Ecstasy Use,Outcome Expectancies,and Sexual Risk Taking

Ecstasy has become one of the most widely used illicit drugs in Australia. This study investigated outcome expectancies as possible motivating and maintaining factors in ecstasy use and sexual risk‐taking behaviour. A sample of regular ecstasy users (N = 220) from Sydney and Canberra, Australia, was recruited for structured face‐to‐face interviews. They also completed an Ecstasy Expectancy Questionnaire. Seven of eight subscales significantly differentiated regular users from non‐users. Interestingly, light and heavier users held similar outcome expectancies, except that light users endorsed items on the sexual enhancement subscale more strongly than heavier users. Further investigation showed that the level of sexual risk taking observed in this sample was high, with the majority of participants reporting multiple partners, “casual” sexual encounters, sex under the influence of substances, and inconsistent condom use. Using logistic regression analyses, a key finding was that positive sex‐related ecstasy outcome expectancies were associated with involvement in disinhibited sexual behaviour under the influence of ecstasy. These effects persisted after statistically controlling for the frequency of ecstasy use. The findings suggest that sexual risk taking is related not only to the disinhibiting properties of ecstasy but also to beliefs that users hold about the effects of the drug.     

Judgment aggregation and the problem of tracking the truth

The aggregation of consistent individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective judgment on those propositions has recently drawn much attention. Seemingly reasonable aggregation procedures, such as propositionwise majority voting, cannot ensure an equally consistent collective conclusion. In this paper, we motivate that quite often, we do not only want to make a factually right decision, but also to correctly evaluate the reasons for that decision. In other words, we address the problem of tracking the truth. We set up a probabilistic model that generalizes the analysis of Bovens and Rabinowicz (Synthese 150: 131?C153, 2006) and use it to compare several aggregation procedures. Demanding some reasonable adequacy constraints, we demonstrate that a reasons- or premise-based aggregation procedure tracks the truth better than any other procedure. However, we also illuminate that such a procedure is not in all circumstances easy to implement, leaving actual decision-makers with a tradeoff problem.     

Designing Selection Systems for Medicine: The importance of balancing predictive and political validity in high‐stakes selection contexts

Selection into medical education and training is a high‐stakes process. A key unanswered issue is the effectiveness of measuring noncognitive predictors via both low‐fidelity and high‐fidelity selection approaches in this high‐stakes context. We review studies investigating the effectiveness of multiple selection instruments in terms of predictive validity, incremental validity, and applicant reactions in both entry‐level and advanced‐level medical selection. Our results show that the situational judgment test (SJT) is the best single predictor of performance, operationalized in multiple ways. In addition, the low‐fidelity SJT has incremental predictive power over cognitively oriented tests, and high‐fidelity assessment center (AC) exercises add incremental validity over the low‐fidelity (and less costly) selection methods. Concerning applicant reactions, results show that overall, the selection system is positively received. However, the method with the highest predictive validity – the SJT – received comparatively lower face validity ratings which may present a ‘justice dilemma’ for employers. Furthermore, various other stakeholders have a political interest in the selection methods used (e.g., government, the regulators and trade unions).     

The consumer psychology of brands

This article presents a consumer-psychology model of brands that integrates empirical studies and individual constructs (such as brand categorization, brand affect, brand personality, brand symbolism and brand attachment, among others) into a comprehensive framework. The model distinguishes three levels of consumer engagement (object-centered, self-centered and social) and five processes (identifying, experiencing, integrating, signifying and connecting). Pertinent psychological constructs and empirical findings are presented for the constructs within each process. The article concludes with research ideas to test the model using both standard and consumer-neuroscience methods.     

Brands on the brain: Do consumers use declarative information or experienced emotions to evaluate brands?

An fMRI study was conducted with unfamiliar and familiar (strong and weak) brands to assess linguistic encoding and retrieval processes, and the use of declarative and experiential information, in brand evaluations. As expected, activations in brain areas associated with linguistic encoding were higher for unfamiliar brands, but activations in brain areas associated with information retrieval were higher for strong brands. Interestingly, weak brands were engaged simultaneously in both processes. Most importantly, activations of the pallidum, associated with positive emotions, for strong brands and activations of the insula, associated with negative emotions, for weak and unfamiliar brands suggested that consumers use experienced emotions rather than declarative information to evaluate brands. As a result, brand experiences should be considered a key driver of brand equity in addition to brand awareness and cognitive associations.     

Integrity Tests and the Five‐Factor Model of Personality: A Review and Empirical Test of Two Alternative Positions

The psychological meaning of integrity test scores has been explored predominantly in relation to the five‐factor model of personality (FFM). Two alternative positions on this topic can be identified in the literature which state, respectively, that integrity tests measure (a) a higher‐order factor of personality covering three FFM dimensions or (b) a linear composite of numerous facets from various domains within the FFM. An empirical test of these alternative positions, using structural equation modeling, revealed that the value of both views depended on the type of integrity test examined. With a personality‐based integrity test, position (a) had to be refuted, whereas position (b) was strongly supported. There was also more supportive evidence for position (b) with an overt test, but the difference was far less pronounced than for the personality‐based measure. Possible consequences for theories on the role of personality in personnel selection are discussed.