Analysis as a mutual endeavor—what does it look like?

A Meeting of Minds: Mutuality in Psychoanalysis by Lewis Aron (Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press, 1996)     

Authorship Decision Making: An Empirical Investigation

This empirical study concerns the authorship credit decision-making processes and outcomes that occur among coauthors in cases of multiauthored publications. The 2002 American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code offers standards for determining authorship order; however, little is known about how these decisions are made in actual practice. Results from a survey of 109 randomly selected authors indicated that most authors were satisfied with the decision-making process and outcome with few disagreements. Participants reported cases of both undeserved authorship being given and omission of deserving contributors' names as coauthors. Some factors associated with authorship decisions included “sense of loyalty or obligation,” “publish or perish pressures,” and “power differentials.” Authors who used APA standards were significantly more satisfied with both the process and outcome of authorship credit decisions.     

The pull of the group: Conscious conflict and the involuntary tendency towards conformity

Is the reason that majorities exert an undue influence on the actions of individuals revealed through changes in subjective experience? Using an adaptation of the response interference paradigm (Morsella, Wilson, et al., 2009) in which participants are trained to introspect on their own experience of conscious conflict, two studies reported here show that the mere act of recalling counter-majority stances or opinions is associated with stronger subjective effects than recalling stances or opinions that coincide with majorities. Thus, an intention to conform to a majority (even when the majority is known to be wrong, as shown in the second study) seems to interfere with people’s recall of their own stance or opinion. These results provide novel evidence for recent yet under-supported suggestions that majorities can influence individuals even when it is improper or illogical because human social cognition is primarily and involuntarily cooperative at the implicit level.     

II. Text and meaning

P. D. Juhl, Interpretation. An Essay in the Philosophy of Literary Criticism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 1980, 332 pp., no price given. References in parentheses are to this work.     

Selective exposure among advisors: the impact of impression motivation

Audience confirmation bias (ACB) refers to the extent to which people prefer information supporting (vs. conflicting with) their audience's views. In two studies, we showed that advisors shifted their ACB toward the needs of their advisees (i.e., audience): When advisors were led to believe that their advisees wanted to defend their views, the ACB was higher compared with when advisees were open minded for critique. Study 2 indicated that this pattern occurred because advisors wanted to have a pleasant interaction with their advisees (impression motivation): Whereas impression‐motivated advisors exhibited a stronger ACB when they were asked to give advice to a defensive (vs. open‐minded) advisee, accuracy‐motivated advisors showed a balanced ACB, regardless of their advisee's needs.     

A Non-Verbal Technique for Assessing Frustration Response in Pre-School Children

The present study represents a report of the initial development of a picture method for assessing response to frustration in preschool children. Study 1 (N = 91) included the initial development of the picture materials; it also produced some validational support for the picture method in the form of significant correlations between picture choices and extensive behavior observations. Study 2 (N = 49) was designed to be essentially a replication of Study 1. In addition, further validational support was sought through the correlation of picture choices with global teacher ratings of the behaviors of interest.     

Changes in Defensiveness and in Affective Distress Following Inpatient Treatment of Eating Disorders: Rorschach Comprehensive System and Self-Report Measures

Our objective in this study was to develop a Chinese version of the Responses to Stress Questionnaire (RSQ; Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, and Saltzman, 2000) and to evaluate its reliability and validity. The Chinese (C) RSQ (RSQ–C) exhibited moderate internal consistency and moderate test–retest reliability. Results of the confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the fit of a 3-factor model of voluntary coping and a separate 2-factor model of involuntary responses to stress were acceptable for the Chinese university sample. With regard to predictive validity, the Primary and Secondary Control Engagement Coping factors were associated with lower levels of depressive and anxious symptoms, whereas the Disengagement, Involuntary Engagement, and Involuntary Disengagement Coping factors were associated with higher levels of such symptoms.     

The effects of team strategic orientation on team process and information search

We tested the effects of team strategic orientation on team member perceptions, work strategy and information search. In Experiment 1, 80 teams worked on a hidden profile decision-making task. A defensive team strategic orientation increased members’ perceptions of the problem’s scope, leading to a more process-focused work strategy and broader information search compared to an offensive team strategic orientation. When teams needed critical information from the environment, defensive teams outperformed offensive teams; offensive teams performed better when critical information resided within the team. In Experiment 2, these findings were replicated with 92 teams performing a different decision task. When making a second decision, half of the teams were led to change their strategic orientation; teams shifting from offense to defense altered their information search behavior more readily than did teams shifting in the opposite direction, suggesting an asymmetric adaptation effect.     

How many notions of necessity?

Evans distinguishes between superficial necessity and deep necessity in his analysis of the contingent a priori. The distinction between these two notions of necessity is formalized by Davies and Humberstone through the addition of the operator Fixedly to Actuality Modal Logic (AML, S5A), where deep necessity is represented by the combination Fixedly Actually. Wehmeier’s Subjunctive Modal Logic (SML) provides an extension of the expressive capacity of ordinary modal predicate logic alternative to AML. I add Fixedly to SML and show that in the system SML with Fixedly the distinction between deep and superficial necessity disappears. I conclude that the existence of the distinction between deep and superficial necessity, as well as the existence of the contingent a priori, cannot be asserted independently of the choice of background logic.