A modification of the Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss Self-Consciousness Scales

Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to examine the structure of the Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975) Self-consciousness Scales. Several weaknesses were identified and modifications were made to improve the representation of the underlying structure of the data. Five items were found to be relatively unreliable and were dropped. Two separate but correlated private self-consciousness dimensions, self-reflectiveness and internal state awareness, were identified. The resulting four-factor self-consciousness model fit the data more adequately than the three-factor model of Fenigstein et al.     

Assessment of the Fenigstein,Scheier, and Buss Self-Consciousness Scale: A Swedish Translation

The psychometric properties of a Swedish translation of Fenigstein, Scheier, and Busses (1975) Self-Consciousness Scale are reported, The three-factor structure of the Self-Consciousness Scale was replicated in a sample of 241 undergraduate university students and in a sample of 225 female high school students. In a sample of 175 male high school students, the three-factor structure was not confirmed. items assumed to reflect Private and Public Self-consciousness, collapsed into one factor. Test-retest reliabilities and internal consistency of the subscales were consistent with prior research. Significant gender differences in Public Self-consciousness and Social Anxiety are reported. Women scored higher than men.     

Apples and Oranges: Divergent Meanings of Parents' and Adolescents' Perceptions of Parental Influence

This study examines the hypothesis that effective parental influence stems from the qualities of the parent-adolescent relationship rather than from explicit efforts to alter adolescents' behaviors. Adolescents' versus parents' perceptions of parental influence as predictors of parent-adolescent relationship quality and of adolescents' social functioning are examined using observational and multireporter data obtained from a sample of 167 adolescents (90 female, 77 male; age M = 13.34 years, SD = 0.65), their parents, and their same-sex peers. Analyses revealed that adolescents' and parents' perceptions of parental influence were uncorrelated with one another and were differentially related to qualities of adolescents' relationships with parents and friends. Adolescents' perceptions of high parental influence were linked to observations and self-reports of warm, supportive relationships with parents (particularly mothers). In contrast, parents' reports of high influence were linked to lower levels of adolescent autonomy with parents and friends and less relatedness with mothers and friends.     

Aspects in Dual‐Aspect Monism and Panpsychism: A Rejoinder to Benovsky

Neutral monism aims at solving the hard problem of consciousness by positing entities that are neither mental nor physical. Benovsky has recently argued for the slightly different account that, rather than being neutral, natural entities are both mental and physical by having different aspects, and then argued in favour of an anti‐realist interpretation of those aspects. In this essay, operating under the assumption of dual‐aspect monism, I argue to the contrary in favour of a realist interpretation of these aspects by showing that the anti‐realist interpretation collapses into neutral monism and that the realist interpretation is an interesting alternative. I close with a discussion of the realist interpretation of the aspects and its relation with panpsychism.     

A Rejoinder to Fischer and Tognazzini

In Otsuka (1998), I endorse an incompatibilist Principle of Avoidable Blame. In this rejoinder to Fischer and Tognazzini (2009), I defend this principle against their charge that it is vulnerable to Frankfurt-type counterexample.     

Grounding Recognition: A Rejoinder to Critical Questions

It is always great good fortune for an author to have his writings meet with a receptive circle of readers who take them up in their own work and clarify them further. Indeed, it may even be the secret of all theoretical productivity that one reaches an opportune point in one's own creative process when others' queries, suggestions, and criticisms give one no peace, until one has been forced to come up with new answers and solutions. The four essays collected here, in any event, jointly represent an ideal form of such a challenge: I am now compelled to make further theoretical developments and clarifications that lead me to a whole new stage of my own endeavours, well beyond what I initially had in mind in The Struggle for Recognition . For this reason, I will not concentrate here on interpretative issues regarding my earlier work but will instead take up the problems and challenges that have occasioned several revisions on my part. For this reason, it makes sense to begin (in section I) with the points that Carl-Göran Heidegren makes, in terms of a history of social theory, regarding my proposed theory of recognition. The issues that still motivate me today can best be expressed via an engagement with the conscientious interpretations he offers. The core of this rejoinder is based on Heikki Ikäheimo's and Arto Laitinen's suggestions and corrections, which they have used to develop my initial approach further, to the point where the theoretical outlines of a precise and general concept of recognition come into view. It is primarily these two contributions that helped me develop a productive elaboration of my originally vague intuitions (section II). By way of conclusion (in section III), I take up the penetrating questions raised by Antti Kauppinen regarding the use of the concept of recognition in the broader context of social criticism; he has compelled me to take on several extremely helpful clarifications, and they give me the opportunity, in conclusion, to summarize my overarching intentions.     

Cognitive Resources and Leadership Performance: A Rejoinder

I feel very honoured by the distinguished group of colleagues who consented to comment on my paper. All raised thought-provoking questions which merit a detailed reply. I only regret that the strict space limitation imposed by the editor restricts my response to points on which my paper was unclear, and to a few important substantive issues. It would have been very satisfying to explore the many constructive and highly intriguing insights contained in the commentators' contributions.     

Mental Illness and Psychiatric Treatment Among Women: A Rejoinder to Johnson

In this reply to Johnson, it is suggested that her response to my paper is largely on ideological grounds. Johnson totally ignores the theoretical and empirical basis for the definition of mental illness that is used. She appears not to have read my paper carefully, for all the issues she raises have been dealt with in the paper. She does not seem to comprehend the problematic aspects of both feminist and traditional theory. Johnson does not appear to understand that traditional therapists do not blame the victim and that they also see the therapeutic process as resulting in maturation and growth. Her ideology also apparently makes her unable to see that she and I are in substantial agreement on many issues regarding the role of women.