Electrophysiological evidence for the "missing link" in crossmodal attention.

Orienting attention involuntarily to the location of a sensory event influences responses to subsequent stimuli that appear in different modalities with one possible exception: orienting attention involuntarily to a sudden light sometimes fails to affect responses to subsequent sounds (e.g., Spence & Driver, 1997). Here we investigated the effects of involuntary attention to a brief flash on the processing of subsequent sounds in a design that eliminates stimulus-response compatibility effects and criterion shifts as confounding factors. In addition, the neural processes mediating crossmodal attention were studied by recording event-related brain potentials. Our data show that orienting attention to the location of a spatially nonpredictive visual cue modulates behavioural and neural responses to subsequent auditory targets when the stimulus onset asynchrony is short (between 100 and 300 ms). These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that involuntary shifts of attention are controlled by supramodal brain mechanisms rather than by modality-specific ones.     

The validity of dietary restraint scales: comment on Stice et al. (2004)

In 4 empirical studies, E. Stice, M. Fisher, and M. R. Lowe calculated the correlations between some widely used dietary restraint scales and food intake. Failing to find substantial negative correlations, they concluded that these scales were invalid. The current article challenges this conclusion. For one thing, there is some evidence that restrained eaters do eat less than do unrestrained eaters under controlled experimental conditions favoring self-control. Dietary restraint is also associated with tendencies toward disinhibition under conditions favoring loss of self-control; such disinhibition often masks (but does not invalidate) the construct of dietary restraint. For these and other reasons, the assessment of food intake at a single eating episode may not capture overall dietary restriction. Finally, how much one eats does not necessarily indicate whether one has eaten less than one desired to eat. The authors suggest that the existing restraint scales do in fact validly assess restriction of food intake, albeit in a more complex fashion than is evident from simple correlations in single episodes.     

Self‐reports and stereotypes: a comment on McCrae et al.

The results and conclusions of McCrae, Terracciano, Realo, and Allik (this issue) are discussed, with particular attention to the question of the accuracy of mean self‐reports and stereotypes as indicators of national or regional differences in personality. It is suggested that more evidence will be needed to evaluate the accuracy of these indicators, and that mean self‐reports cannot yet be taken as the standard against which the accuracy of stereotypes can be judged. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Assessment of ADHD symptoms: comment on Gomez et al. (2003)

R. Gomez, G. L. Burns, J. A. Walsh, and M. A. de Moura (2003) examined the degree to which parent and teacher ratings of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms are accounted for by trait, source, and error variance. The importance and limitations of Gomez et al.'s findings are discussed in the context of clinical and research assessments of children suspected of having ADHD. Gomez et al.'s findings make clear that multimethod and multisource assessment protocols should be used in diagnosing children with this disorder. Further, clinicians and researchers must avoid relying too heavily on 1 source of data when evaluating the severity and frequency of ADHD symptoms.     

Evolving science in adolescence: comment on Ellis et al. (2012)

Ellis et al. (2012) bring an evolutionary perspective to bear on adolescent risky behavioral development, clinical practice, and public policy. The authors offer important insights that (a) some risky behaviors may be adaptive for the individual and the species by being hard-wired due to fitness benefits and (b) interventions might be more successful if they move with, rather than against, the natural tendencies of an adolescent. Ellis and colleagues criticize the field of developmental psychopathology, but we see the 2 fields as complementary. Their position would be enhanced by integrating it with contemporary perspectives on dynamic cascades through which normative behavior turns into genuinely maladaptive outcomes, dual processes in adolescent neural development, and adolescent decision making. Finally, they rightly note that innovation is needed in interventions and policies toward adolescent problem behavior.     

The g-loading of intelligence tests and their relationship with reaction times: A comment on Ruchalla et al.

Ruchalla, Schalt, and Vogel (1985) reported a negative correlation between the g-loadedness of a number of intelligence test subtests and the extent to which the subtests correlated with reaction times (RTs), a result contrary to the position of Jensen and others. A number of possible methodological problems with Ruchalla et al. are described, as are the results of two other studies pertinent to the issue. These results indicate that the g-loadedness of different subtests is in some cases highly positively correlated with the subtests' correlations with RTs, whereas in other cases the relationship is negligible or negative. The key factor appears to be the relative complexity of the RT test: more complex tests showing a strong positive correlation. In the context of these findings, Ruchalla et al.'s results are not out of line—they simply do not tell the whole story.     

Psychotherapy process: the missing link: comment on Westen, Novotny, and Thompson-Brenner (2004)

In this comment, J. S. Ablon and C. Marci argue that focusing on the empirical validation of manualized treatment packages misses important information about what is efficacious about a given treatment. Psychotherapy process has demonstrated that treatments may promote change in ways other than their underlying theories claim. Manualized therapies may appear distinct despite important similarities in dyadic interaction. These functional similarities in the emergent transactional process between therapist and patient may help explain the difficulty demonstrating differential outcomes across brands of brief therapy. Rather than focus on treatment packages targeting patient symptomatology, the authors recommend a shift in focus to the empirical validation of change processes coconstructed by therapist and patient in naturalistic settings.     

Questioning the goal-switching account of the AB: comment on Ferlazzo et al. (2007)

Identification of the second of two targets (T2) is impaired when presented less than about 500?ms after the first (T1; Attentional Blink: AB). Although the AB is known to be remarkably robust across many manipulations, [Ferlazzo, F., Lucido, S., Di Nocera, F., Fagioli, S., &; Sdoia, S. (2007). Switching between goals mediates the attentional blink effect. Experimental Psychology, 54, 89–98; Ferlazzo, F., Faglioli, S., Sdoia, S., &; Di Nocera, F. (2008). Goal-completion processes affect the attentional blink. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 697–710] found it to be substantially attenuated when the observers were set to accomplish a single goal (e.g. reporting the sum of the T1 and T2 digits) instead of a dual goal (reporting T1 and T2 separately). The larger AB obtained with the dual-goal set was ascribed to the attentional switch necessitated by the goal-switch between T1 and T2. This conclusion is questionable on three grounds: non-equivalent scoring procedures across conditions, range of inter-target lags, and unreliability of the baseline level. These issues were addressed in the present study. Contrary to Ferlazzo et al.’s conclusions, we found no AB attenuation in the single-goal, relative to the dual-goal condition.     

Evaluating the MSCEIT V2.0 via CFA: comment on Mayer et al. (2003)

This investigation uncovered several substantial errors in the confirmatory factor analysis results reported by J. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, D. R. Caruso, and G. Sitarenios (see record 2003-02341-015). Specifically, the values associated with the close-fit indices (normed fit index, Tucker-Lewis Index, and root-mean-square error of approximation) are inaccurate. A reanalysis of the Mayer et al. subscale intercorrelation matrix provided accurate values of the close-fit indices, which resulted in different evaluations of the models tested by J. D. Mayer et al. Contrary to J. D. Mayer et al., the 1-factor model and the 2-factor model did not provide good fit. Although the 4-factor model was still considered good fitting, the non-constrained 4-factor model yielded a non-positive definite matrix, which was interpreted to be due to the fact that two of the branch-level factors (Perceiving and Facilitating) were collinear, suggesting that a model with 4 factors was implausible.