Meta-analysis and selective publication bias.

Disagrees with J. T. Landman and R. M. Dawes (see record 1982-30838-001), who support M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass's (see record 1978-10341-001) conclusion that there is convincing evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapy. It is suggested that since it is possible that one-fourth to one-half of the mean effect size reported by Smith and Glass might have been due to selective reporting, it is wrong and misleading to continue claiming that the patient in psychotherapy is better off than 75% of untreated controls. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

In defense of "bootstrapping."

Responds to A. G. Weinstein's (1972) comments on R. M. Dawes's (see record 1971-25701-001) findings supporting "bootstrapping" in Dawes's study of graduate admissions. Bootstrapping can be used when actuarial analysis is impossible (e.g., criterion information is lacking or unavailable until after decisions are made). It is not implied that linear composites based on paramorphic representations are superior to those based on actuarial analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

New evidence of flaws in the Consumer Reports study of psychotherapy.

Comments on M. E. P. Seligman's article (see record 1997-04811-001) and comment (see record 1997-04812-001) concerning the Consumer Reports study of psychotherapy. It is argued that the new information from the comment only confirms previously cited flaws. It is believed that while seeking evidence about the effectiveness of psychotherapy, M. E. P. Seligman simultaneously assumed its effectiveness. Methodological flaws of the kind that invalidated the Consumer Reports reanalysis can be corrected in subsequent studies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Kurosawa.

Defends the 1st 2 authors' (see record 1982-30838-001) reanalysis of the M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass (see record 1978-10341-001) psychotherapy outcome study and responds to criticism by K. Kurosawa (see record 1984-24820-001) regarding their conclusion that there is convincing evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapy. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

In defense of "bootstrapping": Erratum.

Reports an error in the original article by R. M. Dawes (American Psychologist, 1972[Aug], Vol 27[8], 773-774). On page 774, the following statement appeared: "Rather than ignore this finding, I used it to illustrate the very first principle I discussed: that linear composites based on paramorphic representations are superior to those based on actuarial analysis". The statement should read: "Rather than ignore this finding, I used it to illustrate the very first principle I discussed: that linear composites based on actuarial predictions are superior to clinical judgments when both are based on the same codable input. Nowhere in the article did I state or imply that linear composites based on paramorphic representations are superior to those based on actuarial analysis". (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 1990-56997-001.) Responds to A. G. Weinstein's (1972) comments on R. M. Dawes's (see record 1971-25701-001) findings supporting "bootstrapping" in Dawes's study of graduate admissions. Bootstrapping can be used when actuarial analysis is impossible (e.g., criterion information is lacking or unavailable until after decisions are made). It is not implied that linear composites based on paramorphic representations are superior to those based on actuarial analysis. (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)     

Reply to Orwin and Cordray.

The authors reply to criticisms by R. G. Orwin and D. S. Cordray (see record 1984-24829-001) concerning their reanalysis of the M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass (see record 1978-10341-001) psychotherapy outcome study. The authors defend their analysis and reject Orwin and Cordray's assertion that they overstated the case for psychotherapeutic effectiveness. (6 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)     

Some assumptions are more troubling than others: Rejoinder to Chemers and Fiedler.

Defends the assumptions made in the study by the present authors (see record 1987-12114-001) that conducted a computer simulation to compare F. E. Fiedler's (1964) contingency model of leadership with the Leader Match training program and tests the additional assumptions suggested by M. M. Chemers and F. E. Fiedler (see record 1987-12110-001). It is suggested that the computer simulation conservatively underestimated rather than overestimated the problems in Leader Match. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The possibility of possibility.

Comments that B. D. Slife (see record 1995-13451-001), M. Gergen (see record 1995-14294-001), R. N. Williams (see record 1995-12851-001), and M. S. Richardson (see record 1995-14311-001) all seem to suggest that the contextless nature of the traditional conception of free will is problematic. Although each author attempts to contextualize this traditional conception, many of their explanations reveal that the underlying problem remains. It is suggested that a radically new assumption of time, such as Heidegger's temporality, is necessary. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Bar-Hillel and Fischhoff.

Responds to M. Bar-Hillel and B. Fischhoff's (see record 1982-09792-001) paper on the present authors' (see record 1981-07963-001) study of base rates and individual predictions. It is suggested that the theoretical position that Bar-Hillel and Fischhoff advance seems plausible. However, it leads to 2 clear predictions that were not supported in the studies by Manis et al. (7 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

More on determinants of delay of gratification.

Comments on D. C. Funder and M. J. Harris's (see record 1986-21971-001) reanalysis of W. Mischel's (see record 1985-06679-001) data relating to the comparative strength of dispositional and situational determinants of delayed gratification by suggesting that Funder and Harris may have underestimated the strength of situational effects and overestimated the strength of dispositional effects obtained in Mischel's experiments and by noting other discrepancies in Funder and Harris's reanalysis. (10 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"More on determinants of delay of gratification": Reply to Kihlstrom.

Respond to J. F. Kihlstrom's (see record 1986-21976-001) comments regarding the present author and M. J. Harris's (see record 1986-20971-001) reanalysis of W. Mischel's (see record 1985-06679-001) data relating to the influence of personality and situational variables on the delay of gratification by clarifying that the intention of the article by the present author and Harris was not to establish the superiority of personality variables relative to cognitive ones but to counter the frequent implication that cognitive factors can be preferred on the grounds of effect size alone. (1 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Fewer doubts concerning rats' serial position performance: Reply to Gaffan and Gaffan (1992) and Rawlins, Deacon, Chih-Ta, and Aggleton (1992).

It has been suggested by E. A. Gaffan and D. Gaffan (see record 1992-37974-001) that the data on nonspatial memory in rats reported by P. Reed et al (see record 1991-11847-001) displayed less than expected variability. Reanalysis revealed a greater degree of variance than that highlighted by Gaffan and Gaffan. Variance was, however, low at the central positions of the list, and 2 explanations for this effect are considered. The J. N. Rawlins et al (see record 1992-37990-001) explanation, experiment expectation, is rejected. Instead, poor memorial cues for items in the center of the list may have produced a reversion to a win-shift/lose-stay strategy that would account for the low variance. Although it would be prudent to suspend conclusions until adequate replications have been conducted, the present reanalysis of the data shows that the arguments made by Gaffan and Gaffan and Rawlins et al are far from definitive. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Some facets of consistency: Replies to Epstein, Funder, and Bem.

Identifies convergences and substantive differences in the comments made by S. Epstein (see record 1983-23443-001), D. C. Funder (see record 1983-30290-001), and D. J. Bem (see record 1984-04001-001) regarding the present authors' (see record 1983-05642-001) reanalysis of some issues and proposals in the search for cross-situational consistency in social behavior. (32 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Whimsy and misunderstanding of gf–gc theory: A comment on Guilford.

Replies to criticisms by J. P. Guilford (see record 1980-29063-001) of a study by J. L. Horn and R. B. Cattell (see record 1966-13188-001). The present authors respond to Guilford's criticism that in factor analytic studies, unless particular kinds of variance are eliminated by drawing homogeneous samples of Ss, factors may be spurious. The objectives of study and a number of considerations pertaining to design and methods of analysis should dictate the kind of variance that a sampling of Ss should introduce into, eliminate from, or reduce in a study. Results from the reanalysis of Horn and Cattell's data enhance the prior findings suggesting that 2 major forms of intelligence emerge out of development and acculturation: fluid (gf) and crystallized (gc). (36 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Two perspectives on the validation of developmental constructs: Psychometric and theoretical limitations in research on egocentrism.

Extends the present author's (see record 1980-05161-001) earlier analysis of the egocentrism construct and the psychometrically oriented reanalysis of H. S. Waters and V. S. Tinsley (see record 1985-22354-001) by offering a theoretically focused perspective on the validation of developmental constructs. It suggests that chronic psychometric problems in construct validation research can usually be attributed to underlying theoretical problems. Concrete examples of the limitations of cognitive-developmental theory in guiding research on egocentrism are provided and new theoretical directions are outlined. These alternative explanatory frameworks include, contextual theory developed by D. H. Feldman (1980), the cognitive-processing theory of M. Chapman (1981), and the living-systems theory of D. H. Ford (in press) and the present author (1984). (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Two many assumptions.

Responds to M. Kotkin and C. Daviet"s comments (see record 1999-15532-010) on the present author"s criticisms of the 1994 Consumer Reports study of consumers" views on mental health services (see record 1996-13324-001). Kotkin and Daviet suggested that the present author misrepresented the sampling procedure by using an incorrect percentage rate. The present author argues that both rates are literally correct given the different denominators used. He further comments that a convincing case could be made that neither figure gives a very helpful picture of the use of mental health professionals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Revealed, concealed, congealed, curdled: A reply to Pomichalek, Lamb, and Denner.

Replies to M. Pomichalek's (see record 1992-19269-001), S. Lamb's (see record 1992-19263-001), and B. Denner's (see record 1992-19257-001) remarks on P. Cushman's comments (see record 1991-17982-001) on D. Stern's (1985) study. Cushman defends constructionist research by maintaining that it can acknowledge and interpret ideology and thereby the moral framework in which the study is embedded. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)