A questionable questionnaire: a rejoinder to Marks

In a recent article Marks argues that two previous articles in this journal in 1986 and 1988, questioning the construct validity of the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire, should be dismissed due to methodological flaws and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In this response to Marks, the methodologies of the two studies in question are clarified and defended. Research and other evidence supporting the two Chara studies are presented. It is concluded that the construct validity of the imagery questionnaire has not been established and that further investigations of the questionnaire, and particularly its rating scale, are warranted.     

Random controls: A rejoinder

Furedy, Poulos, and Schiffman (1975) have made a conclusion in direct contradiction to available data in skin conductance conditioning which show clearly that a stimulus designated to be random was, in fact, random with respect to an unconditioned stimulus. It was also pointed out that the overlap criterion does illustrate the weakness of the Toronto studies; that the random stimulus in the Prokasy, Williams, Kumpfer, and Lee (1973) paper was not excitatory; and that controlled studies for at least a decade have shown the first-interval response to be associative.     

A rejoinder to Pribram

Summary Contrary to Pribram's assertion, Köhler proposed a functional isomorphism between brain processes and phenomenal events; the sense organs are not implied in the isomorphism principle. With respect to the facts of the Köhler-Pribram collaboration reliance on the written record is recommended.     

Comments on cyberbullying article: A rejoinder

In this article, I discuss many of the points raised in the thoughtful comments by Hinduja and Patchin (2012, this issue), Menesini (2012, this issue), and Smith (2012, this issue) on my original article “Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon” (Olweus, 2012, this issue). After having seriously considered the arguments of my commentators, I still think there is strong empirical evidence for my original position—supported by one or more but not all of my commentators—that cyberbullying is a basically low-frequent phenomenon and that there has not occurred a marked increase in the prevalence rates of cyberbullying over the past five or six years. With regard to the possible negative effects of cyberbullying, over and above the effects of traditional bullying, I note with appreciation that this issue has received some attention in the recent research literature but I also make a call for more systematic consideration of potential confounders in such studies. A good deal of the discussion in the comments and the current article concerned the issue of whether cyberbullying should be regarded as a form of bullying on a par with traditional forms of bullying or if it is distinct enough to be considered a partly separate phenomenon or dimension. I conclude by arguing that in order for research on cyberbullying to proceed in a systematic and fruitful way, it is necessary to place it in proper context (along with traditional bullying) and to communicate a somewhat more realistic picture of its prevalence and nature.     

Salkovskis on obsessional-compulsive neurosis: a rejoinder

Salkovskis (Behav Res. Ther. 27, 677–682, 1989) presents a development of his 1985 account, together with empirical findings. A number of criticisms of this work are presented.     

Morgan on deductive explanation: A rejoinder

This paper is mainly a response to Charles Morgan's criticisms (this journal, pp. 511–25) of the author's model of the (formal aspects of) explanation. It is claimed in the paper that with two modifications and some additional specifications the model withstands Morgan's criticisms.