Span of apprehension deficits in vulnerable children: Further comments.

Replies to the comments of R. F. Asarnow et al (see record 1985-01251-001) on the failure by the present authors (see record 1985-01308-001) to replicate findings of an earlier study by Asarnow and colleagues (see record 1978-05788-001) that showed performance deficits on the span of apprehension task in children vulnerable to psychopathology. Although the present authors acknowledge that the procedure used by Asarnow and colleagues involved nonfoveal presentations while the present authors' procedure did not, they stand by their conclusion that the findings of the earlier study are not generalizable. (4 ref) (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)     

Response to Gunnar Johansson's critical commentary.

Responds to G. Johansson's (see record 1986-10919-001) critique of the present authors and D. Nitzberg's (see record 1986-00251-001) proposed alternative to vector analysis in motion perception. The present authors argue that their use of the 1950 version of vector analysis does not affect the validity of their findings. An example in which vector analysis is shown to be ineffective is included. (10 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)     

Separating ideology from currently available data: A reply to Cotton and Cook and McGlynn.

Responds to criticisms by J. L. Cotton and M. S. Cook (see record 1982-26971-001) and R. P. McGlynn (see record 1982-26992-001) of conclusions reached by the present authors in an earlier article (Johnson et al; see record 1981-05387-001). The data are reexamined, and it is concluded that Cotton and Cook's emphasis on the importance of interactions between goal structures and situational variables was not supported. (13 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The need to test hypotheses about paranoid schizophrenia: Reply to Clementz and Sweeney.

Responds to the criticism of B. A. Clementz and J. A. Sweeney (see record 1989-32933-001) on the article by the present authors (see record 1988-23546-001) presenting the hypothesis that paranoid schizophrenia is not a true schizophrenia but one of several responses to an underlying depressive mode. (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)     

Inevitability and automaticity: A response to Fisk.

Responds to the comments of A. D. Fisk (see record 1986-16289-001) on the present authors' (see record 1985-27168-001) work on automatic processing of fundamental information. The present authors use the term automaticity as a process by which some attributes of an attended to stimulus are encoded into memory. It is suggested that Fisk's view of automaticity is derived from the study of automatic search mechanisms, particularly as they slowly develop in multiple frame visual search tasks; therefore, several methodological problems that Fisk addresses do not fit the concerns of the present authors or are irrelevant to them. (12 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the pitfalls of "Ptolemaic" psychology: A reply to Sawusch and Mullennix.

In their reply to the present authors (see record 1986-05428-001), J. R. Sawusch and J. W. Mullennix (see record 1986-05440-001) proposed a counterinterpretation of the authors' results regarding conceptualizations of selective adaptation with speech and described some previously unpublished data that they took to be inconsistent with the present authors' unified adaptation-level account of selective adaptation and contrast effects. It is argued that this counterinterpretation requires a series of purely ad hoc assumptions that render the 2-stage theory of Sawusch and P. Jusczyk (see record 1982-00351-001) almost completely vacuous. It is also shown that the new data of Sawusch and Mullennix are definitely not incompatible with an adaptation-level account. (15 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A reply to Moshman's critique of prediction analysis and developmental priority.

Replies to D. Moshman's critique (see record 1981-27127-001) of the paper by the present authors (see record 1980-06671-001), who point out (a) the implicit logical fallacy of affirming the consequent in Moshman's argument and (b) the counterintuitive contention that statistical independence does not rule out developmental priority. (2 ref) (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)     

Reliability of measurement and the power of statistical tests: Some new results.

The authors (see record 1979-00153-001) argued that the reliability coefficient for the dependent variable in a controlled experiment has no direct relevance for hypothesis testing. Specifically, they demonstrated that increasing the reliability coefficient for the dependent variable did not necessarily increase the power of standard statistical tests. The authors present further evidence that large reliability coefficients are not always desirable in true experiments, and replies to J. P. Sutcliffe's (see record 1980-29332-001) basic criticisms of Nicewander and Price's contentions. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Process and outcome considerations in juror evaluation of eyewitness testimony.

Responds to comments by G. L. Wells (see record 1985-20040-001) on the present authors' (see record 1984-06612-001) argument that current empirical findings on perception and memory do not justify a role for psychologists in evaluating eyewitness testimony. The present authors argue that Wells's statements on process and outcome confuse the outcome of an individual trial and trials in the aggregate. The question of whether jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony is discussed. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Further considerations for behavior-genetic analysis of humans.

Replies to R. Plomin and T. Foch's (see record 1986-00486-001) disagreement with the present authors and P. A. Rothbaum's (see record 1984-11539-001) presentation of 5 specific points in a critique of Plomin and Foch's (see record 1981-25190-001) earlier behavior-genetic analysis of personality. Rather than replying point–counterpoint to Plomin and Foch, the present authors discuss basic issues that put both critiques into a perspective useful to the application and interpretation of genetic analysis. Three relevant issues in experimental behavior-genetic studies as they apply to correlational behavior-genetic studies of human personality are described. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

We agree: A rejoinder from Penk and Robinowitz to Sutker and Allain.

In response to P. B. Sutker and A. N. Allain (see record 1981-21988-001), the present authors (see record 1980-12694-001) assert that the issue of voluntarism in drug treatment programs will not be resolved by rhetoric but by data. Methodological implications are noted. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

More on the distinction between episodic and semantic memories.

Responds to E. Tulving's (see record 1986-19162-001) reply to the critique of the present authors and a colleague (see record 1986-19143-001) regarding episodic/semantic distinction of memory by asserting that the classification methods proposed by Tulving may be detrimental to the advancement of theory and that whole domains of inquiry should not be excluded from the usual criteria of experimental psychology. (18 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

What about the question of integration? A reply to Apfelbaum and to Ellis

Responds to B. Apfelbaum's (see record 1982-06074-001) and A. Ellis's (see record 1982-06089-001) critiques of the present authors' (see record 1980-30751-001) article concerning the integration of psychoanalytic and behavior therapies. The replies to both authors are addressed separately. (8 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)     

"How vagueness can ruin a survey: Comment on Pope, Tabachnick, and Keith-Spiegel": Reply to Koltko.

Replies to comments by M. E. Koltko (see record 1989-26792-001) regarding the methodology used by the present authors (see record 1988-11972-001) in a survey of ethical and unethical practices among psychologists. The present authors defend the use of ipsative rather than normative measurement under certain conditions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)