Baby Triple P: A Randomized Controlled Trial Testing the Efficacy in First-Time Parent Couples

Journal of Child and Family Studies - In a randomized controlled trial, we tested the efficacy of Baby Triple P in a community sample of first-time parent couples. The intervention was developed to...     

Rare,but obviously there: Effects of target frequency and salience on visual search accuracy

Accuracy can be extremely important for many visual search tasks. However, numerous factors work to undermine successful search. Several negative influences on search have been well studied, yet one potentially influential factor has gone almost entirely unexplored—namely, how is search performance affected by the likelihood that a specific target might appear? A recent study demonstrated that when specific targets appear infrequently (i.e., once in every thousand trials) they were, on average, not often found. Even so, some infrequently appearing targets were actually found quite often, suggesting that the targets' frequency is not the only factor at play. Here, we investigated whether salience (i.e., the extent to which an item stands out during search) could explain why some infrequent targets are easily found whereas others are almost never found. Using the mobile application Airport Scanner, we assessed how individual target frequency and salience interacted in a visual search task that included a wide array of targets and millions of trials. Target frequency and salience were both significant predictors of search accuracy, although target frequency explained more of the accuracy variance. Further, when examining only the rarest target items (those that appeared on less than 0.15% of all trials), there was a significant relationship between salience and accuracy such that less salient items were less likely to be found. Beyond implications for search theory, these data suggest significant vulnerability for real-world searches that involve targets that are both infrequent and hard-to-spot.     

Weight discrimination in the workplace: a meta‐analytic examination of the relationship between weight and work‐related outcomes

This study provides a meta‐analytic review of correlational research examining the relationship between job incumbent/applicant weight and work‐related outcomes. Given the differences between correlational and experimental research, our findings show an understandably weaker relationship between weight and work‐related outcomes than has been found in past meta‐analyses of the experimental research. However, our findings do support the directionality of (a) the overall effect of weight on work‐related outcomes, and (b) the moderating role of job incumbent/applicant sex and the type of work‐related outcome found in past meta‐analyses of experimental research. In addition, this review provides initial meta‐analytic evidence for the roles of race, the sex–race interaction, and age as moderators of the relationship between weight and work‐related outcomes.     

The relational integration task explains fluid reasoning above and beyond other working memory tasks

This study aimed to evaluate how well fluid reasoning can be predicted by a task that involves the monitoring of patterns of stimuli. This task is believed to measure the effectiveness of relational integration—the process that binds mental representations into more complex relational structures. In Experiments 1 and 2, the task was indeed validated as a proper measure of relational integration, since participants’ performance depended on the number of bindings that had to be constructed in the diverse conditions of the task, whereas neither the number of objects to be bound nor the amount of elicited interference could affect this performance. In Experiment?3, by means of structural equation modeling and variance partitioning, the relation integration task was found to be the strongest predictor of fluid reasoning, explaining variance above and beyond the amounts accounted for by four other kinds of well-established working memory tasks.     

Weighing Outcomes by Time or Against Time? Evaluation Rules in Intertemporal Choice

Models of intertemporal choice draw on three evaluation rules, which we compare in the restricted domain of choices between smaller sooner and larger later monetary outcomes. The hyperbolic discounting model proposes an alternative‐based rule, in which options are evaluated separately. The interval discounting model proposes a hybrid rule, in which the outcomes are evaluated separately, but the delays to those outcomes are evaluated in comparison with one another. The tradeoff model proposes an attribute‐based rule, in which both outcomes and delays are evaluated in comparison with one another: People consider both the intervals between the outcomes and the compensations received or paid over those intervals. We compare highly general parametric functional forms of these models by means of a Bayesian analysis, a method of analysis not previously used in intertemporal choice. We find that the hyperbolic discounting model is outperformed by the interval discounting model, which, in turn, is outperformed by the tradeoff model. Our cognitive modeling is among the first to offer quantitative evidence against the conventional view that people make intertemporal choices by discounting the value of future outcomes, and in favor of the view that they directly compare options along the time and outcome attributes.     

Salespeople as knowledge brokers: a review and critique of the challenger sales model

Over the last several years, there has been increasing interest in a new sales training approach – referred to as the Challenger Sales model – to engage customers. This approach, focusing on purposefully generating tension with customers to spark new ways of thinking, has gained traction among leading sales organizations. Although generating tension with customers has received a great deal of interest, researchers have yet to complete a systematic, in-depth examination of the Challenger model. The purpose of this article is to provide a much needed comprehensive review and critique of the approach. By conducting both an empirical and conceptual review of the framework, we offer insight into its novelty, merits and weaknesses.     

Using Invariance to Examine Cheating in Unproctored Ability Tests

Despite their widespread use in personnel selection, there is concern that cheating could undermine the validity of unproctored Internet‐based tests. This study examined the presence of cheating in a speeded ability test used for personnel selection. The same test was administered to applicants in either proctored or unproctored conditions. Item response theory differential functioning analyses were used to evaluate the equivalence of the psychometric properties of test items across proctored and unproctored conditions. A few items displayed different psychometric properties, and the nature of these differences was not uniform. Theta scores were not reflective of widespread cheating among unproctored examinees. Thus, results were not consistent with what would be expected if cheating on unproctored tests was pervasive.     

“Plateau”-related summary statistics are uninformative for comparing working memory models

Performance on visual working memory tasks decreases as more items need to be remembered. Over the past decade, a debate has unfolded between proponents of slot models and slotless models of this phenomenon (Ma, Husain, Bays (Nature Neuroscience 17, 347-356, 2014). Zhang and Luck (Nature 453, (7192), 233-235, 2008) and Anderson, Vogel, and Awh (Attention, Perception, Psychophys 74, (5), 891-910, 2011) noticed that as more items need to be remembered, “memory noise” seems to first increase and then reach a “stable plateau.” They argued that three summary statistics characterizing this plateau are consistent with slot models, but not with slotless models. Here, we assess the validity of their methods. We generated synthetic data both from a leading slot model and from a recent slotless model and quantified model evidence using log Bayes factors. We found that the summary statistics provided at most 0.15 % of the expected model evidence in the raw data. In a model recovery analysis, a total of more than a million trials were required to achieve 99 % correct recovery when models were compared on the basis of summary statistics, whereas fewer than 1,000 trials were sufficient when raw data were used. Therefore, at realistic numbers of trials, plateau-related summary statistics are highly unreliable for model comparison. Applying the same analyses to subject data from Anderson et al. (Attention, Perception, Psychophys 74, (5), 891-910, 2011), we found that the evidence in the summary statistics was at most 0.12 % of the evidence in the raw data and far too weak to warrant any conclusions. The evidence in the raw data, in fact, strongly favored the slotless model. These findings call into question claims about working memory that are based on summary statistics.