The use of mixed modeling to evaluate the impact of treatment integrity on learning

Treatment integrity, or the degree to which an intervention is implemented as intended, is a critical feature of skill acquisition tasks. Single‐case design consistently demonstrates that low treatment integrity slows or inhibits learning, but the relative impact of different types of instructional errors, or the presence of multiple errors, is less clear. The present study utilized a multilevel modeling approach to evaluate the impact of type of error (omission versus omission and commission) and error component (reinforcer delivery versus feedback) on learning. Findings revealed that learning outcomes worsened based on the type of error and as the complexity of errors increased; more specifically, participants performed better when only a single type of error occurred and when only a single error component was manipulated. Additionally, individual characteristics contributed to learning outcomes, highlighting the use of multilevel modeling as a helpful tool to supplement single‐case design. The differential impact of integrity errors on learning may be due to timing of errors (i.e., commission errors more likely to occur early in learning) or how errors affect reinforcement schedule versus discriminative control.     

Effects of the Student Success Skills Program on Executive Functioning Skills,Feelings of Connectedness,and Academic Achievement in a Predominantly Hispanic,Low‐Income Middle School District

The authors examined the effects of the Student Success Skills program on executive functioning, feelings of connectedness, and academic achievement of a sample of 193 middle school students in a predominantly Hispanic and economically challenged school district in the southwestern United States. Using multilevel regression analyses in a two‐level randomized design, the authors found treatment effects for multiple executive functioning scales, feelings of connectedness to classmates, and mathematics and reading achievement.     

The role of cognitive resources in determining our moral intuitions: Are we all liberals at heart?

Recent research provides evidence that one important difference between liberals and conservatives is their basic moral intuitions. These studies suggest that while liberals and conservatives respond similarly to considerations of harm/care and fairness (what Graham and Haidt call the “individualizing” foundations), conservatives also respond strongly to considerations of in-group, authority, and purity (the “binding” foundations) while liberals do not. Our study examined two alternative hypotheses for this difference—the first being that liberals cognitively override, and the alternative being that conservatives cognitively enhance, their binding foundation intuitions. Using self-regulation depletion and cognitive load tasks to compromise people's ability to monitor and regulate their automatic moral responses, we found support for the latter hypothesis—when cognitive resources were depleted/distracted, conservatives became more like liberals (de-prioritizing the binding foundations), rather than the other way around. This provides support for the view that conservatism is a form of motivated social cognition.     

An Examination of Historical Loss Thinking Frequency and Rumination on Suicide Ideation in American Indian Young Adults

No research has empirically investigated whether frequency of historical loss thinking is a potential risk factor for suicide ideation in American Indians. Results of this study demonstrated that the frequency of historical loss thinking was positively associated with brooding and reflection at a small magnitude, but was not directly related to suicide ideation. Bootstrapping analyses indicated small indirect effects of historical loss thinking frequency on suicide ideation through brooding and reflection individually, but only through brooding when analyzed in a parallel mediation model. These findings suggest that American Indians who more frequently engage in historical loss thinking may be susceptible to suicide ideation via an increase in ruminative tendencies, specifically brooding.     

The Incremental Utility of Emotion Regulation But Not Emotion Reactivity in Nonsuicidal Self‐Injury

This study assessed the incremental utility of emotion reactivity and emotion regulation in relation to nonsuicidal self‐injury (NSSI). Participants included 379 college students aged 18–22 who completed self‐report measures of emotion regulation, emotion reactivity, and NSSI. Emotion regulation was significantly related to NSSI both ignoring and controlling for reactivity, but the reverse was not true. Participants' use of NSSI for affect regulation appeared to moderate this relation. Findings support emotion regulation deficits as a target for intervention over and above heightened emotion reactivity, especially in those who use NSSI to regulate negative affect.     

TORTURE AND JUST WAR

I offer an argument for why torture, as an act of state‐sponsored force to gain information crucial to the well‐being of the common good, should be considered as a tactic of war, and therefore scrutinized in terms of just war theory. I argue that, for those committed to the justifiability of the use of force, most of the popular arguments against all acts of torture are unpersuasive because the logic behind them would forbid equally any act of mutilating or killing in battle. I will also argue that looking at torture through the perspective of the just war tradition forces us to place strictures on the practice that make it hard to justify, helps us to see why torture should never be legalized, helps us to clarify when circumstances might justify torture, and suggests what sort of character is required to recognize when those circumstances have occurred.