Examining the Relations between Preschooler’s Externalizing Behaviors and Academic Performance Using an S-1 Bifactor Model

Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology - Externalizing behaviors are associated with poor academic outcomes in community-based samples of children as young as preschool-age. However,...     

The Impact of Brief Interventions on Functioning Among those Demonstrating Anxiety,Depressive, and Adjustment Disorder Symptoms in Primary Care: The Effectiveness of the Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) Model

Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings - Limited scalability combined with limited opportunities for patients to receive evidence-based interventions in traditional behavioral health...     

Memory rehabilitation: restorative,specific knowledge acquisition,compensatory, and holistic approaches

Cognitive Processing - Memory impairment following an acquired brain injury can negatively impact daily living and quality of life—but can be reduced by memory rehabilitation. Here, we review...     

Constraint-evading surrogacy: the missing piece in Radical Embodied Cognition’s non-representationalist account of intentionality?

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences - Radical Embodied Cognition (REC) is an anti-representationalist approach to the nature of basic cognition proposed by Daniel Hutto and Erik Myin. While...     

Kant and the creation of freedom: a response to Terry Godlove

In his review of my book, Terry Godlove raises some robust objections to the exegesis of Kant that I present in my recent book, Kant and the Creation of Freedom: a Theological Problem (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). I respond to these criticisms in this article. Properly to locate Godlove’s exegetical objections, I dedicate the first section to setting out the arc of the argument I trace. I then set out and treat in turn Godlove’s main objections to my exegesis: that it depends upon an interpretation of transcendental idealism which makes the doctrine ‘flatly inconsistent and probably just silly’; that I neglect the most plausible account interpretation of Kant’s various statements about transcendental idealism; and that I ‘pick and choose’ supporting texts too narrowly, leading to an unbalanced presentation, which is too convenient to my thesis. I conclude with some general methodological reflections—stimulated by Godlove, but not aimed at him—about how historical philosophical texts are often treated. I express some anxieties about the principle of charity that underlies much current exegesis, and ‘rational reconstruction’ of historical texts, and I propose a case for what might be called ‘creative decomposition’ (not of the text, but of the self).     

Culture and institutional agency: difference in judgments of economic behavior and organizational responsibilities

The current research tested the concept of institutional agency (IA) and its implications for laypeople's attribution patterns related to economic behaviors and organizational responsibilities. The term “institutional agency” refers to a set of lay theories about whether or not an organization can have personhood and related mental properties, such as wishes, desires, intents, and responsibility. Through three cross‐cultural studies, we found that people do form certain beliefs about IA which are similar to the legal discourse of institutional responsibility. However, there are significant cultural differences in views of IA, and the concept is more mentally salient for Americans than for Chinese. In Study 1, we distinguished institutional from group agency by showing the cultural differences on attributions in the scenario with “individual vs. group agency” and the scenario with “individual vs. institutional agency.” In Study 2, we again demonstrated the stronger salience of IA for Americans than for Chinese by including the individual, group, and institutional agencies together in one scenario. In Study 3, we further demonstrated that the concept of IA is more salient for Americans by presenting three different agents in separate scenarios. The practical implications of these cultural differences for cross‐cultural understanding and the psychological effects of economic globalization are discussed.     

Vocational Concerns of Elementary Teachers: Stress,Job Satisfaction,and Occupational Commitment

This study examines the vocational concerns of 185 elementary teachers. Participants were classified based on their perceptions of the magnitude of their classroom demands and resources. These groupings were then examined for differences in teachers' personal coping resources, job satisfaction, and occupational commitment. Results indicated that teachers classified as perceiving high classroom demand vis‐à‐vis classroom resources reported lower personal coping resources, less job satisfaction, and more plans to leave their current job.     

Beliefs About God and Mental Health Among American Adults

This study examines the association between beliefs about God and psychiatric symptoms in the context of Evolutionary Threat Assessment System Theory, using data from the 2010 Baylor Religion Survey of US Adults (N = 1,426). Three beliefs about God were tested separately in ordinary least squares regression models to predict five classes of psychiatric symptoms: general anxiety, social anxiety, paranoia, obsession, and compulsion. Belief in a punitive God was positively associated with four psychiatric symptoms, while belief in a benevolent God was negatively associated with four psychiatric symptoms, controlling for demographic characteristics, religiousness, and strength of belief in God. Belief in a deistic God and one’s overall belief in God were not significantly related to any psychiatric symptoms.     

Janteloven and the Expression of Pride in Norway and the United States

The current study tested how culture may affect the interpretation of the expression of pride among Norwegian and U.S. participants. Our results show that participants from Norway ascribed more negative trait attributions to a target person expressing pride than U.S. participants. It is proposed that Janteloven is responsible for the differences in these trait attributions, and we interpret the results from a “closed-system” and “open-system” (Mayr, 1976) perspective.