Should We Teach Patriotism?

This article examines a particular debate between Eamonn Callan and William Galston concerning the need for a civic education which counters the divisive pull of pluralism by uniting the citizenry in patriotic allegiance to a single national identity.The article offers a preliminary understanding of nationalism and patriotism before setting out the terms of the debate. It then critically evaluates the central idea of Callan that one might be under an obligation morally to improve one's own patriotic inheritance, pointing to the ineliminable tension between the valuation of one's own patria by its own terms and a detached critical reason.It concludes by suggesting that we are, in advance of our education, members of a particular patria and that any education must be particularistic. Finally, the danger is noted of presuming that, in each case, there is a single, determinate national tradition.     

Parenting Scale: Which Version Should We Use?

Factor analytic studies of one of the widely used measurements of parental discipline, the Parenting Scale (PS), have yielded ambiguous results. The purpose of this study was to compare various forms of the PS in terms of factor structure and other psychometric properties. The sample consisted of 617 mothers and 430 fathers of 2 to 5-year-olds. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that shorter structural models provided a better fit compared to the original model; however, none led to an optimal fit. Other psychometric properties such as internal consistency, test-retest reliability, concurrent and predictive validity were slightly higher for the original Laxness and Overreactivity subscales. The findings from this study and previous studies suggest that the inter-item relationship in the scale might be too sensitive to sample characteristics, implying that factor analysis might not be the best way to measure the scale’s validity. Nevertheless, other psychometric properties support the use of the Parenting Scale in the assessment of dysfunctional parenting practices. We recommend using the original Laxness and Overreactivity subscales rather than the later models, especially for research purposes.     

What Kind of Empirical Research Should We Publish, Fund, and Reward?

ABSTRACT— When evaluating empirical papers for publication, grant proposals, or individual contributions (e.g., awarding tenure), the basic question one should ask is how much the contribution adds to understanding in psychology and not whether the contribution takes a particular form or represents one particular model of how to do empirical studies. Academic psychology has flourished with its mastery of the hypothesis–experiment model of science and its expertise in generating and eliminating alternative hypotheses and isolating causation. These accomplishments are a critical part of psychology, and they are well and appropriately taught by psychologists. However, they are only a part of science and should not comprise the almost exclusive criteria for evaluating research. In particular, discovery of fundamental phenomena, such as functional relations that apply to the real world and have generality, should have a higher priority in psychology. Such findings have been the basis for theoretical advances in other natural sciences.     

Pictures,Words, and Sounds: From Which Format Are We Best Able to Reason?

The effect of presentation format on reasoning was studied with a sentence verification task. Background information was presented in single-format and combined conditions that included pictured, printed, or spoken versions of the stimulus items. In Experiment 1, a test sentence appeared together with the background at varied stimulus onset asynchronies, to study how format influences the acquisition of the stimulus information. In Experiments 2 and 3, however, the test sentence followed the presentation of the background, to test the effect of format on memory. Reaction time responses to the test sentences showed a consistent picture advantage. However, when participants responded to materials stored in memory, both pictured and spoken formats provided quicker responses in comparison to printed words, and the format difference was smaller than when materials were readily available on the screen. Multimedia presentations, when compared with single-format conditions, did not provide additional benefits.     

Do We Know Which Interventions are Effective for Disruptive and Delinquent Girls?

Disruptive and delinquent girls are not well served by the mental health and juvenile justice systems. Interventions that have been developed for the behavior problems of boys are frequently applied to girls despite growing evidence for a female-specific phenotype, developmental course, and set of risk factors from middle childhood onwards. The current review demonstrates that evidence of the effectiveness of treatments for girls with disruptive and delinquent behaviors is extremely limited, with relatively few studies including sufficient numbers of females or reporting on treatment effects by gender. However, a small body of evidence suggests that interventions specifically designed to address female behavior problems or risk factors can be effective in ameliorating disruptive and delinquent behaviors in both pre-adolescence and adolescence. Multi-modal interventions that target interacting domains of risk also show promise. Methodological issues are discussed and recommendations are made for the development and evaluation of future interventions to prevent and reduce girls’ disruptive and delinquent behavior.     

Where Have We Been, How Did We Get There, and Where Shall We Go?

Commentators expressed a wide variety of views on my evaluation of the state of assessment center (AC) research and practice. In this response, I first trace the evolution of the construct validity paradox "urban legend." Next, I consider the commentators' comments as they relate to (a) my recommendation to abandon dimension-based ACs in lieu of task- or role-based structures (b) my recommendation to discontinue design fix attempts toward making ACs conform to multitrait–multimethod construct validity criteria, and (c) considerations of construct validity and validation evidence. Finally, I offer some directions for future AC research and practice.     

Should We Be Trying So Hard to Be Postmodern? A Response to Drees,Haught, and Yeager

This paper explores the thesis that both modernism and postmodernism, as contemporary cultural phenomena, have been unable to come to terms with the issue of human rationality in any positive way. As a result of this, nearly all of the stereotyped ways of relating theology and science through models of conflict, independence, consonance, harmony, integration, or dialogue are likely to be revealed as too simplistic generalizations about the relationship between these two dominant forces in our culture. What is proposed is a postfoundationalist model where theology and science can rediscover the resources of rationality shared by these two reasoning strategies. Postfoundationalism in theology and science wants to point creatively beyond the confines of the local community, group, or culture toward a plausible form of interdisciplinary conversation. In taking seriously the role of local context and interpreted experience, postfoundationalism in theology and science should enable us to reach beyond the walls of our own communities in cross-contextual, cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary conversation.     

Should We Approach Approach and Avoid Avoidance? An Inquiry from Different Levels

Abstract

Approach motivation (striving for desired end-states, eagerly focusing on where one wants to be) is often held up as the best type of motivation: It feels good and is associated with many positive outcomes. Indeed, a common perception is that regulation in terms of approach motivation is almost always better than regulation in terms of avoidance motivation. However, as we discuss, this conclusion is worthy of a deeper look. We consider how approach and avoidance motivation manifest at different levels in a self-regulatory hierarchy and how this can help us understand the upsides and downsides of both approach and avoidance motivation. In other words, approach motivation is not always beneficial and avoidance motivation is not always problematic. Understanding these trade-offs involves a consideration of which level in the hierarchy approach or avoidance is manifested, what types of outcomes are being examined (the experience of regulation vs. performance), and how the approach or avoidance regulation fits or does not fit with an individual’s broad concerns or specific situational demands. Furthermore, a hierarchical approach helps make sense of behaviors that reflect simultaneous approach and avoidance tendencies, such as tactical approach to remove (avoid) a threat, providing a dynamic and nuanced view of motivation.     

Content Analysis of Gender Roles in Media: Where Are We Now and Where Should We Go?

This paper provides a commentary regarding the quantitative content analyses of gender roles in media published in the two special issues of Sex Roles (Rudy et al. 2010a, 2011). A few themes and some overarching lessons emerge from the wide variety of data presented. First, it is clear that women are under-represented across a range of media and settings. Second, when women are portrayed, it is often in a circumscribed and negative manner. Women are often sexualized??typically by showing them in scanty or provocative clothing. Women are also subordinated in various ways, as indicated by their facial expressions, body positions, and other factors. Finally, they are shown in traditionally feminine (i.e., stereotyped) roles. Women are portrayed as nonprofessionals, homemakers, wives or parents, and sexual gatekeepers. Although the studies generally support these conclusions, some interesting moderating factors are identified, such as race. It is suggested that next steps involve the development of theory and a body of empirical evidence regarding the effects of exposure to under-representation of women. Data concerning the effects of exposure to sexualized or stereotypical portrayals on young audiences is also lacking. Finally, content analyses of new media, including those created and distributed by users, are recommended as a next step. It is concluded that, while increasing the representation of women in media may be valuable, it is also critical that the manner in which they are portrayed be simultaneously considered to avoid increasing negative or stereotypical depictions that may be particularly harmful to viewers.     

School psychology consultation: “Frenzied,faddish, or fundamental?”

A review of the current school psychology literature reveals that the term consultation is increasingly used to describe a variety of intervention goals and processes. The history of the consultation role in school psychology and the background and assumptions of three currently popular consultation models are discussed. Finally, suggestions are offered for more precise usage of the term consultation in order to accurately describe, implement, and research the school psychologist's roles.     

Should We Take “Gender” Out of Gender Subtypes? The Effects of Gender,Evaluative Valence,and Context on the Organization of Person Subtypes

Previous research examining the organization of person subtypes has focused on gender and evaluation as organizing principles. Our research additionally examined subtype organization in terms of the classic “person categories” described in the self-concept and impression formation literature. Using both qualitative and quantitative measures, we examined the relative impact of these three mechanisms of subtype organization. We also investigated whether contextual cues impact subtype organization. We found that subtypes are more frequently organized in terms of person categories than by gender or evaluation. Also, as predicted, some subtype clusters' organization was relatively stable, whereas other subtype clusters were more sensitive to contextual influences. These results are discussed in terms of how characteristics that are salient in a situation may prime certain subtypes.     

Hunting Side Effects and Explaining Them: Should We Reverse Evidence Hierarchies Upside Down?

Philosophical discussions have critically analysed the methodological pitfalls and epistemological implications of evidence assessment in medicine, however they have mainly focused on evidence of treatment efficacy. Most of this work is devoted to statistical methods of causal inference with a special attention to the privileged role assigned to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in evidence based medicine. Regardless of whether the RCT’s privilege holds for efficacy assessment, it is nevertheless important to make a distinction between causal inference of intended and unintended effects, in that the unknowns at stake are heterogonous in the two contexts. However, although “lower level” evidence is increasingly acknowledged to be a valid source of information contributory to assessing the risk profile of medications on theoretical or empirical grounds, current practices have difficulty in assigning a precise epistemic status to this kind of evidence because they are more or less implicitly parasitic on the (statistical) methods developed to test drug efficacy. My thesis is that (1) “lower level” evidence is justified on distinct grounds and at different conditions depending on the different epistemologies which one wishes to endorse, in that each impose different constraints on the methods we adopt to collect and evaluate evidence; (2) such constraints ought to be understood to be different in the case of evidence for risk versus benefit assessment for a series of reasons which I will illustrate on the basis of the recent debate on the causal association between acetaminophen (a.k.a. paracetamol) and asthma.