Syntactic context and lexical access

Recent studies demonstrating that multiple meanings of an ambiguous word are initially accessed even when only one reading is syntactically appropriate with the preceding context can be criticized on at least two grounds. First, many of the syntactic contexts used were not truly restrictive, and, secondly, subjects may not have had time to integrate the context before processing the ambiguous word. In the present study, subjects listened to a sentence ending in an ambiguous word and then made a lexical decision to a target related to either the appropriate or inappropriate reading. Contexts were completely restrictive, and a pause was introduced between the context and the ambiguous word. Multiple access still obtained, providing further support for the claim that lexical access is not guided by syntactic context.     

Perception,meaning, and mind

Earlier versions of this paper were read in the Philosophy department at the University of Helsinki, in the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Edinburgh, at Vanderbilt University, at the Indiana Philosophical Association, and at the Institute for Logic and Cognitive Science at the University of Houston. I am grateful for very helpful comments on each of these occasions, and I am especially appreciative to John Haugeland, Mark Johnson, and George McClure for their comments and suggestions. Thanks, too, to Robert Solomon who urged me to amplify my claims about perceptual meaning.     

A quasi-nonmetric method for multidimensional scaling VIA an extended euclidean model

An Extended Two-Way Euclidean Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) model which assumes both common and specific dimensions is described and contrasted with the standard (Two-Way) MDS model. In this Extended Two-Way Euclidean model then stimuli (or other objects) are assumed to be characterized by coordinates onR common dimensions. In addition each stimulus is assumed to have a dimension (or dimensions) specific to it alone. The overall distance between objecti and objectj then is defined as the square root of the ordinary squared Euclidean distance plus terms denoting the specificity of each object. The specificity,s _j , can be thought of as the sum of squares of coordinates on those dimensions specific to objecti, all of which have nonzero coordinatesonly for objecti. (In practice, we may think of there being just one such specific dimension for each object, as this situation is mathematically indistinguishable from the case in which there are more than one.)We further assume that _ij =F(d _ij ) +e _ij where _ij is the proximity value (e.g., similarity or dissimilarity) of objectsi andj,d _ij is the extended Euclidean distance defined above, whilee _ij is an error term assumed i.i.d.N(0, ²).F is assumed either a linear function (in the metric case) or a monotone spline of specified form (in the quasi-nonmetric case). A numerical procedure alternating a modified Newton-Raphson algorithm with an algorithm for fitting an optimal monotone spline (or linear function) is used to secure maximum likelihood estimates of the paramstatistics) can be used to test hypotheses about the number of common dimensions, and/or the existence of specific (in addition toR common) dimensions.This approach is illustrated with applications to both artificial data and real data on judged similarity of nations.     

Helping through touch: The embodiment of caring

There is a power to touch, and a magic. Some call it mystery. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the various meanings and uses of touch, particularly within the context of relationship and helping. There will be no attempt to formulate a protocol for touch or to lay claim to a definitive meaning for touch. Reflection about touch may instead clarify some of its meanings and dynamics while encouraging care providers to embrace the experience of helping-through-touch. This paper supports a considered use of empathie touch because of its power and its ability to embody care.     

Measuring gender differences: The expressive dimension and critique of androgyny scales

This paper calls for a new approach to the measurement of gender similarities and differences in personality. Critiques of current measures that are based on the measurement of stereotypical masculinity and femininity are reviewed, and an alternative measure is presented. It avoids many of the problems in the other scales by measuring expressiveness and instrumentality in such a way that they are not confounded with variables such as independence or autonomy. Results with this measure in five different samples are presented. These confirm our theoretical definitions of expressiveness and instrumentality, and suggest that only the expressive or relational dimension consistently differentiates samples of women and men.We thank Mary Rothbart for her insightful and constructive comments on an earlier draft; Leisha Sanders, Marcia DeCaro, Vickie Van Nortwick, and Lyn Cogswell for their clerical assistance; the Center for the Study of Women in Society for financial support; and Liza Kuecker and Patricia Gwartney-Gibbs for providing data used in the analysis. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1984 annual meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association.     

A psychometric study of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales

The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES), a measure of family functioning, contains three scales: cohesion, adaptability, and social desirability. These were slightly modified (FACES- R) on the basis of pilot data and were administered to 42 clinic families (families seeking or receiving psychological services) and 206 nonclinic families. Support for the scales was found in high coefficient alpha reliabilities and similarity of the sample means and standard deviations to those of the standardization sample. However, there was little agreement among family members' scale scores. Therapists' ratings of cohesion and adaptability did not correlate with scale scores among clinic families. There was no difference between clinic and nonclinic samples on the cohesion or adaptability scales, although the social desirability scale did discriminate between groups. Factor analysis suggested that cohesion, adaptability, and social desirability cannot be clearly differentiated using this measure.This work was supported by the American Association of University Women and by Grant R01HD13820 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.     

The aggression-coercion cycle: Use of seclusion and restraint in a child psychiatric hospital

The widespread use of seclusion and restraint in child psychiatric hospitals to manage aggression and noncompliance is based on the assumption that coercive consequences reduce the frequency of undesirable behaviors exhibited by the patients. We report a study of the use of seclusion and restraint in a public child psychiatric hospital during a 3-year period. Twenty-eight percent of the patients had been secluded or restrained a total of 1670 times. About 25% of these patients had been secluded more than five times during their hospitalization, and 32% had been placed in restraints more than once. Behaviors that typically resulted in repeated seclusion included physical aggression toward staff, verbal aggression toward peers, non-compliant or oppositional behavior, and self-harm. Variables that predicted patients most at risk for repeated seclusion included age, gender, and psychiatric diagnosis. The predictor variables for those most at risk for repeated restraint included age, property destruction, and self-harm. The high rates of use of seclusion and restraint suggest that these methods for controlling the behavior of children and adolescents in this child psychiatric hospital may not have been therapeutic. We suggest that staff in such hospitals engage in a pattern of behavior characterized by an aggression-coercion cycle, in which increasingly aggressive and coercive behaviors are exhibited by both patients and staff.