Ontology and the construction of systems

After drawing attention to the basic importance of Goodman's workThe Structure of Appearance, this paper turns to a critical analysis of Goodman's claims concerning worldmaking. It stresses that Goodman's acceptance of a multiplicity of actual worlds doesnot involve the belief in an unknowable underlying reality; but that it is due to the non-mysterious fact that constructional systems allow for a multiplicity of disagreeing, right versions. However, from the point of view of truthmaker ontology, most worlds of constructional systems are not genuine worlds; and so far it hasnot been shown that there are genuine truthmaker worlds that disagree.It is suggested that the construction of systems usually involves three conflicting aims: the logical, the ontological, and the psychological. Considering the current interest in cognitive psychology and phenomenology, the implications of the psychological aim, too, deserve to be reexamined.This paper was presented at the Autorenkolloqium with Nelson Goodman and Catherine Z. Elgin, held at the Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung (Zif) of the University of Bielefeld (Germany) between 18–20 March 1991.     

Brain structures playing a crucial role in the representation of tools in humans and non-human primates

The cortical representation of concepts varies according to the information critical for their development. Living categories, being mainly based upon visual information, are bilaterally represented in the rostral parts of the ventral stream of visual processing; whereas tools, being mainly based upon action data, are unilaterally represented in a left-sided fronto-parietal network. The unilateral representation of tools results from involvement in actions of the right side of the body.     

Gender differences in the Big Five personality development: A longitudinal investigation from late adolescence to emerging adulthood

The present study aims to investigate gender differences in the mean-level change of the Big Five from late adolescence to emerging adulthood. We analyzed longitudinal self-report data from 192 males and 211 females, using multigroup Latent Growth Modeling. Gender differences were found in the shape of the trajectory, as well as in the mean and in the variance of the growth curve parameters (i.e. the initial level and the rate of change). At time 1 (Age 16), females scored significantly higher on measures of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness. Males, in contrast, scored higher than females on a measure of Emotional stability. In both males and females, Conscientiousness and Openness increased linearly from age 16 to age 20, whereas Energy/Extraversion remained stable. Emotional stability slightly increased in males and remained stable in females. Agreeableness increased linearly in males and showed a quadratic trend in females, first increasing and then declining over time. Finally, females showed higher interindividual variability than males on the trajectories of Conscientiousness and Emotional stability.     

The Five Factor Model in personnel selection: Measurement equivalence between applicant and non-applicant groups

This study investigates the measurement equivalence of a Five Factor measure of personality between applicant and non-applicant samples. The Big Five Questionnaire-2 was administered in two samples: A group of volunteers (n = 903), who completed the test for research purposes, and a group applying for jobs, who completed the test during hiring procedures (n = 401). Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis on item composites was conducted to test for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures of twenty facets of the Five Factors. Item-level analyses were carried out through analysis of variance to further examine the issue of measurement invariance. Findings suggested that personality facets have the same measurement unit across applicants and non-applicants, while a lack of equivalence was found in the origin of the scales. Similar results were found at the item-level. Implications for personality assessment are advanced and discussed.     

The positivity scale

Five studies document the validity of a new 8-item scale designed to measure positivity, defined as the tendency to view life and experiences with a positive outlook. In the first study (N = 372), the psychometric properties of Positivity Scale (P Scale) were examined in accordance with classical test theory using a large number of college participants. In Study 2, the unidimensionality of the P Scale was corroborated with confirmatory factor analysis in 2 independent samples (N1 = 322; N2 = 457). In Study 3, P Scale invariance across sexes and its relations with self-esteem, life satisfaction, optimism, positive negative affect, depression, and the Big Five provided further evidence of the internal and construct validity of the new measure in a large community sample (N = 3,589). In Study 4, test-retest reliability of the P Scale was found in a sample of college students (N = 262) who were readministered the scale after 5 weeks. In Study 5, measurement invariance and construct validity of P Scale were further supported across samples in different countries and cultures, including Italy (N = 689), the United States (N = 1,187), Japan (N = 281), and Spain (N = 302). Psychometric findings across diverse cultural context attest to the robustness of the P Scale and to positivity as a basic disposition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

Correction to: Child Psychological Adjustment to War and Displacement: A Discriminant Analysis of Resilience and Trauma in Syrian Refugee Children

Journal of Child and Family Studies -     

On the Cross‐Cultural Replicability of the Resilient,Undercontrolled, and Overcontrolled Personality Types

Personality types reflect typical configurations of personality attributes within individuals. Over the last 20 years, researchers have identified a set of three replicable personality types: resilient (R), undercontrolled (U), and overcontrolled (O) types. In this study, we examined the cross‐cultural replicability of the RUO types in Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United States. Personality types were identified using cluster analyses of Big Five profiles in large samples of college students from Italy (n = 322), the United States (n = 499), Spain (n = 420), and Poland (n = 235). Prior to clustering the profiles, the measurement invariance of the Big Five measure across samples was tested. We found evidence for the RUO types in all four samples. The three‐cluster solution showed a better fit over alternative solutions and had a relatively high degree of cross‐cultural generalizability. The RUO types are evident in samples from four countries with distinct linguistic and cultural traditions. Results were discussed in light of the importance of considering how traits are organized within individuals for advancing contemporary personality psychology.     

Social support from fellow group members triggers additional effort in groups

This research demonstrates social support from fellow group members as unique trigger of additional effort and performance in groups. Support‐induced effort gains are shown both compared with groups without social support and individual work. Study 1 examined existing beliefs about motivating group work among employees with professional group work experience (n = 130). The results revealed social support as one of the most frequently reported sources of group‐induced effort gains. Study 2 explored self‐reported effort intentions in group training scenarios among athletes (n = 94). Finally, Study 3 examined performance as a manifest indicator of effort in an experimental persistence task among students (n = 88). The results of Study 2 and Study 3 showed significant gains due to social support in both self‐reported effort and manifest performance, respectively. Together, the results demonstrate that receiving social support from fellow group members leads to higher effort in groups at the level of existing beliefs about motivating group work, at the level of effort intentions, and at the level of manifest performance behavior. The observed findings cannot be explained by established sources of motivation gains in groups such as social comparison or social indispensability. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.