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.     

The scientific error of Friedman's poor scholarship: A rejoinder

A recent article by Friedman published in this journal alleges that a study by Whitcher and Fisher (1979) in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is sexist research. An examination of his critique reveals that the facts are not as he purports. A reading of the Whitcher and Fisher (1979) study shows that the authors followed explicitly APA (1977) guidelines for nonsexist language in writing their article.In his article, Friedman makes a number of critical comments of a general nature that bear no relationship to the focus of our study (e.g., his comments about being touched by doctors; and patients' expectations about the role of doctors, both on p. 749). Unfortunately, he does not clarify which of his comments are aimed at our study and which are not. Therefore, we encourage readers unfamiliar with our research to review our original article.     

The reality of racial differences: A rejoinder with new evidence

The criticisms of my race differences paper are considered within the following questions: (1) Do the racial differences exist as described or are they due entirely to faulty measurement or reporting? (2) Are the racial differences due partly to genetic factors as suggested or are they due entirely to environmental influences? (3) Does the r/K framework provide a good fit to the data or is some other framework more useful? Special attention is given to the issue of whether the racial differences are due to the genes or to social class and several lines of evidence are brought to bear to support the hypothesis that some of the differences are genetic. For example, inbreeding depression scores calculated from Japanese cousin marriages on the WISC are shown to predict black-white difference scores on the WISC-R.     

The sociology of the sacred: A conversation with Jeffrey Alexander

Over the past 20 years, Jeffrey C. Alexander has been a leading social theorist and a pioneer of the ‘strong program’ in cultural sociology, which emphasises the significance of cultural structures of meaning for social life. Following an introductory overview of his work, this article records a public conversation with Alexander about the role and significance of the concept of the sacred in his sociological work. Issues addressed in this conversation include situating Alexander's interest in the sacred in his intellectual biography (including his significant intellectual influences), the mistrust of the concept of the sacred within the wider sociological community, the universality of cultural structures of sacred meaning, the limitations of sociological analysis focused on sacred meaning and methodological approaches to the study of the sacred.     

Transpersonal views of existentialism: A rejoinder

Abstract

Over the past several years, a growing number of transpersonal theorists have addressed existentialism. These articles have been supportive of existential positions but only to a point. This point concerns one major theme: whether or not the universe is friendly (assimilable, consoling) or unfriendly (unassimilable, “other"). Transpersonalists tend to adopt the former, and in their view, superior, position and existentialists lean toward the latter “delimited” view. This article explores the accuracy of this perception on the part of transpersonalists and strongly argues for its reassessment.     

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.     

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.