Psychological publications.

Articles by Y. Brackbill and F. Korten (see record 1971-03212-001) and R. G. Kinkade (see record 1971-03214-001) raise difficult questions about psychological publications. Suggestions are offered for helping referees and editors in the review and selection of articles for publication in American Psychological Association journals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Optimal psychological adjustment: Response to Miller's and Bronfenbrenner's discussions.

Evaluates the interpretations and criticisms offered by D. Miller (see record 1971-06296-001) and U. Bronfenbrenner (see record 1971-04219-001) of an earlier article by E. Siegelman, J. Block, J. H. Block, and A. van der Lippe (see record 1971-04232-001). Miller's view that clinical psychologists will not agree among themselves in defining optimal psychological functioning does not appear to be empirically supported. His interpretation of the findings in terms of social class and the bureaucratic-entrepreneurial distinction did not receive support when further analyses of the data were undertaken to test his views. While agreeing with Miller that psychologists should be aware of the social requisites of a culture and subculture in formulating their evaluations of character, it was further argued that the idea of cultural relativism unwittingly could operate to justify pathogenic, growth-limiting cultural arrangements. The Bronfenbrenner critique was judged not helpful. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comparative Psychology Still Lives.

Were other readers of the American Psychologist also surprised to see within one issue a social psychologist's delight in reporting how basic features of human obesity had been illuminated by rat experiments (see record 1971-24450-001) followed by an obituary for comparative psychology (see record 1971-24449-001)? Cavalier dismissal of research on common laboratory species as irrelevant and unjustified may be a bit premature. Comparative psychology still lives, perhaps a bit stronger at Columbia. The message for us all, I think, is that empiricism transcends all schools and theories of psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Debate over relevance.

Argues that there may be more to the debate over relevance in psychology than implied by J. Baron (see record 1972-10028-001). E. Walker (see record 1971-07202-001) cautioned against being too superficial or delving too deep in the search for relevance. (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)     

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)     

On Schneider's reply to Albee.

Responds to S. F. Schneider's (see record 1972-21036-001) reply to G. W. Albee's (see record 1971-08263-001) article on clinical psychology as a profession. Albee's provocation may be useful, since intergroup conflict in clinical psychology might produce constructive changes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the demise of comparative psychology.

Argues that the entire area of comparative psychology has been questioned by R. B. Lockard (see record 1971-24449-001) following an earlier questioning by R. B. Lockard (see record 1969-06149-001) of the use of rats in psychology. The author protests handing this area of behavioral analysis over to biology, leaving the role of planning statistical manipulation to psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An unequivocal "yes" for morality study.

The author cites her own study (see record 1971-20823-001) and one by H. Hartshorne and M. May (1930) on cheating and the moral development of children to illustrate that morality can be studied objectively, a possibility that was addressed by N. Haan (see record 1983-22367-001). It is contended that these researchers investigated moral behavior without allowing their own value systems to contaminate the data. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Delayed Déjà Vu.

Comments on the article by D. I. Templer (see record 1990-56928-001) based on the original research by S. Schachter (see record 1971-24450-001) that draws parallel findings for obese humans and rats. The current author makes mention of a similar idea as Templer's suggestion of a common hypothalamic mechanism mediating aphagia in rats and human anorexia written by himself in the introductory textbook by Dember and Jenkins, General Psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Criteria for hiring psychologists": Reply.

Comments on the data analysis procedures used by H. H. Blumberg (1971) to extend L. S. Fidell's (see record 1971-07201-001) analysis of data on hiring practices in psychology. (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)     

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)     

Psychological theories of obesity.

Responds to S. Schacter's (see record 1971-24450-001) article on obesity and the comments generated by the article from E. R. Bauer (1971), M. S. Smart and R. S. Smart (1971), and D. I. Templer (1971). Generalizations were raised that seemed to contradict one another. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the evaluative factor in the trait scales of Peabody's study of trait inferences.

In 2 factor analyses of trait inferences, an analysis of antecedent terms and an analysis of trait scales, D. Peabody (see record 1968-03876-001) did not find an evaluative factor. S. Rosenberg and K. Olshan (see record 1971-04168-001) criticized Peabody's analysis of antecedent terms, having found an evaluative dimension by the use of distance measures. The present reanalysis of Peabody's data also yielded a clearly evaluative dimension in the trait scales. The resulting factors, except the evaluative one, were identical to Peabody's antecedent term factors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Evaluating counselor effectiveness: A critical review of rating scale instruments.

Critiques 6 frequently used counselor rating scales: the Counselor Rating Form (A. Barak and M. B. LaCrosse; see record 1976-07806-001), the Counselor Rating Form—Short Version (J. D. Corrigan and L. D. Schmidt; see record 1983-09385-001), the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory, the Counselor Evaluation Inventory (J. D. Linden et al; see record 1966-04251-001), the Counselor Effectiveness Scale (A. E. Ivey, 1971), and the Counselor Effectiveness Rating Scale (D. R. Atkinson and G. Carskaddon; see record 1975-25352-001). The validity, reliability, and pragmatic utility of each scale are critically examined, and the frequency of scale use across 3 counseling journals is recorded for an 11-yr period (1974–1984). Reliability and validity issues are raised, and it is suggested that use of these instruments has been based more on convention than on sound psychometric evidence. (50 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comments on Rawlings' nonorthogonal analysis of variance.

In J. Overall and D. Spiegel's reply to R. Rawlings's (see record 1972-26084-001) criticism of their previous article, the authors state that Rawlings's alternative nonorthogonal analysis of variance is equivalent to their method, which Rawlings criticized as incorrect. In 2 separate articles (a) Rawlings replies to Overall and Spiegel's present article, and (b) I. Smith contends that there is a statistical error in G. Joe's (see record 1971-25969-001) attempt to clarify the original Overall and Speigel article. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Interpretation of Heritability: A Rejoinder.

Replies to comments by A. R. Jensen (see record 1990-57013-001) on comments by the original author (see record 1990-56938-001) to a discussion about role of heredity and environment in behavior development by D. O. Hebb (1970; 1971) and A. R. Jensen (1971). The author clarifies 3 specific points. First, that it was not the statistical procedures but the empirical data to which they were applied that led the author to question Jensen's original conclusions. Second, that the probabilistic argument, to which Jensen's present comment addresses itself in large part, is of primary interest when no other information is available regarding the origins of particular differences between individuals or group. Finally, that the sort of environmental interventions generally considered in relation to minority group status do not represent simply a reshuffling of environmental variations already existing within such groups (or within other groups). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Questions premises of Klineberg.

Questions 2 premises in O. Klineberg's (see record 1971-24756-001) article: (1) that competition is good and (2) that good scholarship is objective. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Got a minute? Attentional limits revisited.

Responds to comments by R. C. Tees (see record 1991-03035-001), J. G. Adair (see record 1991-03013-001), J. E. Grusec (see record 1991-03021-001), K. Danziger (see record 1991-03016-001), L. P. Mos (see record 1991-03027-001), H. J. Stam (see record 1991-03033-001), and V. Vikis-Freilbergs (see record 1991-03039-001) on W. Thorngate's (see record 1991-03036-001) contention that the overproduction of psychological literature will lead to fragmentation of the discipline. As the works of psychologists proliterate, their scientific truth may capture less attention than their practical importance or personal interest. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)