Why 2 + 2 = 5 looks so wrong: On the odd-even rule in sum verification

The odd-even status of a sum depends on the odd-even status of its addends. A sum must be odd if an odd number of its addends are odd; else it must be even. A proposed sum that violates the required odd-even status of the sum—that is, deviates from the correct sum, whether odd or even, by an odd value (e.g., splits of ±1, ±3, ±5)—can be rejected immediately as false. Subjects in the present study did indeed use the odd-even rule in sum verification, because they were as fast and accurate in rejecting a split of ±1 as one of ±2, and a split of ±3 as one of ±4, even though a larger split generally is easier to reject (symbolic distance effect), and splits of ±3 and ±4 were rejected faster and more accurately than those of ±1 and ±2. Performance on separate odd-even tasks indicated that the odd-even properties of numbers and sums are readily available for use by adults, and that persons who do well on such tasks are especially likely to use the odd-even rule in sum verification.     

The roles of self-regulation and partner regulation on romantic relationship quality

Research into self-regulation and partner regulation strategies has largely involved parallel lines of research, thus, it is difficult to determine the relative contribution of both forms of regulation when it comes to relationship outcomes. Therefore, the question remains as to which form of regulation is more strongly associated with relationship quality; is it more important to focus on adaptive self-regulation or adaptive strategies to regulate one's partner? The current research addresses this important gap by comparing the relative associations of adaptive self-regulation and adaptive partner regulation strategies on romantic relationship quality. A community sample of mixed gender couples (N = 114) who were predominantly satisfied with their current relationships – but nonetheless still experienced relationship conflict – were administered self-report assessments of various self-regulation and partner regulation strategies as well as a measure of relationship quality. Couples also participated in a videotaped discussion of an unresolved relationship issue that was scored by trained coders for verbal and nonverbal indicators of self-regulation and partner regulation strategies. Actor–partner interdependence modeling revealed that for both men and women, adaptive self-regulation strategies were positively associated with their own evaluations of relationship quality as well as their partner's relationship quality. In contrast, engaging in adaptive partner regulation strategies was not significantly associated with men's or women's own, or their partner's relationship quality. Findings highlight the importance of focusing on self-regulation in relationships, as it is these strategies, over partner regulation strategies, that have more positive implications for the relationship quality experienced by typically satisfied couples.     

The intergenerational transmission of relationship instability: A focus on emerging adult on-off relationships

This study extends prior research on the intergenerational transmission of relationship instability by examining parents' history of on-off relationships as a predictor of emerging adults' own cycling (i.e., breaking up and renewing with the same romantic partner). Data were collected at a large mid-western university from 702 emerging adults (18–25 years old). Multinomial logistic regression was used to predict the likelihood that participants had cycled in a past or current relationship. Results show that parental cycling increased the likelihood of offspring cycling in a past or current relationship relative to never cycling, and greater uncertainty about the future of the relationship was a mechanism through which such transmission occurred. Findings from this study demonstrate that parental relationship instability can even be consequential for the transient relationships within emerging adulthood, making family history a productive area to explore for practitioners working with cyclical partners and/or emerging adults.     

Parent and child adjustment dual trajectories at the beginning of the COVID-19 syndemic

Children and their families have been significantly impacted by the unfolding of the COVID-19 syndemic. We sought to identify (1) groups of families with distinct profiles of joint trajectories of parental anxiety and child emotional distress and (2) protective and risk factors associated with these dual-trajectory profiles. A sample of 488 parents (65% White; 77% mothers) with 3- to 8-year-old children (M_Age = 5.04, SD_Age = 1.59) was followed from late March to early July in 2020. Survey data on parent (i.e., anxiety symptoms) and child (i.e., emotional distress) adjustment were collected at three time points. Using multivariate growth mixture modeling, we identified one group with low parental anxiety and child emotional distress (42.7%) and three other distinct groups with varying risk levels among parents and/or children. We also identified protective (e.g., positive parenting) and risk (e.g., child negative affect, negative parenting, perceived stress with racism) factors in predicting parent and child adjustment. It can be concluded that, overall, our sample (mostly middle- and high-socioeconomic status families) demonstrated family resilience amid COVID-19, consistent with prior disaster coping literature. At the same time, our findings also indicated the need to identify at-risk families and modifiable factors for post-disaster public health interventions.     

Empirical tests of scientific realism: A quantitative framework

The scientific realism debate in philosophy of science raises some intriguing methodological issues. Scientific realism posits a link between a scientific theory's observational and referential success. This opens the possibility of testing the thesis empirically, by searching for evidence of such a link in the record of theories put forward in the history of science. Many realist philosophers working today propose case study methodology as a way of carrying out such a test. This article argues that a qualitative method such as case study methodology is not adequate for this purpose, for two reasons: to test scientific realism is to pose an effects-of-causes question, and observational and referential success are quantities that theories possess to a greater or lesser degree. The article concludes that an empirical test of scientific realism requires a quantitative method.     

Centering culture in the treatment of opioid use disorder with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities: Contributions from a National Collaborative Board

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities are disproportionally impacted by the opioid overdose epidemic. There remains a dearth of research evaluating methods for effectively implementing treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) within these communities. We describe proceedings from a 2-day Collaborative Board (CB) meeting tasked with developing an implementation intervention for AI/AN clinical programs to improve the delivery of medications to treat OUD (MOUD). The CB was comprised of Elders, cultural leaders, providers, individuals with lived experience with OUD, and researchers from over 25 communities, organizations, and academic institutions. Conversations were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded by two academic researchers with interpretation oversight provided by the CB. These proceedings provided a foundation for ongoing CB work and a frame for developing the program-level implementation intervention using a strength-based and holistic model of OUD recovery and wellbeing. Topics of discussion posed to the CB included engagement and recovery strategies, integration of extended family traditions, and addressing stigma and building trust with providers and clients. Integration of traditional healing practices, ceremonies, and other cultural practices was recommended. The importance of centering AI/AN culture and involving family were highlighted as priorities for the intervention.     

Reframing caring for parents who struggle with substance-use disorders

Nancy Suchman and the colleagues she influenced have produced ground-breaking and attitude-challenging work in understanding how parenting and substance use come together. Dr Suchman and her colleagues make the claim that there is nothing about a substance-use disorder that precludes effective and sensitive caring for children especially with interventions that focus on the parent–child relationship. Suchman's legacy is to highlight how substance use as an illness pulls individuals away from important, caring relationships and limits their giving themselves to those relationships. Restoring the salience of caring relationships and of the individual's ability to care may be as impactful on their substance use as a strict focus on the reduction of drug use and achieving abstinence.     

Some Preliminary Notes on the Objectivity of Mathematics

Topoi - I respond to a challenge by Dieterle (Philos Math 18:311–328, 2010) that requires mathematical social constructivists to complete two tasks: (i) counter the myth that socially...