Grouped arrays versus object-based representations: Reply to Kramer et al. (1997).

An important issue in attention research concerns the representational format from which attention selects. S. P. Vecera and M. J. Farah (see record 1994-32352-001) presented results that they argued demonstrated attentional selection from a spatially invariant object representation. In their comment, A. F. Kramer, T. A. Weber, and S. E. Watson (see record 84-18014) questioned the interpretation of these results, and they presented evidence consistent with selection from a grouped location-based representation. In this reply, the author argues that although an absence of spatial, or distance, effects may be ambiguous as to whether attention is selecting from an object-based representation or from a location-based representation, there are computational considerations that favor object-based selection in certain tasks. The author concludes with a discussion of how object-based and location-based representations might interact with one another, thereby providing a possible explanation of Kramer et al.'s results. Such an account may lead to an understanding of how multiple forms of attentional selection may coexist in the visual system. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self–other merging and the empathy–altruism hypothesis: Reply to Neuberg et al. (1997).

R. B. Cialdini, S. L. Brown, B. P. Lewis, C. Luce, & S. L. Neuberg (1997) present data that they claim challenge the empathy–altruism hypothesis by providing evidence that the effects of empathy on helping are due to self–other merging. Despite S. L. Neuberg et al's (1997) efforts at reassurance, doubts remain about the meaning of these data because they were obtained using scenario procedures and confounded manipulations. Using less questionable methods, C. D. Batson et al. (1997) failed to find evidence that empathy-induced helping was due to self-other merging. At a more fundamental level, the Cialdini et al. challenge rests on apparent misunderstanding of the empathy-altruism hypothesis and, as a result, of appropriate means to test it. Finally, the question of whether empathy leads to anything more than superficial helping is addressed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

EBP ≠ EST: Reply to Crits-Christoph et al. (2005) and Weisz et al. (2005).

Replies to Crits-Christoph et al. (see record 2005-04167-007) and Weisz et al (see record 2005-04167-008). Evidence-based practice (EBP) is not a synonym of empirically supported therapies (ESTs). ESTs reflect 1 kind of evidence that should guide EBP. The authors focus in this response on 4 issues: the distinction between 2 functions of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with very different methodological and clinical implications, problems with the experimental designs used to test ESTs that have unnecessarily limited their clinical and scientific utility, the question of how to integrate findings from RCTs with findings from other empirical methods to guide evidence-based interventions, and what one means by clinicians (i.e., whether clinicians should be paraprofessionals who implement procedures developed by researchers or full-fledged partners in the development and implementation of evidence-based psychological practice). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Structural equation modeling: Reply to Marsh et al. (1994).

In our previous article (B. S. Randhawa et al; see record 1993-23567-001), we concluded that (1) the endogenous latent variable (self-efficacy) mediated the exogenous latent variable (attitude) and the endogenous latent variable (mathematics achievement) and that (2) self-efficacy and attitude were more strongly related to achievement for boys than for girls. H. W. Marsh et al (see record 1995-03503-001) claimed that we inappropriately applied the structure equation modeling and consequently our conclusions are unsubstantiated. We defend our analysis and conclusions. We show that a philosophically different perspective in their reanalysis of the covariance matrices and the fact that their input data were derived from our reported truncated summary results may have been the basis for the differences in their results and conclusions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Our main conclusion stands: Reply to Rohling et al. (2011).

In their comment, M. L. Rohling et al. (2011) accused us of offering a “misleading” review of response bias. In fact, the additional findings they provided on this topic are relevant only to bias assessment in 1 of the domains we discussed, neuropsychological assessment. Furthermore, we contend that, even in that 1 domain, the additional findings they described do not merit revision of our conclusion that the data are insufficient for evaluating the status of bias indicators. We remain hopeful that our review will spur researchers to publish additional tests of the validity of bias indicators in real-world settings and reduce the reliance on analogue studies as an evidence base for their use. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Weak criticisms and selective evidence: Reply to Blanton et al. (2009).

We respond to a critique by H. Blanton et al. (see record 2009-06703-001), challenging our previous work demonstrating that an Implicit Association Test designed to assess implicit prejudice reliably predicts intergroup discrimination (see record 2001-11532-008). We outline 3 flawed aspects of the critique. First, we note that claims that an outlier should be eliminated from the original data set are unfounded, and even with the elimination of this outlier, the conclusions of our original work are still strongly supported by the data. Second, we explain that concerns about interjudge reliability are specious and that considerable data support the validity of the judges’ observations reported in our original study. Third, we note that claims of a disconnect between Implicit Association Test scores (argued to show negative bias against Blacks) and behavioral measures (argued to show pro-Black bias) are inappropriate because they neglect the relativistic nature of the key measures. Implications for the relation between implicit attitudes and behavior, for the law, and for future work on implicit attitudes are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Working Memory and Intelligence: Different Constructs. Reply to Oberauer et al. (2005) and Kane et al. (2005).

The authors address agreements and disagreements with the M. J. Kane, D. Z. Hambrick, and A. R. A. Conway (2005; see record 2004-22408-004) and K. Oberauer, R. Schulze, O. Wilhelm, and H.-M. Sü? (2005; see record 2004-22408-003) commentaries on P. L. Ackerman, M. E. Beier, and M. O. Boyle (2005; see record 2004-22408-002). They discuss the following issues: (a) the relationship between working memory (WM) and general intelligence (g), (b) the reanalyses included in the comments, (c) the use of a fixed-effects model versus a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, (d) the use of structural equation modeling analyses and structural coefficients as equivocal evidence for the relationship between WM and intelligence, and (e) the problem of confirmation bias in research on WM. Although the authors disagree with their commentators about the magnitude of the relationship between WM and g, in the final analysis it appears that all concerned parties agree that WM and intelligence are different constructs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Issues concerning relative speed of processing hypotheses, schizophrenic performance deficits, and prefrontal function: Comment on Schooler et al. (1997).

The authors have found the data presented in the C. Schooler, E. Neumann, L. J. Caplan, and B. R. Roberts (see record 1997-02838-004) article to be interesting and of potential value in constraining the further development of detailed theoretical models of Stroop performance. However, the authors have found that the relative speed of processing account of stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) effects given by Schooler et al. in Experiment 1 fails to address several important and vexing issues faced by such accounts, which have been highlighted by existing formal models. The authors also have expressed concerns about Schooler et al.'s, interpretation of the reduction in Stroop interference observed among individuals with schizophrenia in Experiment 2. Whereas the authors have acknowledged that it is plausible to relate this to a dysfunction of prefrontal cortex, they have pointed to equally plausible alternative explanations, which are not addressed by the experiment or in the discussion in the Schooler et al. article. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Strong rebuttal for weak criticisms: Reply to Blanton et al. (2009).

We respond to H. Blanton et al.’s (See record 2009-06703-001) critique of J. C. Ziegert & P. J. Hanges (see record 2005-05102-011) and illustrate that their criticisms regarding our study are based on very weak evidence. In this rebuttal, we highlight the appropriateness of our manipulation as well as present reanalyses that illustrate the predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test. In particular, we illustrate that the Implicit Association Test is related to discriminatory behavior (a) after one eliminates potential outliers using appropriate multivariate methods, (b) across conditions after one controls for the manipulation, (c) when one just examines Black applicants, and (d) after one controls for explicit attitudes. Thus, in this rebuttal, we not only reaffirm the original findings of J. C. Ziegert and P. J. Hanges (2005) but we extend them to illustrate the broader contexts in which the Implicit Association Test is related to discriminatory behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

More words but still no lexicon: Reply to Besner et al. (1990).

The major points in the D. Besner et al (see record 1990-27434-001) critique of the M. S. Seidenberg and J. L. McClelland (see record 1990-03520-001) model are addressed. The model's performance differs from that of people in ways that are predictable from an understanding of the limitations of implementation. The principal limitations are the size of the training corpus and the phonological representation. The issue of pseudohomophone effects is discussed, and Besner et al's new data are shown to be consistent with the Seidenberg and McClelland account of lexical decision. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Validity of Dietary Restraint Scales: Reply to van Strien et al. (2006).

In T. van Strien, R. C. M. E. Engels, W. van Staveren, and C. P. Herman's (see record 2006-03905-010) comment, they contested the conclusion that dietary restraint scales are invalid measures of acute dietary restriction (E. Stice, M. Fisher, & M. R. Lowe, 2004). The authors respond to their concerns and conclude that researchers should (a) not have to work this hard to find evidence that these scales correlate with dieting restriction, (b) not settle for scales with only weak validity, and (c) use scales that are consistently valid across settings. The authors also discuss new evidence that most weight loss dieters are not achieving the negative energy balance necessary for weight loss, which seems to explain why these scales do not correlate inversely with caloric intake and why those with the highest dietary restraint scores gain more weight over time. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships": Correction to McCullough et al. (1997).

Reports an error in the original article by M. E. McCullough et al (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997, 73(2), 321–336). This article reported on the 1995 dissertation by M. E. McCoullough in which the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI) was used; however, the EFI items were not properly cited. The items should be ascribed to the developers of the EFI: M. J. Subkoviak et al (1995). (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 1997-05290-008): Forgiving is a motivational transformation that inclines people to inhibit relationship-destructive responses and to behave constructively toward someone who has behaved destructively toward them. The authors describe a model of forgiveness based on the hypothesis that people forgive others to the extent that they experience empathy for them. Two studies investigated the empathy model of forgiveness. In Study 1, the authors developed measures of empathy and forgiveness. The authors found evidence consistent with the hypotheses that (a) the relationship between receiving an apology from and forgiving one's offender is a function of increased empathy for the offender and (b) that forgiving is uniquely related to conciliatory behavior and avoidance behavior toward the offending partner… (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

It's long-term stressors that take a toll: Comment on Cohen et al. (1998).

In an extremely well-controlled study, Cohen et al. (1998) add to prior knowledge of stress-illness relationships by showing that self-reports of stress occurrence and duration of one month or more, rather than estimates of stressor severity, predict susceptibility to experimentally induced colds (i.e., viral replication and cold symptoms). Although ruling out obvious behavioral and personality factors as causes of the association of stressors to colds, they were unable to identify mediational immune factors, a deficit attributable to the difficulty of assessing the multi-layered, dynamic physiological processes within the bidirectional connections of the nervous (stress) and immune systems. The findings provide an interesting complement to data, showing that people use stressor duration in evaluating the illness implications of somatic symptoms (L. C. Cameron et al, see record 1995-30591-001), and suggest caution with regard to overestimating the prevalence of stress-induced colds in natural settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The flat earth as a metaphor for the evidence for uniform efficacy of bona fide psychotherapies: Reply to Crits-Christoph (1997) and Howard et al. (1997).

On the basis of a meta-analysis of comparisons of bona fide psychotherapies, B. E. Wampold et al. (1997) concluded that the available evidence supported the notion that all psychotherapies are nearly equal in terms of efficacy. K. I. Howard, M. S. Krause, S. M. Saunders, and S. M. Kopta (1997) and P. Crits-Christoph (1997) raised 4 general issues with this conclusion: (a) counterexamples, (b) untested alternative hypotheses, (c) methodological problems, and (d) adequacy of randomized clinical trials. Each of these issues is discussed, and it is asserted that empirically there is no basis to alter the conclusions reached in B. E. Wampold et al.'s (1997) meta-analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The relation between source memory and episodic memory: Comment on Siedlecki et al. (2005).

On the basis of an interesting structural equation analysis, K. L. Siedlecki, T. A. Salthouse, and D. E. Berish (see record 2005-02476-002) argued that "it may not be meaningful to refer to source memory as a construct distinct from episodic memory" (p. 31). This commentary highlights that this same point could also be made on conceptual grounds. To suggest that source and episodic memory are distinct concepts would confound tasks with theoretical constructs. All episodic tasks involve making attributions about the origin of mental experiences (source monitoring). Conversely, source memory tasks are designed to investigate episodic memory. No task is special, but each may be useful, depending on the focus of interest. (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)     

Correction to Kanayama et al. (2007).

Reports an error in "Testosterone supplementation for depressed men: Current research and suggested treatment guidelines" by Gen Kanayama, Revital Amiaz, Stuart Seidman and Harrison G. Pope Jr. (Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 2007[Dec], Vol 15[6], 529-538). In the "Recent Studies" section (pp. 531-532), citations to Pope and Katz (2003) should have been to Pope, Kanayama, Cohane, Siegel, and Hudson (2003) to reflect the following source, which was omitted from the reference list: "Pope, H. G., Jr., Kanayama, G., Cohane, G., Siegel, A., & Hudson, J. I. (2003). Testosterone gel supplementation for men with refractory depression: A randomized placebo-controlled trial. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 105-111". (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2007-18976-003.) Several lines of accumulating evidence suggest that testosterone might be effective for the treatment of depression, especially in older men who exhibit low testosterone levels. However, despite the potential promise of this approach, the available literature of controlled studies of testosterone in depression remains extremely limited. Therefore, testosterone treatment of depression must still be considered an experimental procedure. At the present state of research, it appears that testosterone might most likely show benefit as an augmentation strategy in men who exhibit low or borderline testosterone levels and who show only a partial response to conventional antidepressants. In this article, we provide some suggested practical guidelines for the treatment of such individuals. However, it should be recognized that these suggestions are tentative and will likely require revision as additional data become available. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Correction to Zhao et al. (2011).

Reports an error in "National survey of ethical practices among Chinese psychotherapists" by Jing-Bo Zhao, Jian-Lin Ji, Xue-Ling Yang, Zhen-Zhi Yang, Yan-Fei Hou and Xiao-Yuan Zhang (Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Advanced Online Publication, Aug 15, 2011, np). The following sentence is incorrect: “The APA has long recognized that harm and exploitation could result from dual relationships between patient and therapist (Staykova, 2010).” The correct citation for this statement should be: (APA, 1981, 1990, 1992, 2010; Sturm, 1998). Additionally, the following entry should not be listed in the References: Staykova, J. D. (2010). “On wings as swift as meditation”: A devotional allusion in Hamlet. Notes and Queries, 57, 380–384. doi:10.1093/notesj/gjq109. The correct references are included in the erratum. The authors regret these errors. All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2011-17863-001.) The present study is a cross-sectional national survey that investigated the ethical practices in a large representative sample of Chinese psychotherapists (N = 690). The results revealed that 76.4% of therapists had experienced feelings of incompetence, more than 80% of therapists had performed the basic principles of informed consent and confidentiality, 1.9% of the sample had engaged in sexual contact with a client, 1.8% had engaged in dual business relationships with their clients, and 34.2% had provided therapy for acquaintances in their practice. The role of the principles of Confucianism as a major influence on the ethical practices in Chinese psychotherapists is discussed. The results suggested that the Chinese Psychological Society should concentrate efforts on educating trainees on how best to maintain therapeutic boundaries when there was a preexisting relationship between therapist and client. The current Chinese Code of Ethics for Clinical and Counseling Practice (Chinese Psychological Society, 2007) could be modified to better incorporate the characteristics of traditional Chinese culture, for example, considering the value of “face” when stipulating the guidelines of dual relationships. Cross-cultural psychotherapy could benefit the clients by examining the influence of traditional Chinese culture, for example, by paying more attention to the important others of the clients. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)