Freud, Oedipus and the Hebrew Bible

The current paper examines the question of why Freud employed Greek rather than Hebrew foundation legends, specifically the story of Oedipus, as a basis for psychoanalysis, Freud's choice of Oedipus emanates from his deterministic view of the universe, paralleling the Greek rather that the Biblical story of creation. In the Biblical account God precedes and creates nature with no sign of an Oedipal conflict. In the Greek account, nature precedes the gods and the Oedipal conflict is inherent. Freud's choice has implications for his view of human psychology.     

“Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.” A rejoinder to Scruggs and Mastropieri

Scruggs and Mastropieri (Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32, 879–883, 1994) take issue with criticisms of their PND (Percent of Nonoverlapping Data) statistic that we offered in our recent article (Allison & German, Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 621–631, 1993), which advocated a regressionbased method for obtaining effect sizes in single-subject studies. They contend that their PND approach has several advantages over our approach because: (1) they believe that, unlike ours, it can take advantage of the small number of observations that are typically available in single-case studies; (2) it is simple to compute; (3) it frees researchers from traditional regression assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance, and independence of observations and residuals; and (4) it correlates with visual judgements made by experts. As we shall argue, these claims are built upon very questionable assumptions and they are very difficult to substantiate. In addition, we show that the expected value of the PND is so strongly related to sample size as to be rendered meaningless.     

Are All Hostility Scales Alike? Factor Structure and Covariation Among Measures of Hostility1

Few studies have examined the correlational and structural relationships between measures of hostility that may predict coronary heart disease. Using data from a population-based study (N= 2,682), we examined the factor structure among the five subscales from Siegel's (1986) Multi-dimensional Anger Inventory, the three subscales from Spielberger et al.'s (1985) anger expression scales, a Cook-Medley (Cook & Madley, 1954) hostility subscale that measures cynicism, and items measuring hostility from four scales that assess Type A behavior. Eight separate factors were identified: hostile anger expression, perceived control over the expression of one's anger, frequency of anger, ease of anger provocation, brooding, hostile outlook, cynicism, and sullenness. These results suggest that the structure of hostility measures is more complex than previous factor analyses have suggested. Our findings point to the dangers in assuming that a factor structure can be generalized beyond the data on which it is based to provide theoretical statements about psychological structure. The new scales appear to be valid because they correlate with demographic variables and indicators of social support in the expected directions.     

REFLECTIONS ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GOALS IN PSYCHOLOGY ADMISSIONS

Four goals of affirmative action in higher education are described as they relate to psychology admissions. Broadly conceived, these goals are compensating for past injustice, correcting present inequity, promoting intellectual diversity, and enhancing the presence of role models. It is argued that the four goats differ in their underlying assumptions about the purposes of affirmative action and that these differences can result in disparate admission decisions. Data from three experiments on decision making in graduate psychology admissions are presented to illustrate the analysis. In these studies, academic psychologists rated the admissibility of hypothetical graduate student applicants who varied on a number of characteristics (e g., ethnicity, social class, interest in minority research) pertinent to affirmative action. A consistent pattern of ethnic group differences in admissibility ratings was documented, illustrating that compensation for past injustice can be interpreted as a salient affirmative action goal in graduate admissions decisions. Implications of the analysis for clarifying admissions decisions guided by affirmative action goals are discussed.     

Comparison between Oral and Written Spelling in Alzheimer's Disease

Written and oral spelling were compared in 33 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 25 control subjects. AD patients had poorer spelling results which were influenced by orthographic difficulty and word frequency, but not by grammatical word class. Lexical spelling was also more deteriorated than phonological spelling. Moreover, oral spelling was more impaired than written spelling in AD patients, whereas no difference was present between oral and written spelling of controls. Analysis of spelling errors showed that, for controls, errors were predominantly phonologically accurate in both spelling tasks. Significantly, AD patients produced more phonologically accurate than inaccurate errors in written spelling, whereas these errors did not differ in oral spelling. In contrast to controls who produced more constant than variable responses in oral and written spelling, AD patients made more variable responses (words correctly spelled in one task but incorrectly in the other) and they showed many instances of variable errors (different misspellings from one spelling task to the other). Two stepwise regression procedures showed that written misspellings were specifically correlated with language impairment, whereas oral spelling errors were correlated with attentional and language disorders. These results suggest that AD increases the attentional demands of oral spelling process as compared to written spelling. This dissociation argues, either for a unique Graphemic Buffer in which oral spelling requires more attentional resources than written spelling or for the hypothesis of separate buffers for oral and written spelling.     

Family therapy research: What are the most important variables?

This report summarizes the results of a nearly day-long session of a group of experienced and distinguished family therapy practitioners and researchers. The task the group set for itself was to begin delineating the most important variables to attend to in understanding family therapy and evaluating its effectiveness. With full recognition that such a task could be only partially and tentatively accomplished in the time allotted, a great many such variables were outlined.