When Validity Testing Lacks Validity: Comment on Levine et al.

The death of self‐construal research has been greatly exaggerated. Levine et al. (2003) highlight the alleged methodological limitations of the current body of the self‐construal model of culture. Their allegations, whether true or not, require a fair investigation. Careful examination of Levine et al. reveals pervasive logical flaws, methodological errors, and interpretation biases, which stem from ethnic stereotyping and other erroneous assumptions at various junctures. These fundamental errors, in turn, render their conclusions untenable. In testing their 1st set of hypotheses, which they proclaim to be “central to the validity” of self‐construal scales, Levine et al. bifurcate the participants into “Westerners” versus “Asians,” and then impose their a priori stereotype of how Westerners ought to be versus how Asians ought to be, which is scientifically unacceptable. This is an unscientific validation criterion (comparable to crude ethnic stereotypes such as “Asians are smarter”) and should not be used to judge the scales' validity. Next, in their discussion of priming, Levine et al. assert that the construct validity of the interdependent self‐construal requires that it must be susceptible to priming. This is an elementary logical fallacy. It simply does not follow from the definition of the interdependent self‐construal and therefore cannot be used as a criterion which reflects on construct validity. Their priming experiments are also deeply flawed by the unrepresentative sample of participants. Further, in their factor analyses, Levine et al. set up the “straw man” of a “universal a priori 2‐factor solution” although no self‐construal scholar or theory insists that there are precisely 2 universally applicable self‐construals or that the current self‐construal scales are perfect. The results of statistical analyses, such as those in Levine et al., crucially depend on the selection of presuppositions. Levine et al.'s presuppositions are untenable, yet they are passed off as self‐evident criteria for validity testing. Their article tries to create an illusion of finality, but is pervasively and fundamentally flawed.     

2000年以来国内宗教学理论研究述评

本文概述和评析了2000年以来国内宗教学理论及宗教人类学、宗教社会学、宗教心理学、宗教现象学等分支学科所关注的问题、代表性论著及其研究进展情况,并在此基础上提出了国内宗教学界有待于进一步研究的理论与现实问题.     

Contrasting off-line segmentation decisions with on-line word segmentation during reading

In two experiments, we investigated the correspondences between off-line word segmentation and on-line segmentation processing during Chinese reading. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to read sentences which contained critical four-character strings, and then, they were required to segment the same sentences into words in a later off-line word segmentation task. For each item, participants were split into 1-word segmenters (who segmented four-character strings as a single word) and 2-word segmenters (who segmented four-character strings as 2 two-character words). Thus, we split participants into two groups (1-word segmenters and 2-word segmenters) according to their off-line segmentation bias. The data analysis showed no reliable group effect on all the measures. In order to avoid the heterogeneity of participants and stimuli in Experiment 1, two groups of participants (1-word segmenters and 2-word segmenters) and three types of critical four-character string (1-word strings, ambiguous strings, and 2-word strings) were identified in a norming study in Experiment 2. Participants were required to read sentences containing these critical strings. There was no reliable group effect in Experiment 2, as was the case in Experiment 1. However, in Experiment 2, participants spent less time and made fewer fixations on 1-word strings compared to ambiguous and 2-word strings. These results indicate that the off-line word segmentation preferences do not necessarily reflect on-line word segmentation processing during Chinese reading and that Chinese readers exhibit flexibility such that word, or multiple constituent, segmentation commitments are made on-line.