Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science

Analysis of interviews with 275 natural and social scientists at 21 elite U.S. research universities suggests that only a minority of scientists see religion and science as always in conflict. Scientists selectively employ different cultural strategies with regards to the religion‐science relationship: redefining categories (the use of institutional resources from religion and from science), integration models (scientists strategically employ the views of major scientific actors to legitimate a more symbiotic relationship between science and religion), and intentional talk (scientists actively engage in discussions about the boundaries between science and religion). Such results challenge narrow conceptions of secularization theory and the sociology of science literature by describing ways science intersects with other knowledge categories. Most broadly the ways that institutions and ideologies shape one another through the agency of individual actors within those institutions is explored.     

The statistical recommendations of the American Psychological Association Publication Manual: Effect sizes,confidence intervals,and meta‐analysis

Estimation based on effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta‐analysis usually provides a more informative analysis of empirical results than does statistical significance testing, which has long been the conventional choice in psychology. The sixth edition of the American Psychological Association Publication Manual now recommends that psychologists should, wherever possible, use estimation and base their interpretation of research results on point and interval estimates. We outline the Manual's recommendations and suggest how they can be put into practice: adopt an estimation framework, starting with the formulation of research aims as ‘How much?’ or ‘To what extent?’ questions. Calculate from your data effect size estimates and confidence intervals to answer those questions, then interpret. Wherever appropriate, use meta‐analysis to integrate evidence over studies. The Manual's recommendations can assist psychologists improve they way they do their statistics and help build a more quantitative and cumulative discipline.     

Pluralistic ignorance and college student perceptions of gender-specific alcohol norms.

Students' perceived norms and personal concern about alcohol use were examined in 4 (N=971) experiments. Men reported that same-sex peers were less concerned about campus alcohol practices than themselves or female students; women believed that they were more concerned about campus alcohol practices than both same- and opposite-sex peers (Experiments 1 and 2). Additional evidence suggested that students were not merely engaging in impression management. Men reported more social pressure to drink and greater embarrassment about expressing drinking-related concerns; women expected more severe consequences if they drank excessively (Experiment 3). A male student (vs female student) expressing concerns about alcohol was believed to experience greater difficulties fitting in (Experiment 4). Implications for peer influence and drug use intervention are discussed.     

Conversation as planned behavior

In this paper, planning models developed in artificial intelligence are applied to the kind of planning that must be carried out by participants in a conversation. A planning mechanism is defined, and a short fragment of a free-flowing videotaped conversation is described. The bulk of the paper is then devoted to an attempt to understand the conversation in terms of the planning mechanism. This microanalysis suggests ways in which the planning mechanism must be augmented, and reveals several important conversational phenomena that deserve further investigation.