30231-001). Data involved attitude–behavior relations. The present authors show that the unidimensional attitude model fails to achieve convergent validity and that the 2-component model achieves convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Comments on three recent subliminal psychodynamic activation investigations": Rejoinder to Oliver and Burkham and to Porterfield.

Considers the replies of A. L. Porterfield (see record 1986-11991-001) and J. M. Oliver and R. Burkham (see record 1986-11985-001) to the critique of the present author (see record 1986-12007-001). The original criticisms are seen as valid. A critical deficiency in the design of Porterfield and S. L. Golding's (see record 1986-11992-001) study is viewed as disqualifying it as a fair attempt at replication. It is suggested that although Oliver and Burkham's (see record 1983-01571-001) study was well-designed, statements made in their write-up are unwarranted. (12 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

'The structure of phenotypic personality traits": Author's reactions to the six comments.

L. R. Goldberg replies to the comments by R. O. Kroger and L. A. Wood (see record 1994-17497-001), S. Guastello (see record 1994-17488-001), D. R. Comer (see record 1994-17481-001), H. J. Eysenck (see record 1994-17486-001), W. D. Shadel and D. Cervone (see record 1994-17520-001), and H. E. Cattell (see record 1994-17479-001) on Goldberg's (PA, Vol 80:17546) article on the Big Five personality traits. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Is free will a process or a content: Both? Neither? Are we free to affirm a position on this question?

Comments on the views on free will (FW) offered by B. D. Slife (see record 1995-13451-001), M. Gergen (see record 1995-14294-001), R. N. Williams (see record 1995-12851-001), M. S. Richardson (see record 1995-14311-001), and G. S. Howard (see record 1995-13446-001) in light of the classical definition of FW as being capable of doing otherwise. It is argued that FW interpretations differ markedly depending on whether they are viewed as due to a process or to contents within some process. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Note on clinical judgment and the formal characteristics of clinical tasks.

Analysis of clinical judgment studies by F. J. Todd (1954), K. R. Hammond et al (see record 1965-08022-001), S. Oskamp (see record 1968-02701-001), L. R. Goldberg (see record 1970-12828-001), and R. M. Dawes (see record 1971-25701-001) suggests that the same relation between consistency of inferences and task predictability holds in clinical inferences as in laboratory learning studies. Findings indicate that, to understand the process of clinical inference, it is insufficient to analyze only the clinician; it is also necessary to analyze the clinician/clinical-task system. (15 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Dieting and binging reexamined: A response to Lowe.

Refutes M. R. Lowe's (see record 1986-20197-001) questions concerning the present authors' (see record 1986-01626-001) analysis of the causal relation of dieting and binge eating, maintaining their position that dieting and its correlates "cause" bingeing in the sense of making it much more likely. (9 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Correction to Perruchet et al. (2006).

Reports an error in "Do We Need Algebraic-Like Computations? A Reply to Bonatti, Pena, Nespor, and Mehler (2004)" by Pierre Perruchet, Ronald Peereman, and Michael D. Tyler (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2006[May], 135(2), 322-326). The page numbers that Dr. Perruchet cited from Dr. Bonatti et al.'s article were printed incorrectly. These page numbers should appear as follows in the correction. (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 2006-06642-011.) L. L. Bonatti, M. Pena, M. Nespor, and J. Mehler (see record 2006-06642-010) argued that P. Perruchet, M. D. Tyler, N. Galland, and R. Peereman (see record 2004-21166-008) confused the notions of segmentation and generalization by ignoring the evidence for generalization in M. Pena, L. L. Bonatti, M. Nespor, and J. Mehler (see record 2002-06215-001). In this reply, the authors reformulate and complement their initial arguments, showing that their way of dealing with segmentation and generalization is not due to confusion or ignorance but rather to the fact that the tests used in Pena et al. make it likely that neither segmentation nor generalization were captured in their experiments. Finally, the authors address the challenge posed by Pena et al. of accounting for the whole pattern of their results without invoking rule-based, algebraic-like computations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Postmodern psychology: Resonance and reflection.

K. J. Gergen comments on the reactions to his exchange (see record 1994-37275-001) with M. B. Smith (see record 1994-37277-001) from R. L. Russell and M. D. Gaubatz (see record 1995-36714-001); B. Denner (see record 1995-36711-001); D. Mente (see record 1995-36713-001); and D. White and A. Wang (see record 1995-36716-001). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Misleading postevent information and the memory impairment hypothesis: Comment on Belli and reply to Tversky and Tuchin.

R. F. Belli (see record 1989-24859-001) and B. Tversky and M. Tuchin (see record 1989-24890-001) used a "Yes"/"No" recognition procedure to explore effects of misleading postevent information on memory for events. We examine the data and arguments presented in these studies, concluding that neither study demonstrates that misleading postevent information impairs memory for the original event. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

About postmodernism: Reply to Gergen and others.

In his reply, M. B. Smith comments on the issues between K. J. Gergen (see record 1994-37275-001) and himself (see record 1994-37277-001) and replies to comments by R. L. Russell and M. D. Gaubatz (see record 1995-36714-001); B. Denner (see record 1995-36711-001); D. Mente (see record 1995-36713-001); and D. White and A. Wang (see record 1995-36716-001). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Do we need algebraic-like computations? A reply to Bonatti, Pe?a, Nespor, and Mehler (2006).

L. L. Bonatti, M. Pe?a, M. Nespor, and J. Mehler (see record 2006-06642-010) argued that P. Perruchet, M. D. Tyler, N. Galland, and R. Peereman (see record 2004-21166-008) confused the notions of segmentation and generalization by ignoring the evidence for generalization in M. Pe?a, L. L. Bonatti, M. Nespor, and J. Mehler (see record 2002-06215-001). In this reply, the authors reformulate and complement their initial arguments, showing that their way of dealing with segmentation and generalization is not due to confusion or ignorance but rather to the fact that the tests used in Pe?a et al. make it likely that neither segmentation nor generalization were captured in their experiments. Finally, the authors address the challenge posed by Pena et al. of accounting for the whole pattern of their results without invoking rule-based, algebraic-like computations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Meta-analysis of cognitive gender differences: A comment on an analysis by Rosenthal and Rubin.

Extends both the logic and the statistical procedures used in a recent analysis by R. Rosenthal and D. B. Rubin (see record 1983-02381-001) of data on gender differences in cognitive abilities reported in a meta-analysis by J. S. Hyde (see record 1982-07673-001). The logic of a "model fitting" approach to meta-analysis is described. Relevant statistical procedures and goodness-of-fit tests are illustrated. It is concluded that sex differences are changing over time and that essentially all of the variability in the sex differences reported by different studies can be explained as a function of the publication date and the selectivity of the sampling plan used in the studies. (10 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Depression and cognitive style: Comparisons between measures.

Discusses 4 devices developed recently to measure cognitive styles associated with depression that appear to have an underlying similarity—an attributional style questionnaire developed by M. F. Seligman et al (see PA, Vol 88:6218); a model of characterological self-blame developed by R. Janoff-Bulman (see record 1981-01320-001); a cognitive-bias questionnaire developed by C. Hammen (1981); and an attitudes-toward-self (ATS) scale developed by C. S. Carver and R. J. Ganellen (see record 1983-32781-001). Each measure appears to reflect a tendency for respondents to infer a general lack of self-worth (or a continued likelihood of bad events) on the basis of a single discrete failure. The present research was a comparative test of one of these scales against the other 3 in terms of associations with Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores. Though all instruments were significantly correlated with the BDI, partial correlations revealed that the generalization (ATS) scale was a more robust predictor of BDI than were the measures of characterological self-blame, cognitive bias, and attributional style. (28 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"PhD recipients in psychology and biology: Do those with dissertation advisors of the same sex publish scholarly papers more frequently?": Reply to Sugar and Tracy and to Primack and O'Leary.

Comments that the focus of the article by H. Schuckman (see record 1988-11977-001) was the inability to replicate E. Goldstein's (see record 1979-25912-001) finding that people who published most scholarly papers had advisors of the same sex, however, J. Sugar and C. R. Tracy (see record 1989-30958-001) and R. Primack and V. O'Leary (see record 1989-30936-001) were more concerned with the interpretation that the most productive PhDs had male advisors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)