IMPROVING APPLICANTS' REACTIONS TO REJECTION LETTERS: AN APPLICATION OF FAIRNESS THEORY

Explanations in the context of employment rejection letters were studied from the perspective of fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). In 2 scenario-based studies and 1 field experiment, Would Reducing explanations (i.e., explanations detailing qualifications of the individual who received the job), Should Reducing explanations (i.e., explanations of the appropriateness of the selection process), and Could Reducing explanations (i.e., explanations of external conditions that led to a hiring freeze) were systematically manipulated in communicating negative hiring decisions. Applicants' perceptions of fairness, recommendation intentions, and reapplication behavior were assessed. Results demonstrate strong support for the effectiveness of Would and Could Reducing explanations at reducing perceptions of unfairness and increasing recommendation intentions. In addition, applicants who received the Could Reducing explanation were more than twice as likely to reapply for a future position with the organization than those who received a standard rejection letter. A 3-way interaction among the 3 explanations suggests that 2 explanations may need to be combined in a rejection letter to generate the most positive effects. Findings are discussed from the perspective of fairness theory and practical implications are identified.     

Multi-Level Couple Therapy: Applying a Metacommunicational Framework of Couple Interactions

Excerpts from a couple therapy case are cited to illustrate the practical significance of a multi-level framework in understanding couple interactions. The clinical implications of the metacommunicational framework, as a metaphor for examining and understanding relational processes, are discussed. Also, the pragmatics of following “process” at a variety of levels when working with punctuational differences, developing therapy strategies and goals, and measuring the progress of couple therapy are discussed.     

Depression and Problem-Solving Performance on a Fault-Diagnosis Task

Dysphoric and control undergraduates selected on the basis of Beck Depression Inventory scores were compared on a problem-solving task involving fault-diagnosis. The stimuli were wiring diagrams showing boxes or units connected to indicators, and the aim was to diagnose which one of the units was faulty. Dysphoric subjects did not differ from controls on problems requiring them to use the information available at the outset of the problem to identify all the potentially faulty units. They were impaired relative to controls in testing connections that they believed to be potentially faulty until the faulty unit was diagnosed; they made more repetition errors, carried out more redundant tests, and were slower than controls, although the groups did not differ in the number of correct solutions achieved. The findings are discussed in terms of theoretical models that posit impaired strategic processing in depression.     

The Ontological Status of Persons*

Chisholm held that persons are essentially persons. The Constitution View affords a non‐Chisholmian way m defend the thesis that persons are essentially persons. The Constitution View shows how persons are constituted by‐but not identical to‐human animals. On the Constitution View, being a person determines a person's persistence conditions. On the Animalist View, being an animal determines a person's persistence conditions. Things of kind K have ontological significance if their persistence conditions are determined by their being members of K. On Chisholm's view, persons have ontological significance, but animals do not. On Animalism, animals have ontological significance, but persons do not. After explaining the notion of ontological significance, this article argues that persons do have ontological significance, and hence that Animalism is not true