Perceptions of Personal Avoidability Versus Responsibility: How Do They Differ?

A great deal of recent social psychological research has focused on the attributions made by individuals who experience serious life crises. This research suggests that individuals frequently hold themselves responsible for seemingly uncontrollable events. Researchers have hypothesized about why this might occur and about which types of self-attributions might be more adaptive than others. In this article, it is argued that attributions of responsibility to the self may be less common than this previous research appears to suggest. Lay people may be making subtle distinctions between responsibility and avoidability, thus feeling they can avoid future negative outcomes without feeling responsible for what has occurred. This argument is made with illustrative results from a pilot study of female rape victims.     

Culture Marker Versus Authority Marker: How Do Language Attitudes Affect Political Trust?

Is public trust in government representatives (i.e., bureaucrats, police, public servants) affected by the language they use? The conventional theory holds that, in a multilingual society, people favor government representatives who speak the listeners' dialects because it indicates a shared cultural identity, that is, the “culture-marker” effect. This article offers an alternative mechanism in which people's attitudes can be affected by the government designating the official language as a marker of political authority. Listeners will then project their respect for the political authority to the government representatives who speak this marker language. This mechanism is named an “authority marker” effect. Using a set of adjusted matched-guise experiments in China, this study examines the culture-marker and authority-marker effects. The results support the authority-marker effect by showing that listeners have significantly more trust in the bureaucrats who speak the official language than in those who speak the dialects of the listeners. The study also finds that this is a unique effect for speakers when they represent the government. Without that political identity, listeners will still respond more positively to speakers of their own dialects.     

What Do We Do Unconsciously? And How?

In this reply, we endorse Chartrand's (2005) taxonomy of conscious awareness for different stages of consumer decisions affected by environmental cues. In addition, we attempt to broaden the scope of this taxonomy by discussing its usefulness for consumer decisions in general. We generally support Simonson's (2005) claim that research based on consumers as conscious decision makers is indeed predictive of a wide variety of behavior. However, we also argue that the importance of consciousness should not be overstated. Conscious processes observed in a research laboratory are not representative of conscious processes in real life. The alternative model to describe effects of the environment on behavior by Janiszewski and van Osselaer (2005) may be useful to explain automaticity in goal‐directed behavior, but it poorly describes other automatic behaviors.     

How Do Logics Explain?

Anti-exceptionalists about logic maintain that it is continuous with the empirical sciences. Taking anti-exceptionalism for granted, we argue that traditional approaches to explanation are inadequate in the case of logic. We argue that Andrea Woody's functional analysis of explanation is a better fit with logical practice and accounts better for the explanatory role of logical theories.     

How Do Manipulation Arguments Work?

Alfred Mele has presented the Zygote Argument as a challenge to compatibilism. In previous work I have offered a critique of Mele’s first premise. Patrick Todd, Neal Tognazzini, and Derk Pereboom have offered an alternative interpretation of the argument, substituting (1*) for (1). Here I offer a critical evaluation of this strategy, and in the process I seek to understand the deep structure of the Zygote Argument.     

How Do Students Learn Theology?

This paper explores the way students learn theology through a small qualitative research project. It is undertaken in conversation with current higher education learning theory. This learning theory suggests that it is important to discover how a student conceptualizes learning and how they perceive the teaching environment. Students interviewed increasingly spoke of the value of this academic or more cognitive side of learning as they learned “deep approaches.” Important in this movement to deep, transformational learning was the presence of a relational teaching environment in which peers and teachers played a crucial role. This present study offers support to the view that the tradition of the learning community remains important for deploying deep approaches to the learning of theology in higher education. The paper argues that these relational principals of teaching and learning remain important in the face of the increased use of technology‐based tools and other pedagogical challenges to theological education today.     

Does Strengths Use Mean Better Focus? Well-being and Attentional Performance at the Episodic Level

Journal of Happiness Studies - Positive psychology postulates that using one’s strengths can facilitate employee well-being and performance at work. However, whether strengths use is...     

Internal Employment Opportunity and External Employment Opportunity: Independent or Interactive Retention Effects?

Contemporary attrition/retention frameworks suggest that internal mobility opportunities (e.g., promotions) and external mobility opportunities (i.e., alternative sources of employment) impact turnover decisions. The present study used data collected' from 413 U.S. Air Force enlistees to estimate the joint effects of internal mobility opportunities (i.e., training/career broadening opportunities) and external mobility opportunities (e.g., existing job offers) on reenlistment. Logistic regression analysis revealed that internal and external mobility opportunities had additive effects on the study's attrition criterion. Moderated regressions failed to detect interactive effects among the study's mobility variables. Implications of the findings for turnover frameworks and retention of military personnel are discussed.     

How To Engage With Experimental Practices? Moderate Versus Radical Constructivism

A central question in constructivist studies of science is how the analyst should deal with the material objects handled by scientific practitioners in laboratories. Representatives of ‘radical constructivism’ such as Knorr-Cetina and Latour have gone furthest in exploring the role of these ‘non-humans’ but have also maneuvered themselves in untenable positions due to a fatal conflation of different meanings of the term ‘construction’. The epistemological and ontological commitments of ‘moderate constructivism’ especially of the Strong Program defended by Barnes and Bloor, are more suitable for dealing with the task at hand. While radical constructivists treat the domains of nature and human society as largely coterminous, an alternative ontology stresses that natural reality is never fully absorbed into the world of culture but only interacts with the latter at localizable interfaces such as practices and artifacts. This perspective promises a more relaxed relationship with current forms of scientific realism. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

How Do Fundamental Christians Deal With Depression?

Drawing from published sources and my own experience as a pastoral counselor with more recent specialization in spousal abuse and anger management, this article gives an explanation of developmental dynamics in the experience of fundamental Christians that provoke reactive depression. Depressant retardant defenses against depression that have been observed in the Christian fundamentalist subculture are described. Four interventions conclude this article.     

How Do Australian University Students Understand Adulthood?

The understanding of modern young people's conceptions of adulthood has largely been informed and constructed through the lens of the theory of emerging adulthood. As a consequence, a relatively unquestioned belief is that there has been a trend towards the gradual development of internal, subjective characteristics and away from the attainment of traditional adult roles in emerging adults' conceptions of adulthood. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, we surveyed Australian university students about their understanding of what it means to be an adult. Exploratory factor analysis of the Criteria for Adulthood Scale emphasised family capacities, demographic markers, norm compliance, and “novelty of adulthood,” while qualitative themes emphasised both personal and environmental characteristics. We suggest that rather than being independent, individual development and broad social‐environmental trends are likely to be interrelated, and to develop in response to each other over time.     

Forgiveness: Who Does It and How Do They Do It?

Forgiveness is a suite of prosocial motivational changes that occurs after a person has incurred a transgression. People who are inclined to forgive their transgressors tend to be more agreeable, more emotionally stable, and, some research suggests, more spiritually or religiously inclined than people who do not tend to forgive their transgressors. Several psychological processes appear to foster or inhibit forgiveness. These processes include empathy for the transgressor, generous attributions and appraisals regarding the transgression and transgressor, and rumination about the transgression. Interpreting these findings in light of modern trait theory would help to create a more unified understanding of how personality might influence forgiveness.     

Multiply Victimized Women: How Do They Change?

Recent studies have demonstrated that women are frequently victims of several types of violent actions via different agents throughout their life spans. Furthermore, multiple victimizations have been associated with psychological difficulties. The present study aimed to understand the change processes, in a self-directed way, of 19 female victims of multiple violent actions during their lifetimes. The women were evaluated for one year using a depression scale and a qualitative interview. The interviews were analyzed using the innovative moments (IMs) model. The results evidenced three groups, according to the evolution of their depressive symptoms during the one-year evaluation period. There were two unchanged groups, one being the symptomatic group (N = 6), which continuously presented symptoms at a clinical level, and the other the asymptomatic group (N = 7), which did not report depressive symptoms at any assessment moment. The change group (N = 6) exhibited a reliable decrease in clinically significant symptoms. Regarding IMs, the majority of the women were able to develop innovative moments regarding the dominant problem over a one-year evaluation period. Those women mobilized alternative ways to address multiple victimization experiences primarily through reflection IMs. Although there were several exceptions to the problematic narratives during the one-year assessment, the change group had a higher proportion and diversity of IM types—namely, a higher reconceptualization and reflection subtype II—compared with the unchanged groups. Moreover, reconceptualization differentiated the change group from the other two groups. These latter IMs may reflect the concept of “postvictimization growth” and the positive changes that arise from experiences of victimization.     

How Do Mothers in Prison Differ From Non-Mothers?

Adjustment patterns and criminal characteristics of 350 incarcerated mothers of children under 21 years of age were contrasted to those of 166 women from the same institution that had never had children. There were no observed differences between mothers and non-mothers in terms of self-reported mental illness symptoms, emotional distress, or conflict with other individuals at the prison. There were also no differences in terms of institutional infractions observed by prison officials. Consistent with previous research with the same sample, there were adjustment differences between mothers reporting high versus low levels of parenting stress, but neither group of mothers evidenced different adjustment patterns relative to non-mothers. However, there were differences in criminal characteristics. Mothers were more likely than non-mothers to be incarcerated for property or drug offenses, and were more likely to have at least one current or previous drug offense in their criminal history. Non-mothers were more likely than mothers to be incarcerated for violent offenses, including homicide. Results indicate that although there are differences between mothers and non-mothers in the contexts associated with criminal behavior, both groups show the same range of adjustment problems once in prison.