Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: a leadership-based intervention model

This article presents a leadership-based intervention model designed to modify supervisory monitoring and rewarding of subordinates' safety performance. Line supervisors received weekly feedback based on repeated episodic interviews with subordinates conceming the cumulative frequency of their safety-oriented interactions. This information identified the priority of safety over competing goals such as speed or schedules. Section managers received the same information and used it to communicate (high) safety priority. They also were trained to conduct episodic interviews to provide intermittent feedback after intervention, tuming safety priority into an explicit performance goal. Safety-oriented interaction increased significantly in the experimental groups but remained unchanged in the control groups. This change in safety-oriented interaction was accompanied by significant (and stable) changes in minor-injury rate, earplug use, and safety climate scores during the postintervention period.     

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards and Motives: Replication and Extension with Kibbutz Workers1

Past experimental findings on the effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation were explained on the basis of expectancy theory as a special case of the motivational effects on incentives. It was hypothesized that any reward object enhances its commensurate motive and weakens noncommensurate motives. The hypotheses were confirmed by means of partial correlational analyses of the relationships among intrinsic, status, and material rewards and motives measured in a survey of male kibbutz³ workers, providing constructive replication of experimental findings and supporting expectancy theory. The results were discussed with reference to motivation in general as well 3s practical implications for applied settings.     

The psychiatrist in national emergency

But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not here another prophet of the Lord whom we may inquire?” And Ahab, the king of Israel, said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the Lord, Micaiah the son of Imlah, but I hate him for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil.” (1 Kings, Ch. 22)     

An Investigation of the Structural Validity of Loevinger's Model and Measure of Ego Development

This study demonstrates the use of structural equation modeling for investigating a hierarchical model of personality based on Loevinger's (1976) conceptualization. This model was constructed to have a multifactorial and hierarchical structure in which the ego development construct served as the source of covariation for specific personality constructs of impulse control, interpersonal style, conscious preoccupations, and cognitive style. This model and three other conceivable models were investigated to determine which structure best represented the relations among specific personality constructs and ego development. The specific personality constructs were identified by measures chosen from the available pool of measures that were compatible with Loevinger's conceptualization. The four conceivable models were fitted to sample data from 267 adult subjects using confirmatory factor analysis and were compared with indices of model fit and methods for comparison of nested models. Results suggested that the four specific personality constructs and ego development are part of the same process. Although a hierarchical structure appeared tenable for this process, the role of ego development perhaps is not as dominant as envisioned by Loevinger. These results must be considered tentative due to measurement limitations.     

Fibring Argumentation Frames

This paper is part of a research program centered around argumentation networks and offering several research directions for argumentation networks, with a view of using such networks for integrating logics and network reasoning. In Section 1 we introduce our program manifesto. In Section 2 we motivate and show how to substitute one argumentation network as a node in another argumentation network. Substitution is a purely logical operation and doing it for networks, besides developing their theory further, also helps us see how to bring logic and networks closer together. Section 3 develops the formal properties of the new kind of network and Section 4 offers general discussion and comparison with the literature.     

Defeasible inheritance systems and reactive diagrams

Inheritance diagrams are directed acyclic graphs with two typesof connections between nodes: x y (read x is a y) and x y(read as x is not a y). Given a diagram D, one can ask the formalquestion of "is there a valid (winning) path between node xand node y?" Depending on the existence of a valid path we cananswer the question "x is a y" or "x is not a y". The answer to the above question is determined through a complexinductive algorithm on paths between arbitrary pairs of pointsin the graph. This paper aims to simplify and interpret such diagrams andtheir algorithms. We approach the area on two fronts. (1) Suggest reactive arrows to simplify the algorithms for the winningpaths. (2) We give a conceptual analysis of (defeasible or nonmonotonic)inheritance diagrams, and compare our analysis to the "small"and "big sets" of preferential and related reasoning. In our analysis, we consider nodes as information sources andtruth values, direct links as information, and valid paths asinformation channels and comparisons of truth values. This resultsin an upward chaining, split validity, off-path preclusion inheritanceformalism of a particularly simple type. We show that the small and big sets of preferential reasoninghave to be relativized if we want them to conform to inheritancetheory, resulting in a more cautious approach, perhaps closerto actual human reasoning. We will also interpret inheritance diagrams as theories of prototypicalreasoning, based on two distances: set difference, and informationdifference. We will see that some of the major distinctions between inheritanceformalisms are consequences of deeper and more general problemsof treating conflicting information. It is easily seen that inheritance diagrams can also be analysedin terms of reactive diagrams - as can all argumentation systems. AMS Classification: 68T27, 68T30 Received for publication 15 March 2007.