Social signals: from theory to applications

The Special Issue Editorial introduces the research milieu in which Social Signal Processing originates, by merging computer scientists and social scientists and giving rise to this field in parallel with Human–Computer Interaction, Affective Computing, and Embodied Conversational Agents, all similarly characterized by high interdisciplinarity, stress on multimodality of communication, and the continuous loop from theory to simulation and application. Some frameworks of the cognitive and social processes underlying social signals are identified as reference points (Theory of Mind and Intersubjectivity, mirror neurons, and the ontogenesis and phylogenesis of communication), while three dichotomies (automatic vs. controlled, individualistic vs. intersubjective, and meaning vs. influence) are singled out as leads to navigate within the theoretical and applicative studies presented in the Special Issue.     

Social signals: from theory to applications

The Special Issue Editorial introduces the research milieu in which Social Signal Processing originates, by merging computer scientists and social scientists and giving rise to this field in parallel with Human-Computer Interaction, Affective Computing, and Embodied Conversational Agents, all similarly characterized by high interdisciplinarity, stress on multimodality of communication, and the continuous loop from theory to simulation and application. Some frameworks of the cognitive and social processes underlying social signals are identified as reference points (Theory of Mind and Intersubjectivity, mirror neurons, and the ontogenesis and phylogenesis of communication), while three dichotomies (automatic vs. controlled, individualistic vs. intersubjective, and meaning vs. influence) are singled out as leads to navigate within the theoretical and applicative studies presented in the Special Issue.     

Theory and data interactions of the scientific mind: evidence from the molecular and the cognitive laboratory.

A number of researchers and scholars have stressed the importance of disconfirmation in the quest for the development of scientific knowledge (e.g., Popper, 1959). Paradoxically, studies examining human reasoning in the laboratory have typically found that people display a confirmation bias in that they are more likely to seek out and attend to data consistent rather than data inconsistent with their initial theory (Wason, 1968). We examine the strategies that scientists and students use to evaluate data that are either consistent or inconsistent with their expectations. First, we present findings from scientists reasoning "live" in their laboratory meetings. We show that scientists often show an initial reluctance to consider inconsistent data as "real." However, this initial reluctance is often overcome with repeated observations of the inconsistent data such that they modify their theories to account for the new data. We further examine these issues in a controlled scientific causal thinking simulation specifically developed to examine the reasoning strategies we observed in the natural scientific environment. Like the scientists, we found that participants in our simulation initially displayed a propensity to discount data inconsistent with a theory provided. However, with repeated observations of the inconsistent data, the students, like the scientists, began to see the once anomalous data as "real" and the initial bias to discount that data was significantly diminished.     

"What if…": The Use of Conceptual Simulations in Scientific Reasoning

The term conceptual simulation refers to a type of everyday reasoning strategy commonly called "what if" reasoning. It has been suggested in a number of contexts that this type of reasoning plays an important role in scientific discovery; however, little direct evidence exists to support this claim. This article proposes that conceptual simulation is likely to be used in situations of informational uncertainty, and may be used to help scientists resolve that uncertainty. We conducted two studies to investigate the relationship between conceptual simulation and informational uncertainty. Study 1 was an in vivo study of expert scientists; the results suggest that scientists do use conceptual simulation in situations of informational uncertainty, and that they use conceptual simulation to make inferences from their data using the analogical reasoning process of alignment by similarity detection. Study 2 experimentally manipulated experts' level of uncertainty and provides further support for the hypothesis that conceptual simulation is more likely to be used in situations of informational uncertainty. Finally, we discuss the relationship between conceptual simulation and other types of reasoning using qualitative mental models.     

The Conflict Between Religion and Science in Light of the Patterns of Religious Belief Among Scientists

Recent summaries of psychologist James H. Leuba's pioneering studies on the religious beliefs of American scientists have misrepresented his findings and ignored important aspects of his analyses, including predictions regarding the future of religion. Much of the recent interest in Leuba was sparked by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham's commentary in Nature (3 April 1997), “Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith.” Larson and Witham compared the results of their 1996 survey of one thousand randomly selected American scientists regarding their religious beliefs with a similar survey published eighty years earlier by Leuba. Leuba's original studies are themselves problematical. Nonetheless, his notion that different fields of science have different impacts on the religion‐science relationship remains valid. Especially significant is his appreciation of religion as a dynamic, compelling force in human life: any waning of traditional beliefs does not mean a decrease in religious commitment but calls for a new spirituality in harmony with modern scientific teachings. Leuba's studies, placed in proper context, offer a broad historical perspective from which to interpret data about religious beliefs of scientists and the impact of science and scientists on public beliefs, and opportunity to develop new insight into the religion‐science relationship.     

On the advantages of symptoms: Exploring the client''s construing

From the perspective of George A. Kelly's Personal construct theory the article outlines points of view concerning "advantages of symptoms" A procedure for eliciting possible advantages is presented ("The ABC-model") and compared with a more conventional psychoanalytic approach as exemplified in a previously published case story. From a Kellyan view people are "personal scientists", seeking—by testing their hypotheses—to predict and control events. Personal scientists may, however, get stuck with their hypotheses, possibly resulting in "symptoms", and may need a fellow scientist (e.g. therapist) to encourage them to see and try out alternative procedures. The authors underscore that the therapist should beware of imposing own interpretations on the clients, but rather invite them to participate in a joint effort to elaborate and understand (analyze). This is a joint process, but principally based on the client's own personal meaning structure (construction). Since there is more than one alternative or one answer to the client's situation, the therapeutic process will probably call for frequent reconstructions.     

Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?

Using new survey data ( N = 1,646), we examine the attitudes academic scientists at 21 elite U.S. research universities have about the perceived conflict between religion and science. In contrast to public opinion and scholarly discourse, most scientists do not perceive a conflict between science and religion. Different from what other studies would indicate, this belief does not vary between social and natural scientists. We argue that maintaining plausibility frameworks for religion is an important correlate of whether scientists will reject the conflict paradigm, with such frameworks taking surprising forms. When scientists do not attend religious services they are more likely to accept the conflict paradigm. When scientists think their peers have a positive view of religion, they are less likely to agree there is a conflict between science and religion. Religious upbringing is associated with scientists adopting the conflict paradigm. Spirituality is much more important in this population than other research would lead us to believe. Results reformulate widely cited earlier research, offer new insights about how scientists view the connection between religion and science, and expand public discussion about religious challenges to science.     

The effects of perceived pressures on managerial and nonmanagerial scientists and engineers

The two major purposes of the present study were (1) to empirically investigate the effects of excessive pressures perceived by Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers employed in a large multidivisional energy R&D laboratory on work attitudes and performance; and (2) to test the proposition that scientists with managerial responsibilities perceive more pressures and strains than do those with no such duties. Results indicated that the pressured scientists perceived more role strain and a less positive climate, were less satisfied, and received lower performance evaluations from their supervisors than non-pressured ones. No differences were found in the perception of pressures between the managerial and nonmanagerial scientists, although the managers reported a more positive climate and higher satisfaction than did nonmanagers. The implications of these findings with regard to management practice (i.e., dual ladders) and future research on stress among this occupational group were briefly discussed.     

The perception of primary and secondary stress in English

Most models of word recognition concerned with prosody are based on a distinction between strong syllables (containing a full vowel) and weak syllables (containing a schwa). In these models, the possibility that listeners take advantage of finer grained prosodic distinctions, such as primary versus secondary stress, is usually rejected on the grounds that these two categories are not discriminable from each other without lexical information or normalization of the speaker's voice. In the present experiment, subjects were presented with word fragments that differed only by their degree of stress--namely, primary or secondary stress (e.g.,/'prasI/vs./"prasI/). The task was to guess the origin of the fragment (e.g., "prosecutor" vs. "prosecution"). The results showed that guessing performance significantly exceeds the chance level, which indicates that making fine stress distinctions is possible without lexical information and with minimal speech normalization. This finding is discussed in the framework of prosody-based word recognition theories.     

Atheists and Agnostics Negotiate Religion and Family

Through in‐depth interviews with scientists at elite academic institutions—those particularly likely to have no firm belief in God—we provide insight into the motives scientists who are not religious have for joining a religious group and the struggle faced by these individuals in reconciling personal beliefs with what they consider the best interests of their families. Narratives stress the use of resources from identities as scientists to provide their children with religious choices consistent with science and in negotiating spousal influence and a desire for community. Findings expand the religious socialization and identities literatures by widening the range of understanding of the strategies parents utilize to interface with religious communities as well as lead to more nuanced public understanding of how atheist and agnostic scientists relate to religious communities.     

Issues in psychoneuroimmunology research

Careful design of studies is crucial for meaningful progress in this area of inquiry. Along with systematic evaluation of immunologic factors, clear understanding of antecedent factors is also important. Age, sex, and other sociodemographic factors might play a major role in how an individual reacts to a given situation when compared with another individual. Assessment of the impact of these factors on the immune system might be further complicated by immunosuppressive viruses like HIV or by the use of many common medications such as beta-blockers for hypertension (Kiecolt-Glaser & Glaser, 1988). Longitudinal studies are needed to understand the process of change and the dynamic patterning of psychosocial and immunologic relationships over time. Additionally, use of multimodal measures to assess psychological events such as stress is imperative (Baum, Grunberg, & Singer, 1982). It will not serve our understanding of psychological influences on the immune system to jump to the conclusion that an event is "stressful" because it seems as if it should be. Finally, establishing a "core" battery of widely accepted immune tests will be important in establishing comparability across studies. The standardization and acceptance of specific biochemical measures will facilitate the infusion of talented clinical and basic scientists into the area of psychoneuroimmunology.     

II. Symposium für Empirische Forschung in der Forensischen Psychiatrie, Psychologie und Psychotherapie am 25. und 26. Oktober 2012 in Hamburg

The Second Symposium for Empirical Research in Forensic Psychiatry, Psychology and Psychotherapy was held on 25th–26th of October 2012 in Hamburg. The symposium offers young scientists in the field the opportunity to present their research studies. In total 15 papers were presented at the symposium which will be briefly described in this article. The following four topics were discussed:

1. Innovative measurement tools for violent and sexual offenders,
2. Risk assessment tools for violent and sexual offenders,
3. Physiological and neuropsychological assessment of violent and sexual offenders,
4. Treatment approaches for violent and sexual offenders.

The conference is organized annually either by the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Institute for Sex Research and Forensic Psychiatry), the Saarland University Medical Center (Institute for Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry) or the Asklepios Medical Center Göttingen (Ludwig-Meyer-Institute for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychotherapy). The best three research presentations are honoured with the Ludwig Meyer Award of the Asklepios Psychiatry Niedersachsen GmbH, the Eberhard Schorsch Award of the German Society for Sex Research and the Hermann Witter Award of the Southwest German Academy of Forensic Psychiatry. The proceedings of the conference are expected to be published in autumn 2013 by the Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft Berlin.     

Immigration and the popularization of social science, 1920 to 1930

This article examines how social scientists presented their views on immigration to readers of popular magazines from 1920 to 1930, a period of public debate on the merits of immigration restriction. By comparing the content of these magazine articles with professional journal articles on immigration, the representativeness of the social scientific material presented to the public can be assessed. While similar issues were discussed in popular and professional articles, social scientists writing popular articles were more likely to support an outmoded racial interpretation of immigration. Their resulting support of immigration restriction was not representative of the dominant cultural perspective held by most social scientists. Thus, readers looking to social scientists for an “informed opinion” were not given an accurate impression of social scientific thought on immigration.     

In Defense of the Epistemic Imperative

Sample (Philos Sci 82(5):856–866, 2015) argues that scientists ought not to believe that their theories are true because they cannot fulfill the epistemic obligation to take the diachronic perspective on their theories. I reply that Sample’s argument imposes an inordinately heavy epistemic obligation on scientists, and that it spells doom not only for scientific theories but also for observational beliefs and philosophical ideas that Samples endorses. I also delineate what I take to be a reasonable epistemic obligation for scientists. In sum, philosophers ought to impose on scientists only an epistemic standard that they are willing to impose on themselves.     

Computing stress

This article is based on a review of recent literature on “computing stress”; that is, on the psychological stress effects of working with computer systems. Current research into the sources of computer-related stress has tended to concentrate on those employees who operate Visual Display Units (VDUs), either on a full-time professional basis as word-processor (WP) operators, data-entry clerks, secretaries, or those dealing with enquiries from the public; or employees who use the VDU irregularly as part of their other duties. A few studies have looked at specific occupation groups, such as printers (Kalimo & Leppänen, 1985), information technology professionals (programers and analysts), process workers, and college students (Sproull, Kiesler, & Zubrow, 1984). Generally, however, research has been carried out on office workers, more often women, carrying out administrative tasks. An attempt is made to identify those potential work-related stressors that have been isolated by these studies, and also included are criticisms of the general methodologies used in many of them.     

The Three Rs: A Restrictive and Refutable Rigmarole

In 1959 Russell and Burch proposed "the three Rs" (reduction, refinement, or replacement) as principles for using fewer animals in research, reducing the pain and discomfort of those that are used, and substituting organic material in place of whole animals. Arguments that scientists should support the principles and arguments that they are restrictive and not fully relevant to the scientific enterprise are considered. The conclusion is that biological scientists should eschew their acceptance.     

Work–Family Conflict and Turnover Intentions Among Scientists and Engineers Working in R&D

Purpose  In this study we evaluate competing models of the direct and indirect effects of work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW) on two turnover intentions relevant to scientists and engineers: (i) leaving R&D for non-R&D work within the same organization and (ii) leaving one’s organization for another one. Design/methodology/approach  A cross-sectional design was used. Our sample consists of almost 500 scientists and engineers in dual-earner families and with dependent care responsibilities. Findings  We find some support for the domain-specific predictors-to-outcomes model: FIW indirectly (but not directly) increases intentions to change organization through work dissatisfaction. Contrary to expectations from the stress management model we find neither direct nor indirect relationships between WIF and turnover intentions. Implications  Our findings suggest that organizations that help employees manage the effects of FIW on work dissatisfaction may be able to reduce the turnover among their technical workforce. Originality/value  The study examines an overlooked outcome of work-family conflict: turnover intentions. In addition, it provides much needed attention to the implications of workfamily conflict for scientists and engineers, who have received little attention in the work-family conflict literature despite longstanding efforts to understand the relationship between marriage, parenthood, and productivity in these fields.

The three Rs: a restrictive and refutable rigmarole

In 1959 Russell and Burch proposed "the three Rs" (reduction, refinement, or replacement) as principles for using fewer animals in research, reducing the pain and discomfort of those that are used, and substituting organic material in place of whole animals. Arguments that scientists should support the principles and arguments that they are restrictive and not fully relevant to the scientific enterprise are considered. The conclusion is that biological scientists should eschew their acceptance.     

The interaction of culture with general job stressors in air traffic controllers

Elements of the job of Air Traffic Controllers perceived as being stressful were rated for degree of stressfulness by a group of Singaporean controllers. The results were compared with those from earlier studies in Canada and New Zealand. It was hypothesized that the international nature of the job would be reflected in findings from all three groups of controllers. It was further hypothesized, however, that environmental and cultural factors would produce differences among the groups and that these would be greater between the Asian and the two "Western" cultures than between the two earlier samples studied. Results showed that the two Western cultures share 56% common variance in their perceptions of stressfulness, but this changes to 35% between the New Zealand and Singapore groups and only 21% between Canada and Singapore. Although comparison of the factor structure of the stress ratings of the Singapore and New Zealand samples again confirmed a general pattern of underlying stressors related to air traffic control (which fits general occupational models of stress), it also revealed culturally specific components. The nature of these suggests that they are emhedded in the context of Asian environments and cultures. The conclusion is that stress in Air Traffic Controllers is related both to generic occupation stressors and to others that are both organizationally and culturally specific.