Vertical versus horizontal spatial compatibility: Right-left prevalence with bimanual responses

For two-choice tasks in which stimulus and response locations vary along horizontal and vertical dimensions, the spatial compatibility effect is often stronger on the horizontal than vertical dimension. Umiltà and Nicoletti [(1990) Spatial stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 89–116). Amsterdam: North-Holland] attributed this right-left prevalence effect to an inability to code vertical location when horizontal codes are present simultaneously. Hommel [(1996) Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 102–110] suggested instead that it reflects a voluntary strategy. This study reports four experiments that examine this issue. Experiment 1 was a conceptual replication of Hommel's Experiment 1, with responses made on a numeric keypad and subjects instructed in terms of the vertical or horizontal dimension. The results replicated Hommel's findings that showed a right-left advantage with horizontal instructions; however, with vertical instructions, we found a benefit of vertical compatibility alone that he did not. This benefit for vertical compatibility alone was eliminated in Experiment 2 using a varied practice schedule similar to that used by Hommel. Experiment 3 showed right-left prevalence and a benefit of vertical compatibility alone, even with varied practice and vertical instructions, when subjects responded on perpendicularly arranged handgrips. These benefits were eliminated in Experiment 4 using Hommel's method of urging subjects to respond only in terms of the instructed dimension. With bimanual responses, right-left prevalence is a robust phenomenon that is evident when comparing across vertical and horizontal instructions and, when the right-left distinction is relatively salient, within the vertical instructions condition alone. Received: 4 February 2000 / Accepted: 5 May 2000     

The Factor Structure of the Beavers Interactional Scales

Confirmatory factor analysis and regression analyses of the Beavers Interactional Scales did not appear to support the model offered by its developers, namely, several specified family attributes contributing respectively to two global factors of Family Competence and Family Style. Moreover, regression analysis indicated that only three of 12 items predicted raters' assessments of Global Family Health, and one of seven items predicted Global Family Style. Individuals interested in the family dynamic centripetal/centrifugal might best think of that as a unitary entity and rate it accordingly.     

Saul Alinsky: Therapist to the apathetic

Conclusion Controversy still flames around Alinsky. Its very heat makes a cool appraisal difficult. But the heat is also on the Church to forge a fair estimate of Alinsky's goals and tactics. This paper has presented the therapeutic perspective as an important element in that evaluation. It has demonstrated that striking parallels exist between Alinsky's approach to community problems and the psychotherapist's approach to individual problems. It has shown that much of what Alinsky does is psychologically sound. Nor is such a comparison alien to Alinsky's view of his own work. His own commitment to mental health is expressed in a speech:Those concerned with the mental health of our population must bear in mind that these slums and segregated ghettoes operate as enormous breeding grounds for mental pathology and psychoses on a mass basis. They are to mental disease as the swamps were to malaria. It is for this reason that this address has concentrated upon citizen action to the end of ridding ourselves of these conditions which inevitably result in mental disease.It seems distinctly possible that in Saul Alinsky the Church has an obstinate but valuable ally in the search for wholeness and health in individual and community life.     

Whither Christian sexual morality?

Pastoral Psychology -     

The Cinderella of psychology: the neglect of motor control in the science of mental life and behavior

One would expect psychology--the science of mental life and behavior--to place great emphasis on the means by which mental life is behaviorally expressed. Surprisingly, however, the study of how decisions are enacted--the focus of motor control research--has received little attention in psychology. This article documents the neglect and considers possible reasons for it. The hypotheses considered include three that are raised and then rejected: (a) no famous psychologists have studied motor control, (b) cognitive psychologists are mainly interested in uniquely human functions, and (c) motor control is simply too hard to study. Three other hypotheses are more viable: (d) cognitive psychologists have been more interested in epistemology than in action, (e) psychologists have disfavored motor control because overt responses were the only admissible measure in behaviorism, and (f) psychologists have felt that neuroscientists have the market cornered when it comes to motor control research. There are signs that motor control's Cinderella status is changing.