Context-sensitive heuristics in statistical reasoning

Previous work has shown that people use anchor-and-adjust heuristics to forecast future data points from previous ones in the same series. We report three experiments that show that they use different versions of this heuristic for different types of series. To forecast an untrended series, our subjects always took a weighted average of the long-term mean of the series and the last data point. In contrast, the way that they forecast a trended series depended on the serial dependences in it. When these were low, people forecast by adding a proportion of the last difference in the series to the last data point. When stronger serial dependences made this difference less similar to the next one, they used a version of the averaging heuristic that they employed for untrended series. This could take serial dependences into account and included a separate component for trend. These results suggest that people use a form of the heuristic that is well adapted to the nature of the series that they are forecasting. However, we also found that the size of their adjustments tended to be suboptimal. They overestimated the degree of serial dependence in the data but underestimated trends. This biased their forecasts.     

Étude des comportements-problèmes de 148 adultes atteints de troubles du spectre autistiques institutionnalisés

Objectives

We studied adults with autism spectrum disorder living in a specialized residential care home (n = 148). The participants’ behavioral problems were assessed using the French-language Scale for the Observation of Behavioral Problems in Adults with Autism (Échelle Pour l’Observation des Comportements-problèmes d’Adultes avec Autisme, EPOCAA; Recordon-Gaboriaud & Granier-Deferre). The study's main objectives were to (i) replicate the data from the EPOCAA reference group in a new sample of institutionalized adults, and (ii) study the impact of intellectual disability and medication on the EPOCAA scale. Our first hypothesis was that the severity of intellectual impairment would be associated with a greater likelihood of major behavioural problems. Our second hypothesis was that treatment (or the absence of treatment) with psychotropic and/or anti-epileptic medications would interact with the behavioural problems evaluated on the EPOCAA.

Character strengths and clinical presentation

Abstract

Three models are described that attempt to integrate clinical diagnosis with the strengths-based model introduced by Peterson and Seligman (2004 Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]). The strengths as syndrome model proposes conceptualizing clinical diagnoses in terms of excesses and deficiencies in strengths. The strengths as symptoms model suggests conceptualizing clinical symptoms as excesses or deficiencies in strengths. After reviewing these two models, we introduce a third. The strengths as moderators model suggests that signature or deficient strengths can serve moderators of clinical presentation within traditional diagnostic categories. This differs from the prior models primarily in offering a complement rather than alternative to traditional diagnostic formulation. A clinical case is provided highlighting the differences. The three approaches are not incompatible with each other, and in combination may provide practitioners a variety of perspectives for employing strength-based concepts in clinical interactions.     

Refining our understanding of the VIA Classification: Reflections on papers by Han,Miller, and Snow

ABSTRACT

Han, Miller, and Snow have written three thoughtful critiques of the VIA Classification of Strengths and Virtues. In this response, I emphasize five points. First, I suggest the concept of practical wisdom may be understood in terms of three VIA strengths: prudence, judgment, and perspective. Second, recognizing that the VIA Classification is a structural model of individual traits, rather than a moral theory, can address some concerns about the model, including its failure to account for the unity of the virtues. Third, I review a three-virtue model that has emerged in recent research on the VIA strengths may provide essential elements for a taxonomy of virtue. Fourth, I raise several issues associated with the application of the VIA Classification to moral education. Finally, though the model demonstrates substantial generalizabilty across Westernized populations, research in traditional indigenous cultures remains insufficient. I conclude with a series of questions for future research.