What Kinds of People Should We Create?

The advent of genetic engineering will give people the power to design the members of the succeeding generation, and thus will render practical the issue how such a power ought to be exercised. Here I address that issue in a general way. I point out that the aim of making future people better adapted to the modern social environment is implicitly circular, since the natures of the people themselves will determine the nature of the social environment. I claimthat the human property the enhancement of which would do most to enrich experience is intelligence; accordingly increased intelligence should be a primary aim of genetic designers. The tendency to feel pain should be attenuated, as positive motivation is substituted for negative (to some extent). People should be designed so as to be motivated more by reason than by any non-rational drives (though rational motivation may still involve pleasure andpain). The sex drive, having outlived its usefulness, will probably be replaced by some other source of pleasure. As a side effect of these changes in people, the arts and social sociences will be transformed beyond recognition. [1]     

Should We Teach Patriotism?

This article examines a particular debate between Eamonn Callan and William Galston concerning the need for a civic education which counters the divisive pull of pluralism by uniting the citizenry in patriotic allegiance to a single national identity.The article offers a preliminary understanding of nationalism and patriotism before setting out the terms of the debate. It then critically evaluates the central idea of Callan that one might be under an obligation morally to improve one's own patriotic inheritance, pointing to the ineliminable tension between the valuation of one's own patria by its own terms and a detached critical reason.It concludes by suggesting that we are, in advance of our education, members of a particular patria and that any education must be particularistic. Finally, the danger is noted of presuming that, in each case, there is a single, determinate national tradition.     

How Should We Assess the Fit of Rasch-Type Models? Approximating the Power of Goodness-of-Fit Statistics in Categorical Data Analysis

We investigate the performance of three statistics, R ₁, R ₂ (Glas in Psychometrika 53:525–546, 1988), and M ₂ (Maydeu-Olivares & Joe in J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100:1009–1020, 2005, Psychometrika 71:713–732, 2006) to assess the overall fit of a one-parameter logistic model (1PL) estimated by (marginal) maximum likelihood (ML). R ₁ and R ₂ were specifically designed to target specific assumptions of Rasch models, whereas M ₂ is a general purpose test statistic. We report asymptotic power rates under some interesting violations of model assumptions (different item discrimination, presence of guessing, and multidimensionality) as well as empirical rejection rates for correctly specified models and some misspecified models. All three statistics were found to be more powerful than Pearson’s X ² against two- and three-parameter logistic alternatives (2PL and 3PL), and against multidimensional 1PL models. The results suggest that there is no clear advantage in using goodness-of-fit statistics specifically designed for Rasch-type models to test these models when marginal ML estimation is used.     

The Role of Conviction in Personal Disease Risk Perceptions: What Can We Learn From Research on Attitude Strength?

Perceived risk for disease is included as a predictor of intentions and behavior in many health behavior theories. However, perceived risk is not always a strong predictor of intentions and behaviors. One reason may be suboptimal conceptualization and measurement of risk perceptions; in particular, research may not capture the conviction and certainty with which a risk perception is held. The rich and independent literature on attitudes might be leveraged to explore whether conviction is an important moderator of the effects of risk perceptions on intentions and behavior. Attitudes are more predictive of intentions when they are high in multiple aspects of attitude strength, including attitude certainty and being more accessible and stable over time. Working from the assumption that risk perceptions have a similar structure and function to attitudes, we consider whether factors known to strengthen the attitude–behavior correspondence might also strengthen the risk perception–behavior correspondence. Although by strict definition risk perceptions are not evaluations (a critical component of attitudes), the predictive validity of risk perceptions may be increased by attention to one's “conviction” or certainty of perceived risk. We also review recent strategies designed to improve risk perception measurement, including affective and experiential assessments of perceived risk and the importance of allowing people to indicate that they “don't know” their disease risk. The aim of this paper is to connect two disparate literatures – attitudes and persuasion in social psychology with risk perceptions in health psychology and decision science – in an attempt to stimulate more work on characteristics and proper measurement of risk perceptions.     

Should We Write Off Graphology?

The scientific study of graphology (handwriting analysis) has had a long history. Many practitioners believe that graphology is a valuable selection aid and use this technique in a selection context, and in some European countries it is quite well thought of. While a few articles have proposed that graphology is a valid and useful selection technique, the overwhelming results of well-controlled empirical studies have been that the technique has not demonstrated acceptable validity. A review of relevant literature regarding both theory and research indicates that, while the procedure may have an intuitive appeal, graphology should not be used in a selection context.     

Content Analysis of Gender Roles in Media: Where Are We Now and Where Should We Go?

This paper provides a commentary regarding the quantitative content analyses of gender roles in media published in the two special issues of Sex Roles (Rudy et al. 2010a, 2011). A few themes and some overarching lessons emerge from the wide variety of data presented. First, it is clear that women are under-represented across a range of media and settings. Second, when women are portrayed, it is often in a circumscribed and negative manner. Women are often sexualized??typically by showing them in scanty or provocative clothing. Women are also subordinated in various ways, as indicated by their facial expressions, body positions, and other factors. Finally, they are shown in traditionally feminine (i.e., stereotyped) roles. Women are portrayed as nonprofessionals, homemakers, wives or parents, and sexual gatekeepers. Although the studies generally support these conclusions, some interesting moderating factors are identified, such as race. It is suggested that next steps involve the development of theory and a body of empirical evidence regarding the effects of exposure to under-representation of women. Data concerning the effects of exposure to sexualized or stereotypical portrayals on young audiences is also lacking. Finally, content analyses of new media, including those created and distributed by users, are recommended as a next step. It is concluded that, while increasing the representation of women in media may be valuable, it is also critical that the manner in which they are portrayed be simultaneously considered to avoid increasing negative or stereotypical depictions that may be particularly harmful to viewers.     

Should We Tolerate Holocaust Denial?

Holocaust denial (HD) is the activity of denying the occurrence of key events and processes which constitute the Holocaust. Should it be tolerated? HD brings into particularly sharp focus many difficult questions faced by defenders of content-neutral liberal principles protecting freedom of expression. I argue that there are insufficient grounds for the legal prohibition of HD, but that society has the right and the duty to expel and exclude deniers from the Academy.     

What Kind of Empirical Research Should We Publish, Fund, and Reward?

ABSTRACT— When evaluating empirical papers for publication, grant proposals, or individual contributions (e.g., awarding tenure), the basic question one should ask is how much the contribution adds to understanding in psychology and not whether the contribution takes a particular form or represents one particular model of how to do empirical studies. Academic psychology has flourished with its mastery of the hypothesis–experiment model of science and its expertise in generating and eliminating alternative hypotheses and isolating causation. These accomplishments are a critical part of psychology, and they are well and appropriately taught by psychologists. However, they are only a part of science and should not comprise the almost exclusive criteria for evaluating research. In particular, discovery of fundamental phenomena, such as functional relations that apply to the real world and have generality, should have a higher priority in psychology. Such findings have been the basis for theoretical advances in other natural sciences.     

Predicting and Explaining Intentions and Behavior: How Well Are We Doing?

Meta-analyses of research using the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) show that these models explain on average between 40% and 50% of the variance in intention, and between 19% and 38% of the variance in behavior. This paper evaluates the performance of these models in predicting and explaining intentions and behavior. It discusses the distinction between prediction and explanation, the different standards of comparison against which predictive performance can be judged, the use of percentage of variance explained as a measure of effect size, and presents 9 reasons why the models do not always predict as well as we would like them to do.     

Changing Educational Needs of Psychologists: Do We Need More Medical Knowledge,Basic Science and More Psychological Science?

Psychologists of the 21st century must be highly skilled and versatile to function effectively in academic health centers (AHCs). Thus, the current paper focuses on the training psychologists receive to prepare them for their diverse roles in AHCs. The paper is framed around the question: Do we need more medical knowledge, basic science and more psychological science? posed to the author by the conference organizers of the 3rd National Association of Psychologists in Academic Health Centers (APAHC) Conference and is based on the perspective of the author.