Managing Uncertainty During a Corporate Acquisition

This study examined pilots' (N at T1 = 140; N at T2 = 126; N at T3 = 104) reactions to communication and uncertainty during the acquisition of their airline by another airline. Quantitative results indicate that communication helped to reduce uncertainty and was predictive of affective responses to the acquisition. However, contrary to expectations, reductions in uncertainty did not lead to more positive affective responses. In addition, while pilots felt more job security over time, they developed less positive attitudes toward the acquisition. Qualitative data indicated that this occurred because the pilots felt more secure about having a job since the acquiring organization was more financially solvent, but that they were dissatisfied with how their seniority was credited. These results contribute to an increased understanding of the complex relationships among communication, uncertainty, and outcomes in organizational contexts.     

Gendered Constructions of Power During Discourse About Sexual Harassment: Negotiating Competing Meanings

A qualitative study using same-sex and mixed-sex focus groups and stimulated recall interviews was designed to identify and explore gendered constructions of power during discourse about sexual harassment. It was discovered that the men tended to construct power as hierarchically held by individuals with formal authority. Consequently, they tended to view sexual harassers as managers and supervisors. Women tended to view power as a negotiated process in which power was gained and lost through interactions. Consequently, the women tended to perceive all members of an organization as possible harassers. When these men and women were given an opportunity to discuss these issues during mixed gendered interactions, they failed to recognize the gendered constructions of power. Implications are discussed.     

Do metacognitive judgments alter memory performance beyond the benefits of retrieval practice? A comment on and replication attempt of Dougherty,Scheck, Nelson,and Narens (2005)

A central question in the metacognitive literature concerns whether the act of making a metacognitive judgment alters one’s memory for the information about which the judgment was made. Dougherty, Scheck, Nelson, and Narens (2005, Memory & Cognition, 33(6), 1096–1115) attempted to address this question by having participants make either retrospective confidence judgments (RCJs; i.e., evaluations of past retrieval success), judgments of learning (JOLs; i.e., predictions of future retrieval success), or no explicit judgments. When comparing final retrieval accuracy they found that accuracy was greater for items where participants had made JOLs compared with items that received RCJs or no judgment, suggesting that simply making a JOL can improve later memory performance. The present article presents results from four separate replication attempts that fail to duplicate this finding. Combined results provide compelling evidence that making a metacognitive judgment, regardless of the type, has no impact on later memory performance above and beyond retrieval practice.     

Testing Models of Psychopathology in Preschool-aged Children Using a Structured Interview-based Assessment

A number of studies have found that broadband internalizing and externalizing factors provide a parsimonious framework for understanding the structure of psychopathology across childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. However, few of these studies have examined psychopathology in young children, and several recent studies have found support for alternative models, including a bi-factor model with common and specific factors. The present study used parents’ (typically mothers’) reports on a diagnostic interview in a community sample of 3-year old children (n?=?541; 53.9 % male) to compare the internalizing-externalizing latent factor model with a bi-factor model. The bi-factor model provided a better fit to the data. To test the concurrent validity of this solution, we examined associations between this model and paternal reports and laboratory observations of child temperament. The internalizing factor was associated with low levels of surgency and high levels of fear; the externalizing factor was associated with high levels of surgency and disinhibition and low levels of effortful control; and the common factor was associated with high levels of surgency and negative affect and low levels of effortful control. These results suggest that psychopathology in preschool-aged children may be explained by a single, common factor influencing nearly all disorders and unique internalizing and externalizing factors. These findings indicate that shared variance across internalizing and externalizing domains is substantial and are consistent with recent suggestions that emotion regulation difficulties may be a common vulnerability for a wide array of psychopathology.     

Robust decision making in a nonlinear world

The authors propose a general modeling framework called the general monotone model (GeMM), which allows one to model psychological phenomena that manifest as nonlinear relations in behavior data without the need for making (overly) precise assumptions about functional form. Using both simulated and real data, the authors illustrate that GeMM performs as well as or better than standard statistical approaches (including ordinary least squares, robust, and Bayesian regression) in terms of power and predictive accuracy when the functional relations are strictly linear but outperforms these approaches under conditions in which the functional relations are monotone but nonlinear. Finally, the authors recast their framework within the context of contemporary models of behavioral decision making, including the lens model and the take-the-best heuristic, and use GeMM to highlight several important issues within the judgment and decision-making literature.     

KNOWLEDGE HAPPENS: WHY ZAGZEBSKI HAS NOT SOLVED THE MENO PROBLEM

I argue that Linda Zagzebski's proposed solution to the Meno Problem faces serious challenges. The Meno Problem, roughly, is how to explain the value that knowledge, as such, has over mere true belief. Her proposed solution is that believings—when thought of more like actions—can have value in virtue of their motivations. This meshes nicely with her theory that knowledge is, essentially, virtuously motivated true belief. Her solution fails because it entails that, necessarily, all knowledge is motivated in a way that resembles the motivation of actions. Crucially, Zagzebski says the value derived from motivation comes from certain laudable feelings—like love of truth (she is explicit that love is a feeling). But there are possible cases of knowledge—probably some of which are actual—in which subjects do not or cannot experience these feelings.