A quantitative review of overjustification effects in persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities

The overjustification hypothesis suggests that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic rewards are common in strengthening behavior in persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities; we examined overjustification effects in this context. A literature search yielded 65 data sets permitting comparison of responding during an initial no‐reinforcement phase to a subsequent no‐reinforcement phase, separated by a reinforcement phase. We used effect sizes to compare response levels in these two no‐reinforcement phases. Overall, the mean effect size did not differ from zero; levels in the second no‐reinforcement phase were equally likely to be higher or lower than in the first. However, in contrast to the overjustification hypothesis, levels were higher in the second no‐reinforcement phase when comparing the single no‐reinforcement sessions immediately before and after reinforcement. Outcomes consistent with the overjustification hypothesis were somewhat more likely when the target behavior occurred at relatively higher levels prior to reinforcement.     

Triarchic Model Personality Traits and Their Impact on Mock Juror Perceptions of a White-Collar Criminal Defendant

The triarchic model of psychopathy proposes that this personality disorder is composed of 3 relatively distinct constructs: meanness, disinhibition, and boldness. Although the first 2 components are widely accepted, boldness has generated considerable theoretical debate concerning its relevance—largely due to its association with various ostensibly adaptive characteristics and socially desirable behaviors (e.g., self-reported heroism). But is being bold actually perceived by others as an intrinsically adaptive, socially desirable personality trait? We investigated this question using a novel approach—a jury simulation study that manipulated the level of triarchic traits exhibited by a white-collar criminal. More specifically, 330 community members read a vignette in which the defendant's degree of boldness and disinhibition was manipulated and then provided sentence recommendations and other evaluative ratings. As hypothesized, manipulating boldness and disinhibition resulted in more negative views of the defendant, with the boldness manipulation more consistently predicting higher global psychopathy, “meanness,” and “evil” ratings. Surprisingly, neither manipulation predicted sentence recommendations, although higher global psychopathy ratings did correlate with more punitive sentence recommendations. The presence of personality traits construed in some contexts as advantageous or socially desirable can be perceived as more dysfunctional and undesirable in other contexts—particularly when they cooccur with criminal behavior.     

The Philosophical Personality

The authors adopt a critico‐sociological methodology to investigate the current state of the philosophical profession. According to them, the question concerning the status of philosophy (“What is philosophy?”) cannot be answered from within the precinct of philosophical reason alone, since philosophy—understood primarily as a profession—is marked by a constitutive type of self‐ignorance that prevents it from reflecting upon its own sociological conditions of actuality. This ignorance, which is both cause and effect of the organization and investment of philosophical desire, causes philosophers to lose themselves in an ideological myth (“the philosopher as idea(l)”) according to which philosophers are unaffected by the material conditions in which they exist. This myth prevents philosophers from noticing the extent to which their activity is influenced by extra‐philosophical determinants that shape, empirically, who becomes a professional philosopher (“the philosopher as imago”) and who doesn't. This article explores the relationship between philosophy's “idea(l)” and its “imago” as a way of shedding light on some of the mechanisms that make philosophy inhospitable for so many women, people of color, and economic minorities.     

Recollection and familiarity for words and faces: a study comparing Remember–Know judgements and the Process Dissociation Procedure

Measures of recollection and familiarity often differ depending on the paradigm utilised. Remember–Know (R–K) and Process Dissociation Procedure (PDP) methods have been commonly used but rarely compared within a single study. In the current experiments, R–K and PDP were compared by examining the effect of attention at study and time to respond at test on recollection and familiarity using the same experimental procedures for each paradigm. We also included faces in addition to words to test the generality of the findings often obtained using words. The results from the R–K paradigm revealed that recollection and familiarity were similarly affected by attention at study and time to respond at test. However, in the case of PDP, the measures of recollection and familiarity showed a different pattern of results. The effects observed for recollection were similar to those obtained with the R–K method, whereas familiarity was affected by time to respond but not by attention at study. These results are discussed in relation to the controlled-automatic processing distinction and the contribution of each paradigm to research on recognition memory.     

Expertise effects in the Moses illusion: detecting contradictions with stored knowledge

People frequently miss contradictions with stored knowledge; for example, readers often fail to notice any problem with a reference to the Atlantic as the largest ocean. Critically, such effects occur even though participants later demonstrate knowing the Pacific is the largest ocean (the Moses Illusion) [Erickson, T. D., &; Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning &; Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–551]. We investigated whether such oversights disappear when erroneous references contradict information in one's expert domain, material which likely has been encountered many times and is particularly well-known. Biology and history graduate students monitored for errors while answering biology and history questions containing erroneous presuppositions (“In what US state were the forty-niners searching for oil?”). Expertise helped: participants were less susceptible to the illusion and less likely to later reproduce errors in their expert domain. However, expertise did not eliminate the illusion, even when errors were bolded and underlined, meaning that it was unlikely that people simply skipped over errors. The results support claims that people often use heuristics to judge truth, as opposed to directly retrieving information from memory, likely because such heuristics are adaptive and often lead to the correct answer. Even experts sometimes use such shortcuts, suggesting that overlearned and accessible knowledge does not guarantee retrieval of that information.     

What Do We See When We See Total Darkness?

Seeing total darkness is a peculiar perceptual state: in it, the subject is visually aware of something while seeming to fail to be aware of anything. Recent treatments of the topic (Sorensen 2008 , Soteriou 2000 ) leave this particular puzzle unsolved. Here, I attempt a solution. Following Dretske, I begin by suggesting that the perceptual report ‘S sees (total) darkness’ is ambiguous between two distinct kinds of perceptual states: epistemic and non‐epistemic. This will lead to an examination of the metaphysics of what is supposed to be seen. I show, on the one hand, the difficulty of reducing the perception of total darkness to the perception of a particular instantiation of a property, and on the other, that it has important similarities with the perception of (non‐particular) ‘stuff’. I propose, finally, that the solution to the puzzle might involve postulating a novel ontological status for total darkness: that of a ‘concrete universal’. Potential implications of interest for particularism and for naïve realism are suggested.     

Factors Associated with Interest in Gene-Panel Testing and Risk Communication Preferences in Women from <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA1/2</Emphasis> Negative Families

Scientific advances have allowed the development of multiplex gene-panels to assess many genes simultaneously in women who have tested negative for BRCA1/2. We examined correlates of interest in testing for genes that confer modest and moderate breast cancer risk and risk communication preferences for women from BRCA negative families. Female first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients who tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations (N = 149) completed a survey assessing multiplex genetic testing interest and risk communication preferences. Interest in testing was high (70 %) and even higher if results could guide risk-reducing behavior changes such as taking medications (79 %). Participants preferred to receive genomic risk communications from a variety of sources including: primary care physicians (83 %), genetic counselors (78 %), printed materials (71 %) and the web (60 %). Factors that were independently associated with testing interest were: perceived lifetime risk of developing cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 1.67: 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.06–2.65) and high cancer worry (OR = 3.12: CI 1.28–7.60). Findings suggest that women from BRCA1/2 negative families are a unique population and may be primed for behavior change. Findings also provide guidance for clinicians who can help develop genomic risk communications, promote informed decision making and customize behavioral interventions.     

Family Impact and Parenting Styles in Families of Children with ADHD

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) begins in childhood and is characterized by attention deficits, hyperactivity, or impulsiveness that is inconsistent with a child’s developmental level. The effects of ADHD are not limited to the child alone but can affect their familial context, particularly parenting styles. Using data from 68 parents of 6–11-year-old ADHD-diagnosed children, we attempted to identify the predictive variables of two parenting styles: criticism-rejection and permissiveness-indulgence. We analyzed two complex predictive models using structural equation modeling. We hypothesized that family impact variables would mediate the relation between the child’s behavior and parenting. The data showed that the child’s ADHD was only indirectly related to parenting styles, whereas child’s behavior problems had a direct relationship. The results stressed the central role of the child’s behavior on family social life, parents’ marital relationship, and parents’ feelings about their children. These variables mediated the relationship between the children’s disorders and parenting styles. On the other hand, perceived social support had an inverse relationship with this negative family impact, and it even had relevant indirect effects on criticism and permissiveness.     

Differential Effects of Mother’s and Father’s Parenting on Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior: Child Sex Moderating

The current study examined the differential effects of maternal and paternal parenting on prosocial and antisocial behavior during middle childhood, and the moderating role of child sex. Parents of 96 boys and 107 girls (mean age?=?92.42?months, SD?=?3.52) completed different questionnaires to assess parenting and child behavior. All participants were Caucasian from south of Spain. Multiple hierarchical regressions (enter method) were performed to determine significant predictors of prosocial and antisocial behavior. The results showed that maternal and paternal hostility predicted an increase of externalizing problems in boys and girls (p?<?.001 in both sex groups). As well, Warmth/Induction of both parents predicted an increase in adaptive skills in boys and girls (p?<?.001 in both sex groups). On the other hand, differential effects of fathers’ and mothers’ parenting were found: both for boys and girls, maternal inconsistency positively predicted externalizing problems and negatively adaptive skills (p?<?.001 in both sex groups) and paternal overprotection positively predicted externalizing problems and negatively adaptive skills (p?<?.05 in both sex groups). Finally, maternal coercion negatively predicted adaptive skills in boys and girls (p?<?.05 in both sex groups); however, it increased externalizing problems only in girls (p?<?.05), whereas maternal permissiveness only increased these problems in boys (p?<?.01 in both cases). The discussion highlighted the importance of considering both parents’ and children’s sex to further knowledge of parenting styles affecting children’s behaviors.