The Assessment of Preterm Infants' Behavior (APIB): furthering the understanding and measurement of neurodevelopmental competence in preterm and full-term infants

The Assessment of Preterm Infants' Behavior (APIB) is a newborn neurobehavioral assessment appropriate for preterm, at risk, and full-term newborns, from birth to 1 month after expected due date. The APIB is based in ethological-evolutionary thought and focuses on the assessment of mutually interacting behavioral subsystems in simultaneous interaction with the environment. The subsystems of functioning assessed include the autonomic (respiration, digestion, color), motor (tone, movement, postures), state organization (range, robustness, transition patterns), attention (robustness, transitions), and self-regulation (effort, success) systems as well as the degree of facilitation required to support reorganization and subsystem balance. The environment is represented by a sequence of distal, proximal, tactile, and vestibular challenges, derived from the BNBAS. The APIB conceptualizes infant competence as the degree of differentiation of subsystem function and degree of modulation of subsystem balance at any stage in infant development. Infants are understood as actively seeking their next differentiation, while counting on good enough environments to assure progressing developmental competence. In the case of interference such as premature birth, the mismatch of expectation and actual experience causes misalignment, which may become developmentally costly. The assessment is a finely tuned dialogue between examiner and infant, which requires training, skill and self-knowledge. The APIB has well established inter-rater-reliability, concurrent and construct validity, and is clinically relevant for behavioral intervention and individually appropriate and supportive care.     

How to launch a national Internet-based panel study quickly: lessons from studying how American are coping with the tragedy of September 11, 2001?

This article reports on the planning, development, and implementation of a large national Internet-based panel study of how Americans are coping with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The study was designed to determine predictors and correlates of risk and resilience, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. In order to acquire timely and meaningful data, we developed/adapted an extensive set of measures, obtained human subjects approval, and posted a research Web site just 17 days after the attacks. This article describes the major hurdles we confronted and the guidelines we recommend regarding these topics, including the methodological trade-offs inherent in Internet-based research, information technology requirements and tribulations, human subjects issues, selection of measures and securing permission for their use, and the challenges of participant recruitment. We also discuss issues that we did not anticipate, including the survey intervention. We focus not on findings, but on the concrete procedural, administrative, technical, and scientific challenges we encountered and the solutions we devised under considerable time and resource pressures.     

A limit on retrieval-induced forgetting

Retrieving some members of a memory set impairs later recall of semantically related but not unrelated members (M. C. Anderson, R. A. Bjork, & E. L. Bjork, 1994; M. C. Anderson & B. A. Spellman, 1995). The authors investigated whether this retrieval-induced forgetting effect would generalize to testing procedures other than category-cued recall. Although the authors demonstrated a retrieval-induced forgetting effect using a category-cued recall task, they failed to show retrieval-induced forgetting on several different memory tests that used item-specific cues, including a category-plus-stem-cued recall test, a category-plus-fragment-cued recall test, a fragment-cued recall test, and a fragment completion task.     

Categories by which we try to live

Categories We Live By makes several claims about Judith Butler's Gender Trouble which Butler seeks to contest, while remaining in fundamental agreement with most of the conclusions in Asta Sveinsdottir's book. At issue is whether or not performativity can rightly be restricted to what is called an exercitive in J. L. Austin's sense, whether Butler is a radical constructivist or a qualified one, and whether unauthorized speech acts have a power to bring a reality into being that is different from those authorized by legal regimes. Along the way, Butler suggest that establishing facts takes place within variable historical schemes and that this argument is neither a denial or facts nor of materiality. Finally, an individualist idea of freedom is subject to criticism in order to make way for an historically constrained freedom, collective in nature.     

Victim Ambiguity: Bystander Intervention and Sexual Assault in the College Drinking Scene

Alcohol-related sexual assault is the most common form of sexual victimization on college campuses. Bystander intervention has been suggested as effective in preventing sexual assault, but its usefulness in sexual assaults that involve alcohol in particular has not yet been examined. The current study draws from intensive interviews with 30 undergraduates at a large Midwestern university to understand how students’ perceptions about sexual victimization and alcohol use affect their bystander behavior. Findings suggest that in alcohol-involved situations, the ambiguity of whether the woman is at risk and her perceived worthiness are significant barriers to intervention. Policy implications are discussed.     

On historical consciousness: A pilot investigation

Philosophers of history posit a class of concepts known as colligatory concepts that contribute to historical consciousness and that refer specifically to historical events. Although analysis has identified colligatory concepts in historical discourse, these concepts have not yet been investigated empirically. We present a new methodology for studying these concepts and historical consciousness more broadly, as well as pilot data supporting the methodology. Our aim in the pilot study was to establish whether colligatory concepts are processed differently from control concepts when subjects are asked to judge historical statements. We compared judgments of colligatory concepts in healthy participants and in a patient group with impaired working memory cognitive processing capacity. Forty healthy, college-educated participants and 25 patients with Parkinson's disease were asked to rate narrative sentences containing historical content and an equal number of identically constructed narrative sentences of equal length but devoid of historical content. All participants rated their pre-test interest in history as relatively low (mean 5 out of 7). Though no group differences emerged, historical sentences were judged by both groups (total N = 65) to be significantly different from non-historical sentences across dimensions of interestingness, meaningfulness, likeability, complexity, thought provoking-ness, and truth content. Interestingly, historical sentences were judged to be truer than control sentences even though participants were not interested in and presumably knew little about history. The neurocognitive system appears to process sentences with historical content separately from sentences without historical content. The methodology described here appears to be a valid approach for study of processing of historical content of sentences.     

Exploring Individual and Contextual Antecedents of Attitudes Toward the Acceptability of Cheating and Plagiarism

The purpose of this study was to identify the relative contribution of individual and contextual predictors to students’ attitudes toward the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism. A group of 324 students from a tertiary institution in New Zealand completed an online survey. The findings indicate that gender, justice sensitivity, and understanding of university policies regarding academic dishonesty were the key predictors of the students’ attitudes toward the acceptability of cheating and plagiarism, both as agents of dishonest conduct and as witnesses of misconduct among their peers. The implications of these findings for the development of policies and initiatives in tertiary institutions are discussed.     

Evaluating conditional arguments with uncertain premises

Treating conditionals as probabilistic statements has been referred to as a defining feature of the “new paradigm” in cognitive psychology. Doing so is attractive for several reasons, but it complicates the problem of assessing the merits of conditional arguments. We consider several variables that relate to judging the persuasiveness of conditional arguments with uncertain (probabilistic) premises. We also explore ways of judging the consistency of people's beliefs as represented by components of conditional arguments. Experimental results provide evidence that inconsistencies in beliefs are more prevalent if the arguments’ components are spatially and temporally dispersed than if they are contiguous in space and time. This supports the idea that assuring the consistency among even a small number of beliefs is difficult to do, especially if the beliefs in question are not brought into consciousness at the same time; but consistency can be enhanced when beliefs are considered simultaneously or nearly so.