Response: How Do We Know What We Know About the Amish and Other Minorities?

The appraisal by Cory Anderson, Joseph Donnermeyer, Jeffrey Longhofer, and Steven Reschly (hereafter, appraisers) highlights a methodological divide that is important to the study of the Amish and other ethnic or religious minorities. In my reply, I discuss how my work is rooted in a cultural analytic paradigm that differs from the appraisers’ methodological orientation. My reply includes a deconstruction of the appraisal and a discussion of its “shortcomings.” I conclude by showing how the discourse surrounding this appraisal raises important epistemological questions of how we understand human societies.     

What Do We Know About Gay and Lesbian Couples?

Abstract— Research on gay and lesbian couples is highlighted with regard to household labor, conflict, satisfaction, perceived social support, stability, and the variables that predict relationship quality. Relative to partners from married heterosexual couples, partners from gay and lesbian couples tend to assign household labor more fairly, resolve conflict more constructively, experience similar levels of satisfaction, and perceive less support from family members but more support from friends. The limited data available indicate that gay and lesbian couples may be less stable than married heterosexual couples. The factors that predict relationship quality tend to be the same for gay, lesbian, and heterosexual married couples. Overall, research paints a positive picture of gay and lesbian couples and indicates that they tend to be more similar to than different from heterosexual couples.     

Aging and Spatial Navigation: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go?

Spatial navigation is a complex cognitive skill that is necessary for everyday functioning in the environment. However, navigational skills are not typically measured in most test batteries assessing cognitive aging. The present paper reviews what we know about behavioral differences between older and younger adults in navigational skill and reviews the putative neural mechanisms that may underlie these behavioral differences. Empirical studies to date clearly identify navigation as an aspect of cognitive function that is vulnerable to the aging process. The few functional and structural neuroimaging studies that speak to neurological correlates of these age-related differences point to the hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, posterior cingulate gyrus (retrosplenial cortex), parietal lobes and pre-frontal cortex as structures critically involved in age effects on navigation. Outstanding issues in the field are addressed and productive avenues of future research are suggested. Among these outstanding issues include the necessity of performing longitudinal studies and differentiating between hippocampal and extra-hippocampal contributions to aging in navigation. The field may also be advanced by empirical assessment of navigational strategies and investigations into the multisensory nature of navigation including assessing the relative contributions of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive function to age differences in navigational skill.     

Integrity and Honesty Testing: What Do We Know? How Do We Use It?

This selective review of integrity and honesty testing addresses two primary questions: ‘What do we know about honesty testing?’ and ‘How do we use what we know?’ Up-to-date information about test reliability, validity, and construct definition from recent reviews of the research literature in the USA is presented and interpreted. Relationships to other selection devices and personality measures are discussed, as well as how integrity tests fit into a multiple assessment selection system.     

Coparenting Interventions for Fragile Families: What Do We Know and Where Do We Need To Go Next?

With a large and growing share of American families now forming outside of marriage, triangular infant–mother–father relationship systems in “fragile families” have begun to attract the interest of family scholars and clinicians. A relatively novel conceptualization has concerned the feasibility of intervening to support the development of a sustained and positive coparenting alliance between mothers and fathers who have not made an enduring relationship commitment to one another. At this point in time, there are very few published outcome studies of programs explicitly conceived to help build coparenting alliances in such families. This article reviews what we currently know from this evolving field of study, and from those related responsible fatherhood and marriage and relationship enhancement (MRE) initiatives that included any explicit targeting, strengthening, and assessment of fragile family coparenting in their designs. We summarize lessons learned thus far from Access and Visitation (AV) programs for non‐residential fathers, from MRE programs for low‐income, unmarried couples, and from newer programs for fragile families directly designed to target and support coparenting per se. We close with recommendations for charting this important new family process terrain.     

The Outcome of Parenting: What Do We Really Know?

Lykken's proposal that people should be required to apply for a license before they can become parents is based on his belief that the increase in crime over the past 40 years is due largely to the increase in the number of children reared in fatherless homes. I argue that the absence of a father is a correlate of criminal behavior in the offspring but not its cause. Other correlations that are usually interpreted as the effects of good or bad child-rearing practices are similarly ambiguous and subject to other explanations. I conclude that the increase in crime over the past 40 years cannot be blamed on the absence of fathers or inept child rearing, and offer two alternative hypotheses.     

Why Do We Need to Know What the Public Thinks about Nanotechnology?

Public debate on nanotechnology is a large topic within governments, research agencies, industry and non-government organisations. But depending who you talk to the perception of what the public thinks about nanotechnology can be very varied. To define coherent policy and to invest in research and development that aligns with public preferences, needs more than just perceptions of public perceptions. Public attitude studies are vital in understanding what the public really think, but they need to go further than simplistic polling and should examine factors such as changes over time, drivers of attitude change, different attitudes to different applications and be supported by qualitative data. This paper summarises the findings of a three year tracking study of public attitudes towards nanotechnology, highlighting both concerns and aspirations for nanotechnology and discusses the impacts of that data on public engagement programs.     

Processes Underlying Gender‐Role Flexibility: Do Androgynous Individuals Know More or Know How to Cope?

This research examined gender-role flexibility across a variety of stressful events, and tested two proposed hypotheses that explicate the processes underlying gender-role flexibility. The knowing-more hypothesis posits that androgynous individuals have a broad coping repertoire. The knowing-how hypothesis posits that androgynous individuals know how to cope according to changing situational characteristics. The coping responses of Chinese university students were assessed in both real-life (Study 1) and hypothetical (Study 2) stressful situations. Results revealed that androgynous participants, who were less depressed than others, were characterized by (a) cognitive astuteness in distinguishing among situational characteristics and (b) deployment of strategies that fit specific situational demands. Results supported the knowing-how hypothesis only.     

Empirically Supported Treatments and Efficacy Trials: What Steps Do We Still Need to Take?

The Task Force on the Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures sought to identify scientifically supported treatments in order to espouse their use and improve client outcomes in therapy. Nevertheless, the gap between scientists and practitioners persists, and there still remain some limitations to the manner in which this goal is carried out. The criteria specifying whether a treatment qualifies as empirically supported are too lenient. The research used in the search for empirically supported treatments does not take into account the full literature base. Efficacy trials provide practitioners with limited information. This paper proposes means through which the field can improve its search for scientifically supported treatments. Alterations to the criteria that assess empirically supported treatments, greater research transparency and external validity, and collaboration between investigators and clinicians will allow the field of clinical psychology to better answer the question, “How can we most successfully treat this client?”     

Can We Forget What We Know in a False‐Belief Task? An Investigation of the True‐Belief Default

It has been generally assumed in the Theory of Mind literature of the past 30 years that young children fail standard false‐belief tasks because they attribute their own knowledge to the protagonist (what Leslie and colleagues called a “true‐belief default”). Contrary to the traditional view, we have recently proposed that the children's bias is task induced. This alternative view was supported by studies showing that 3 year olds are able to pass a false‐belief task that allows them to focus on the protagonist, without drawing their attention to the target object in the test phase. For a more accurate comparison of these two accounts, the present study tested the true‐belief default with adults. Four experiments measuring eye movements and response inhibition revealed that (a) adults do not have an automatic tendency to respond to the false‐belief question according to their own knowledge and (b) the true‐belief response need not be inhibited in order to correctly predict the protagonist's actions. The positive results observed in the control conditions confirm the accuracy of the various measures used. I conclude that the results of this study undermine the true‐belief default view and those models that posit mechanisms of response inhibition in false‐belief reasoning. Alternatively, the present study with adults and recent studies with children suggest that participants' focus of attention in false‐belief tasks may be key to their performance.     

What Do People Think About the Risks of Driving? Implications for Traffic Safety Interventions1

Two studies found that people generally think of themselves as better than average drivers. Both older and younger people rated themselves slightly better than peers, with the younger people rating their peers as the worst drivers but rating themselves as if they did not belong to this group. University students rated their peers as being more similar to themselves than did nonuniversity younger people. A factor analysis found five dimensions along which people thought about driving risks: environmental and road conditions, unexpected events, driver problems, necessary or unavoidable driving risks, and voluntary driving risks. Speeding was thought of in two ways, as both an unavoidable driving risk and as a voluntary risk. Differences were found between general and specific questions, and a theoretical framework for exploring these in future research was proposed predicts differences between a situational or dispositional focus. The implications of the results for traffic safety interventions were drawn out, and specific recommendations, made for targeting such interventions.     

Justifying Counterproductive Work Behaviors and an Integrity‐based Conditional Reasoning Test: Back to the drawing board?

Conditional reasoning tests (CRT) were proposed as an innovative approach to implicitly measure the rationalizations toward counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) often associated with overt integrity tests. The authors first set out to map a typology of justification mechanisms for general CWB, and to then validate a new integrity‐based CRT in both honest and faking testing conditions. Unfortunately, while demonstrating encouraging construct and criterion validity in the honest testing condition, the test was less resistant to faking than originally anticipated, and ceased to be valid in the faking condition. Overall, the results provide theoretical insight toward understanding how employees justify CWB, but raise concerns regarding the potential operational limitations of at least some CRTs.     

Playing the Dating Game: Do We Know Whom Others Would Like to Date?

A perceiver's ability to postdict whom a person selected as a dating partner as well as the types of cues utilized by the perceiver to make this judgment were examined. Segments of a television matchmaking series were used. It was found that perceivers accurately postdicted whom a dater selected, although these judgments were not related to the compatibility of the couple. As predicted, perceivers used physical attractiveness to select dating partners.     

Getting to the Core of Close Reading: What do we Really Know and What Remains to be Seen?

Due to the Common Core State Standards, close reading is becoming a common practice in today’s elementary and middle school classrooms. Qualitative content analysis of journal publications was used to determine the (a) prevalence of close reading in the existing literature, (b) knowledge about close reading from the research literature, (c) themes about close reading in practitioner-oriented articles and (d) questions about close reading in the elementary and middle grade language arts classroom. Results reveal that the majority of articles on close reading are situated in the practitioner literature, with a notable lack of research on close reading.     

What Was the Syntax‐Semantics Debate in the Philosophy of Science About?

The debate between critics of syntactic and semantic approaches to the formalization of scientific theories has been going on for over 50 years. I structure the debate in light of a recent exchange between Hans Halvorson, Clark Glymour, and Bas van Fraassen and argue that the only remaining disagreement concerns the alleged difference in the dependence of syntactic and semantic approaches on languages of predicate logic. This difference turns out to be illusory.