The representative animal

The anthropocentric approach to the study of animal behavior uses representative nonhuman animals to understand human behavior. This approach raises problems concerning the comparison of the behavior of two different species. The datum of behavior analysis is the behavior of humans and representative animal phenotypes. The behavioral phenotype is the product of the ontogeny and phylogeny of each species, and this requires that contributions of genotype as well as behavioral history to experimental performance be considered. Behavior analysis tends to favor the ontogenetic over the phylogenetic component, yet both components are responsible for the performance of each individual animal. This paper raises questions about the role of genotype variables in the use of representative animals to understand human behavior. Examples indicating the role of genotype in human behavior are also discussed. The final section of the paper deals with considerations of genotype in the design of animal experiments.     

The role of exemplar distribution in infants'' differentiation of categories

Three experiments investigated how the frequency of exposure to particular exemplars influenced 10-month-old infants' differentiation of land and sea animals in an object-examining task. In Experiments 1 and 2, one category exemplar was presented more frequently than the others during familiarization (i.e., that exemplar was presented on 6 of 12 familiarization trials, and 3 other exemplars were each presented on 2 familiarization trials). For half of the infants, the frequent exemplar was similar to other category exemplars (e.g., a zebra if the familiarization category was land animals), and for half the frequent exemplar was not similar to many other category exemplars (e.g., a rabbit). Infants who frequently experienced the similar exemplar formed an exclusive category, and differentiated land and sea animals. Infants who frequently experienced a dissimilar exemplar, in contrast, formed an inclusive category, and failed to differentiate between land and sea animals. In Experiment 3, infants received frequent experience with a set of similar or dissimilar exemplars, and the same pattern was observed. Thus, 10-month-old infants are sensitive to the distribution of the exemplars to which they are exposed, and they form different category boundaries depending on that distribution.     

Factor structure of the McCarthy scales for school-age children with low GCIs

This study aimed to cross-validate the factor analysis of the McCarthy Scales and to determine the construct validity of these scales for children who score one standard deviation below the normative mean on general cognitive ability. The sample was comprised of 77 children aged 6 to $\text{8}\text{1}\text{2}$ with a mean General Cognitive Index (GCI) of 61.6. Principal factor analysis produced four meaningful factors which corresponded closely to four of the scales on McCarthy's battery. The present findings discourage the interpretation of the Quantitative Scale for school-age children with GCIs below 84. Other implications of the results for the interpretation of McCarthy profiles for low-scoring school-aged children are discussed.     

To Buy or Not to Buy? Introducing Philosophy of Religion

Books reviewed in this article:
Beverley Clack and Brian R. Clack, The Philosophy of Religion: A Critical Introduction
Brian Davies OP (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: A Guide to the Subject     

An attitude profile for studies of population psychology

Attitudes toward specific issues in population covary, but are independent enough to warrant separate assessment. Identifiable components include family planning, abortion, contraception, and population management. Modernity may be defined as a norm-setting factor, establishing a baseline around which the four other dimensions may vary. A system of beliefs will be more or less in phase or out of phase depending on the congruence between modernity and the other four indices. Scales to assess each factor were developed, and an attempt was made to minimize unwanted or artifactual variance pertaining to generalized distrust or misanthropy. Five case vignettes were given to illustrate the personological implications of contrasting profile configurations.