Humor and the coronary-prone behavior pattern

The belief is widely held that humor is related to recovery from, and perhaps an increased resistance to, coronary and other stress-related diseases. Such generalizations do not typically distinguish between benign and hostile humor. In the present research, the relationship between a measure of proneness to coronary heart disease (CHD) and appreciation of hostile and nonhostile humor is examined. In two studies, one with college students and one with patients suffering from CHD, the relationship between humor preferences and the coronary-prone (Type A) behavior pattern was examined. Each subject was given the Jenkins Activity Survey as a measure of the coronary-prone personality type, and aggressive and nonaggressive jokes to rate for funniness. Hostile humor was preferred to nonhostile humor by all groups, but among those suffering from CHD, those who could be classified as “Type B’s” preferred nonhostile humor. The results indicate that those less prone to CHD appreciate both hostile and nonhostile humor, while Type A’s seem to enjoy hostile humor only.     

Sources of Bias in Health Commission and Tobacco Industry Surveys in Australia

Recently, the attitudes held by Australians towards tobacco company advertising and sponsorship have become the focus of much public discussion and the concern of psychological researchers and opinion pollsters. Community attitude surveys have been commissioned by both supporters and opponents of the tobacco industry. Paradoxically, the data obtained from these surveys allow each protagonist to state that the majority of Australians agree with their viewpoint The present authors have identified several sources of possible bias in two surveys as causes of contradictory research findings. A questionnaire was designed which attempted to reduce the sources of bias and which incorporated other methodological refinements. The data obtained highlight how the form of the questions may substantially influence responses in attitude surveys.     

USING STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE PROCEDURES TO TEACH NAME-FACE MATCHING TO ADULTS WITH BRAIN INJURIES

On pretests, 3 men with brain injuries matched dictated names of three therapists to written names, but did not match dictated or written names to photos, produce correct names in response to photos, locate offices given written names, or name therapists on sight. Match-to-sample training established conditional relations between dictated names and photos. Posttests showed the emergence of untrained conditional relations involving photos and written names, indicating development of three classes of equivalent stimuli (each containing a dictated name, photo, and written name). For 1 participant, conditional relations involving photos of office nameplates were also examined, but did not emerge pre- or posttraining. Two participants produced names orally when given photos and sorted written names and faces together after training; the 3rd participant was unavailable for these posttests. After training, 1 participant located and named all three therapists in their offices.     

The effect of individual differences in act prototypicality judgments on trait-behaviour correlations and cross-situational consistency

Individuals differ in their perceptions of actprototypicality. This study examined whether incorporating such individual differences enhances trait-behaviour correlations and provides stronger evidence for cross-situational consistency. Three hundred and fifty-three subjects rated the dominance prototypicality of 100 acts, indicated how often they performed each of these acts, and provided trait ratings of how dominant they were in general. There were substantial and reliable individual differences in prototypicality judgements over a 4–5 month period. A variety of weighting schemes were used to incorporate these individual differences, but none dramatically increased the trait-behaviour correlation. Similarly, incorporating individual differences did not increase the magnitude of cross-situational consistency correlations. However, incorporating individual differences did enhance the pattern of trait-behaviour and consistency correlations from less prototypical to highly prototypical acts. Differences in perceptions of act prototypicality thus do not affect the magnitude of the correlations that can be obtained, but they are useful in revealing theoretically meaningful patterns of relationships.