Positional discriminability in linear orderings

Subjects were taught two eight-term linear orders of the form “A taller than B taller than C ….,” They were then asked to choose the “taller” term in all possible pairwise combinations within each series, and reaction time was measured for each pair. In addition, subjects performed a further task in which they judged whether or not two terms were adjacent in the ordering. In subsequent sessions, subjects were told that the “shortest” term on one list was taller than the “tallest” term on the other, so that the two lists were merged into a single 16-term series. They were then required to choose the “taller” term for both within-groups and between-groups pairs. Subjects did not appear to use the initial groupings in performing this task, even when given training on differential categorical codes (“tall” vs. “short”) for the two sublists. Rather, subjects in all tasks appeared to represent the items as ordered positions along an internal array, so that comparison times depended largely on the differential discriminability of the item positions. In each task decisions were made more quickly if the terms being compared were near the ends of the ordering, rather than near the middle.     

Evidence for two kinds of low-typical instances in a categorization task

Three experiments examined the relationship between instance typicality and reaction time (RT) in a semantic categorization task. In all three experiments, first the instance was presented, and then the category. High-typicality high-imagery instances (e.g., robin) and lowtypicality low-imagery instances (e.g., grackle) were categorized faster than low-typicality highimagery instances (e.g., penguin). Instructing subjects to generate images of the instances had no influence on the pattern of results. The difference in categorization RT for lowimagery low-typicality instances vs. high-imagery high-typicality instances suggests that these instances may be represented differently in memory.     

Effects on WAIS-III performance IQ (PIQ) and full scale IQ (FSIQ) when object assembly is substituted for each standard performance scale subtest

According to the WAIS-III Administration and Scoring Manual, Object Assembly (OA) may be substituted for any spoiled Performance subtest. This assertion has not been evaluated in a clinical sample. The present investigation reports differences that resulted in Performance IQ (PIQ) and Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) when OA replaced each of the Performance subtests. Participants were 47 referrals for neuropsychological assessment (age M = 45.98 years, SD = 9.82; education M = 13.82 years, SD = 2.78). Results indicated that OA may replace any Performance subtest without seriously altering the summary scores. Differences between the standard IQs and OA-based composites were < 2 points for PIQ and < 1 point for FSIQ. More than 90% of the OA-based composites fell within the 90% confidence limits of the corresponding IQ.     

Comparison of the effect of hard and easy mental arithmetic upon blocking of the occipital alpha rhythm

The intensity of blocking of the alpha rhythm of the EEG induced by the solution of five Hard mental multiplications has been compared with the intensity of blocking induced by five Easy mental multiplications in 36 normal subjects. From predictions derived from the application of two hypotheses concerning the intensity of blocking, it would be anticipated, firstly, that blocking would be more intense in the Hard tasks, if their solution required increased mental concentration and, secondly, that insofar as “higher thought” processes are more extensively required in the solution of Hard tasks, then blocking would be less intense in Hard tasks than in Easy tasks. However, the findings of the experiment have been that blocking is of the same intensity in tasks of both kinds. Possible reasons for this are discussed.

Hard tasks differed from Easy tasks, with regard to the relation of EEG changes and performance. It is thought that different mechanisms may underly the solution of the two types of task.     

An Overview of Directions in Psychotherapy Integration Research

In general, empirical research in psychotherapy integration has lagged behind the growing theoretical and clinical interest in the field. Even though many of the theoretically integrative treatment models currently available are based on empirical findings and clinical observations, the models themselves remain, for the most part, untested. Rigorous examination of integrative psychological theories and therapeutic programs is a necessary and useful way to increase our understanding of the process of psychotherapy and establish the efficacy and effectiveness of integrative therapies. The present article explores five different research areas in the field of psychotherapy integration, discussing several published studies in each area. The utility of this research for practicing clinicians is also discussed. Additional investigations in these areas and others are encouraged, with the goals of greater understanding of psychotherapy, as well as the further development and acceptance of integrative approaches.     

Choice ambiguity, dissonance, and defensiveness

Female repressors and sensitizers were presented with a choice between two pens of different colors from five which they had previously rated on a relative-attractiveness scale Following choice, they rerated the pens under one of two conditions (a) where the choice had unequivocal implications for their femininity or (b) where it had equivocal implications for femininity Attractiveness ratings of the pens before and after choice constituted the major dependent variable Repressors tended to show greater average change in ratings than sensitizers under low ambiguity but not under high ambiguity Skin conductance measurements did not show interpretable dissonance effects, but there was evidence of R-S differences in skin conductance and self-report measures of tension     

Psychology and Health: Obstacles and Opportunities1

This paper begins with an overview of key achievements in health psychology. It describes major impediments to progress in the field, as well as opportunities for developing a strong scientific basis of efforts to modify health-damaging behavior. Strategies for capitalizing upon the opportunities are suggested. These include enhanced efforts at theory development, use of modern biomedical technology for in vivo research, experimentation with specific alternative research funding mechanisms, establishing procedures for training interdisciplinary researchers, and increased efforts by individual scientists to broaden their understanding of the relationship of their field to government. The importance of such initiatives to the continued growth of health psychology is emphasized.