Evidence for covert attention switching from eye-movements. Reply to commentaries on Liechty et al., 2003

We argue that our research objectives in Liechty, Pieters, and Wedel (2003) are to provide generalizable insights into covert visual attention to complex, multimodal stimuli in their natural context, through inverse inference from eye-movement data. We discuss the most important issues raised by Feng (2003) and Reichle and Nelson (2003), in particular the task definition, inclusion of ad features, object-based versus space-based attention and the evidence for the where and what streams.Author names are in reverse alphabetical order.     

Personal standards and evaluative concerns dimensions of "clinical" perfectionism: a reply to Shafran et al. (2002, 2003) and Hewitt et al. (2003)

Shafran, Cooper, and Fairburn (2002, 2003) provided a cognitive-behavioral analysis of "clinical" perfectionism, a construct they considered to involve both the determined pursuit of self-imposed standards and extremely vulnerable self-evaluation. They argued against a multidimensional perspective to studying perfectionism. We respond to Shafran et al. (2002, 2003) and Hewitt, Flett, Besser, Sherry, and McGee's (2003) reply to Shafran et al. (2002) by considering the theoretical, empirical, and clinical implications of findings identifying two higher-order dimensions of perfectionism reflecting personal standards (PS) and self-critical evaluative concerns. Analyses of data from two diverse study groups, a college student sample (N = 527) and a clinical sample of patients with binge eating disorder (N = 236), revealed that self-criticism accounts for the relation between perfectionism measures and depressive, anxious, and eating disorder symptoms. We conclude that possessing high PS is not by itself maladaptive. Rather, self-critical evaluative tendencies are more relevant than PS to the critical processes Shafran et al. (2002) suggested contribute to the maintenance of clinical perfectionism.     

Critical appraisal of the discussion on delay discounting by Bailey et al. and Stein et al.: A scientific proposal for a reinforcer pathology theory 3.0

Delay discounting is one of the most studied phenomena in Psychology in the last decades. Recently, it has been proposed as a transdiagnostic variable accounting for several psychopathological problems. A review of current practices and clinical application (Bailey et al., 2021) and a response article (Stein et al., 2022) have been recently published. Despite both of them being stimulating, the articles raise issues needing further discussion. The first part of the present article critically appraises both publications by highlighting their strengths/limitations and offers an alternate perspective that clarifies some theoretical issues and allows new lines in research. In the second part, one of these new lines of research is presented by describing a research proposal based on the analysed critiques and current developments in both psychopathology and addiction research. This article contributes to the discussion on delay discounting suggesting alternative interpretations and future studies to improve theoretical models.     

Readers and service commissioners require clear financial disclosures: Comment on innovation,research integrity,and change: A conflict of interest management framework for program developers (Sanders et al., 2019)

Sanders et al.'s proposal for a management framework for conflicting interests among program developers is very welcome. The underlying principles of such a framework must nevertheless prioritise the need for researchers and commissioners of services to make objective assessments of the impact of interventions reported in journal articles. This is particularly important in the field of randomised trials which may influence public sector expenditure. Using a strict definition derived from known financial conflict of interest, we have demonstrated that child-based effect sizes are much lower for independent studies than for studies with developer involvement. On this basis, we propose that journals publishing evaluations of psychosocial interventions should agree a standardised format for declarations of conflicts of interest based on that recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.