A Cross-National Study of Nuclear Attitudes,Normative Support,and Activist Behavior: Additive and Interactive Effects1

We tested the cross-national similarity of additive and interactive variants of the Contingent Consistency Hypothesis in regard to antinuclear activist behavior. We predicted that attitudinally consistent behavior is influenced (a) more by specific than general attitudes, (b) by facilitation between normative support and personal attitudes in an interactive manner, and (c) by a fundamental or basic social-psychological process that can be demonstrated in people from different countries and cultures. These three hypotheses were tested for general (pacifist) attitudes, specific (antinuclear) attitudes, normative support, and antinuclear political activism in samples of college students from the U. S., England, and Sweden. In each sample, specific attitudes were strong, unique predictors of activist behavior (more so than general attitudes), while normative support had no additive influence on this behavior beyond that explained by attitudes for U. S. and British students. Interaction effects were found for both pacifist and nuclear attitudes in conjunction with normative support among the U. S. students, but only for pacifist attitudes in the British sample and only with antinuclear attitudes in the Swedish sample. In contrast with other studies where interaction effects were hypothesized for behaviors that were deviant or typically initiated by others, the present interactions were obtained for lawful behaviors that are often begun and/ or performed alone. With some notable variations, these results were confirmed in each sample, partially validating the cross-national generality of the interactive attitude-behavior model for activist behavior.     

The U.S. Employment Service Occupational Test-Development Program

The U. S. Employment Service conducts a test-research program for developing testing tools useful in vocational counseling. This article outlines the organization, underlying concepts, accomplishments, and current efforts of the test-research program.     

EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF DECISION MAKERS' RACE AND GENDER ON ACTUAL PROMOTIONS TO TOP MANAGEMENT

The effects of decision makers' race and gender on promotion decisions about applicants of diverse race and gender for 51 top management positions in a cabinet-level U.S. federal department over a 12-year period were examined. Promotion decisions were made in a 2-stage process. First, a review panel decided which applicants to refer for the position. Second, the selecting official selected one of the referred applicants for the position. Overall, decisions by review panels of different race and gender composition and by selecting officials of different race and gender were to the advantage of female applicants and to the disadvantage of African American and Hispanic male applicants. These effects were not fully accounted for by race or gender differences in applicant qualifications, or by any of several theoretical explanations for the effects of race and gender on promotions to top management.     

NATURAL DOUBTS

Abstract: Many philosophers now argue that the doubts of the philosophical sceptic are unnatural ones, in that they are not forced on us by considerations that any reasonable person would have to accept as compelling but only arise if one has already accepted certain controversial theoretical commitments. In this article I defend the naturalness of philosophical scepticism against such criticisms. After defining “global ontological scepticism,” I examine the work of a number of anti‐sceptical philosophers—Michael Huemer, Michael Williams, and John McDowell. Although McDowell does move the debate to a deeper level by interpreting scepticism as a challenge to the very possibility of the mind's apprehending reality by being in a rational rather than a merely causal relation to it, none of them succeeds in showing that global ontological scepticism is, in the relevant sense, unnatural. This is not to say that the sceptic is correct; simply that it has not been shown that we can reasonably dismiss the sceptical questions and thereby evade the need to engage seriously with the sceptical arguments.     

Wright on the McKinsey Problem

The McKinsey Problem concerns a puzzling implication of the doctrines of Content Externalism and Privileged Access. I provide a categorization of possible solutions to the problem. Then I discuss Crispin Wright's work on the problem. I argue that Wright has misconceived the status of his own proferred solution to the problem.     

NO CLOSURE ON SKEPTICISM

This article is a response to an important objection that Sherrilyn Roush has made to the standard closure‐based argument for skepticism, an argument that has been studied over the past couple of decades. If Roush's objection is on the mark, then this would be a quite significant finding. We argue that her objection fails.