An abac for determining the mean deviation of a class from the general mean

The abac is presented with instructions for use.     

The "I," the "we," and the "when": a meta-analysis of motivational primacy in self-definition

What is the primary motivational basis of self-definition? The authors meta-analytically assessed 3 hypotheses: (a) The individual self is motivationally primary, (b) the collective self is motivationally primary, and (c) neither self is inherently primary; instead, motivational primacy depends on which self becomes accessible through contextual features. Results identified the individual self as the primary motivational basis of self-definition. People react more strongly to threat and enhancement of the individual than the collective self. Additionally, people more readily deny threatening information and more readily accept enhancing information when it pertains to the individual rather than the collective self, regardless of contextual influences. The individual self is the psychological home base, a stable system that can react flexibly to contextual influences.     

The stutterer's reaction to the telephone as a speaking situation

A review of the literature indicates that one of the most commonly feared talking situations among stutterers is speaking on the telephone. One hundred-thirty stutterers who feared speaking on the telephone were interviewed regarding their fear of telephone calling and answering, the age at which they began to fear calling and answering, and their fear reactions to eight specific telephone calling situations.Data was analyzed for all subjects, male/female, black/white, and mild/moderate/ severe stuttering groups. Analysis indicated that telephone calling was judged to be more feared than telephone answering with the exception of the black stutterers. Acquisition of fear of the telephone occured earlier for telephone answering than for calling within most subgroups. When general reactions to the eight telephone situations were considered, the black stutterers had the most severe fear reactions while the male and moderate stutterers had the least severe reactions.     

Psychopathy versus sociopathy: Why the distinction has become crucial

The terms psychopath and sociopath are often used interchangeably, but there appears to be some hesitance by researchers in the many disciplines comprising criminology to continue this trend. The problem seems to be that as research has advanced in studies of psychopathy, which is the more common of the two terms, psychopathy now commands a much more specific definition, and this is what alienates it from its estranged cousin, sociopathy. As language can serve to hinder or confound research, it is crucial that these terms take their proper place in brain science. Here, I present how the two terms are currently used in neuroscience and psychology, and suggest how research in sociopathy should progress.     

A penny for your thoughts: Patterns of sleep-related beliefs, insomnia symptoms and treatment outcome

The aim of this study was to determine how distinctive patterns of unhelpful beliefs about sleep endorsed by insomnia patients relate to their presenting symptoms and treatment responses. A sample of 281 primary insomnia sufferers completed items comprising the Dysfunctional Beliefs About Sleep scale (DBAS-16). Their resultant scores on the four DBAS-16 subscales were then subjected to a cluster analysis, which resulted in the identification of four distinctive age-matched subgroups. Two subgroups were characterized by pathologically elevated scores on at least two of the DBAS-16 subscales, whereas the other two subgroups had subscale scores that closely resembled those of a normative sample. Subsequent comparisons showed the insomnia subgroups differed in regard to their insomnia severity, use of prescribed medication for sleep, depression and anxiety symptoms, and daytime sleepiness. Furthermore, comparisons of treatment outcomes (i.e. analysis of change scores and normative comparisons) across clusters showed that the subgroups did not benefit equally from a standardized form of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for insomnia. Findings demonstrate the contribution of specific sleep-related beliefs on presenting insomnia symptoms and suggest the potential usefulness of tailoring CBT protocols to match the needs of distinctive insomnia subtypes.     

Distinguishing rumination from worry in clinical insomnia

Research has found that repetitive thought processes, such as worry and rumination, play an important role in several disorders; however, these cognitive processes have not yet been examined in insomnia. This study explores rumination and worry in insomnia by examining: 1) whether those high and low on rumination and worry differ on subjective sleep measures, and 2) whether rumination and worry are distinct processes in insomnia. Participants (N = 242) were diagnosed with an insomnia disorder by sleep experts. Participants completed measures of worry and rumination and maintained a 2-week daily sleep log. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance found no main effect of worry; although high and low ruminators differed on several sleep log indices, including sleep efficiency, wakefulness after sleep onset and sleep quality. Factor analysis supported the idea that rumination and worry are separate constructs. Whereas previous research has focused on worry in insomnia, these findings suggest that rumination is important for understanding sleep disturbance. Further, although rumination and worry are both repetitive thought processes, these results indicate that they are distinct processes within insomnia and should be treated as such. The results are discussed with respect to treatment implications for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Insomnia.     

The Five-Factor Framing of Personality and Beyond: Some Ruminations

The five-factor conceptualization of personality has been presented as all-embracing in understanding personality and has even received authoritative recommendation for understanding early development. I raise various concerns regarding this popular model. More specifically, (a) the atheoretical nature of the five-factors, their cloudy measurement, and their inappropriateness for studying early childhood are discussed; (b) the method (and morass) of factor analysis as the exclusive paradigm for conceptualizing personality is questioned and the continuing nonconsensual understandings of the five-factors is noted; (c) various unrecognized but successful efforts to specify aspects of character not subsumed by the catholic five-factors are brought forward; and (d) transformational developments in regard to inventory assessment of personality are mentioned. I conclude by suggesting that repeatedly observed higher order factors hierarchically above the proclaimed five may promise deeper biological understanding of the origins and implications of these superfactors.