THE EFFECTS OF ALIGNABILITY ON MEMORY

Abstract— According to structure-mapping theory, the process of comparison in one of alignment and mapping between representational structures. This process induces a focus on commonalities and alignable differences (i.e., those related to the commonalities). Non-alignable differences (i.e., those not related to the commonalities) are held to be neglected. The theory thus predicts increased focus on the corresponding information, Whether these are commonalities or differences. In this article, we explore the implications of this claim for memory: Specifically, we test the prediction that alignable differences are more likely to be processed and stored than nonalignable differences.
We present a study in which people made similarity comparisons between pairs of pictures and then were probed for recall. The recall probes were figures taken from the pictures and were either alignable or nonalignable differences between the pairs. The alignable differences were better memory probes than the nonalignable differences, suggesting that people were more likely to encode and store the corresponding information than the noncorresponding information.     

ON REPORTING RECOLLECTIVE EXPERIENCES AND "DIRECT ACCESS TO MEMORY SYSTEMS"

Abstract— Strack and Förster (1995) showed that, unlike remember responses, know responses in recognition memory were influenced by manipulating response bias. We describe and experiment that replicated theirs but additionally allowed subjects to report guesses. Only guess responses were influenced by this manipulation. Response bias had no effects on either know or remember responses. This outcome suggests that manipulating response bias influence know responses only when guessing is encouraged but not reported as such. More-over, though know responses reflected memory for the study events, guess responses did not.     

THE SIMILARITY OF BRAIN ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH TRUE AND FALSE RECOGNITION MEMORY DEPENDS ON TEST FORMAT

Abstract— Event-related potentials (ERPs) were compared for correct recognitions of previously presented words and false recognitions of associatively related, nonpresented words (lures). When the test items were presented blocked by test type (old, new, lure), waveforms for old and lure items were different, especially at frontal and left parietal electrode sites, consistent with previous positron emission tomography (PET) data (Schacter, Reiman, et. al., 1996). When the test format randomly intermixed the types of items, waveforms for old and lure items were more similar. We suggest that test format affects the type of processing subjects engage in, consistent with expectations from the source-monitoring framework (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993). These results also indicate that brain activity as assessed by neuroimaging designs requiring blocked presentation of trials (e g, PET) do not necessarily reflect the brain activity that occurs in cognitive-behavioral paradigms, in which types of test trials are typically intermixed.     

NEEDED:

Abstract— The significance test as currently used is a disaster Whereas most researchers falsely believe that the significance test has an error rate of 5%, empirical studies show the average error rate across psychology is 60%—12 times higher than researchers think it to be The error rate for inference using the significance test is greater than the error rate using a coin toss to replace the empirical study. The significance test has devastated the research review process. Comprehensive reviews cite conflicting results on almost every issue. Yet quantitatively accurate review of the same results shows that the apparent conflicts stem almost entirely from the high error rate for the significance test. If 60% of studies falsely interpret their primary results, then reviewers who base their reviews on the interpreted study "findings" will have a 100% error rate in concluding that there is conflict between study results.     

Dialektik Und Formalisierung

Dialectics and Formalization. In an appendix to his article Can the concept of dialectic be made clear? (JGPS 27: 131–165) the author critically examined an attempt by D. Wandschneider of reconstructing Hegelian dialectical logic by displaying antinomic structures. The main steps of this reconstruction were formalized within the framework of second order predicate logic. In his reply (JGPS 27: 347–352) Wandschneider argues that formalization is the wrong way of interpreting and judging his reconstruction project on the ground that the understanding of predication is already presupposed by predicate logic and, therefore, cannot be formalized. In the present contribution it is shown that Wandschneider's criticism is based on a fundamentally mistaken conception of formalization and formal logic and that the problems posed by his project remain completely unresolved.     

The Gorbachev Era in Historical Context

Studies in East European Thought -     

Imperialism,nationalism and missionaries: Lessons from Sudan for the twenty‐first century

Muslim‐Christian relations in modem Sudanese history involve the tensions created by the transition from imperial rule to independence and by the impact of contemporary processes of globalization. The conflicts between Christian missionaries and the newly‐independent government of Sudan in the early 1960s reflected the tensions between old mission‐station style Christian activities and attempts by a military régime to impose measures of ‘national’ unification. Opportunities for creating institutions for constructive interactions were missed or not even conceived. Lessons from the experiences of the early 1960s emphasize the importance of viewing Muslim‐Christian relations in the 1990s in the context of the actual current conditions rather than imposing out‐of‐date images on existing realities.     

Correspondence

The American Journal of Psychoanalysis -     

Adjusting Social Inferences in Familiar and Unfamiliar Domains: The Generality of Response to Situational Pragmatics

Two experiments investigated the influence of situational pragmatics on the selective use of specific instances and generalized knowledge structures to make social inferences. In Experiment 1, social inferences were made in an unfamiliar domain similar in structure to a typical situation of social greetings and address, but devoid of useful cues to social schemas. Participants were told that either one or another of the features of the situation was more pragmatically important for deriving inferences about appropriate social behaviour; consistent with predictions from a computational model of analogical mapping (ACME), they made reliable inferences based on analogies to specific instances, with the situational importance of relations guiding the selection of the optimal analogue. In Experiment 2, social inferences were examined in the more familiar domain of predicting social behavior between low and high status persons and between members of an ingroup and an outgroup in Japan. The availability of specific examples was varied, as was the perceived importance of status and group membership. The situation was isomorphic to that in the first experiment, except for the availability of generalized knowledge structures to guide inferences. Participants made relatively veridical inferences that were sensitive to variations in the pragmatic importance of dimensions. Provision of specific analogues had little impact on inferences, suggesting that participants were relying instead on more general and cross-culturally applicable knowledge about adjusting social relations according to situational pragmatics.