Perception of structure in novel music

Two experiments demonstrated the way in which musicians and nonmusicians process realistic music encountered for the first time. A set of tunes whose members were related to each other by a number of specific musical relationships was constructed. In Experiment 1, subjects gave similarity judgments of all pairs of tunes, which were analyzed by the ADDTREE clustering program. Musicians and nonmusicians gave essentially equivalent results: Tunes with different rhythms were rated as being very dissimilar, whereas tunes identical except for being in a major versus a minor mode were rated as being highly similar. In Experiment 2, subjects learned to identify the tunes, and their errors formed a confusion matrix. The matrix was submitted to a clustering analysis. Results from the two experiments corresponded better for the nonmusicians than for the musicians. Musicians presumably exceed nonmusicians in the ability to categorize music in multiple ways, but even nonmusicians extract considerable information from newly heard music.     

A demonstration of the costs and benefits of expertise in recognition memory

In their area of expertise experts know more potentially interfering facts than nonexperts do, yet their memory IS superior to that of nonexperts. This has been termed the “paradox of interference.” We proposed that the ability of experts to go beyond the information given allows them to infer the presence of items that might not otherwise be remembered. However, such inferences can also be detrimental to accurate recognition memory in that such inferences might become confused with actual targets. We examined the benefits and costs of expertise in two recognition memory experiments In which experts and nonexperts participated. Experts in Ex-penment 1 were knowledgeable about baseball; those in Experiment 2 were knowledgeable about Ohio geography. Distractors in both studies bore a synonymous, an inferential, or no special relation to the targets. In the last instance, experts had recognition memory superior to that of the nonexperts. When the distractors were related to the targets, however, the non-experts were superior. We proposed that experts' inferential behavior is a contributor to their generally superior memory, but that task demands can convert this asset into a liability.     

Interobserver agreement and procedural fidelity: An odd asymmetry

We examined articles with experiments published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis and in Behavior Analysis in Practice from 2017 through 2021 to determine how frequently procedural fidelity was assessed. When procedural fidelity was assessed, we determined how often a measure of interobserver agreement for those fidelity data was provided. We also determined how often a measure of interobserver agreement for participants' behavior was provided. Across both journals and all years, 54.7% of relevant articles provided a measure of procedural fidelity. Of them, 17.7% provided a measure of interobserver agreement for procedural fidelity. In marked contrast, 96.4% provided interobserver agreement data for participants' behavior. It is unfortunate that applied behavior analysts frequently fail to provide procedural fidelity data and, when they do, often fail to provide interobserver agreement data for the fidelity data. Reviewers for, and editors of, behavior-analytic journals are encouraged to strongly consider the relative value of procedural fidelity and agreement on procedural fidelity measures when rendering recommendations on the suitability of a given submission.     

Humean nomic essentialism

Humeanism – the idea that there are no necessary connections between distinct existences – and Nomic Essentialism – the idea that properties essentially play the nomic roles that they do – are two of the most important and influential positions in the metaphysics of science. Traditionally, it has been thought that these positions were incompatible competitors. We disagree. We argue that there is an attractive version of Humeanism that captures the idea that, for example, mass essentially plays the role that it actually does in the laws of nature. In this paper we consider the arguments that have lead many to conclude that Humeanism cannot be combined with Nomic Essentialism; we identify the weaknesses in these arguments; and we argue in detail that a version of Humeanism based on a variant of the Best System account of laws captures the key intuitions behind nomic essentialism.     

Playing to their strengths: Can focusing on typical in-group strengths be detrimental to people of colour?

With increasing awareness about racism, portrayals of communities of colour are shifting away from negative representations. Emphasizing their strengths could counter negative stereotypes about who they are and low expectations for who they can be, but could also backfire. In two experiments centring adolescents (n = 198) and adults of colour (n = 321), the effect of reflecting on a typical strength was moderated by perceived misalignments between racial/ethnic and ideal future selves (i.e., ethnic–ideal self-discrepancy). For participants perceiving them as aligned, reflecting on a typical in-group strength reduced actual–ideal self-discrepancy. However, for participants perceiving them as misaligned, reflecting on a typical in-group strength increased actual–ideal self-discrepancy. Reflecting on a typical strength also indirectly influenced engagement, through actual–ideal self-discrepancy. Reflecting on an atypical in-group strength did not yield significant effects. Thus, emphasizing typical aspects of stigmatized communities, even when positive, sometimes impede identity and motivation.     

Australia Day or Invasion Day? Perspectives on the Continuing Impact of Colonialism Underlies Public Contestations Around Australia's National Day

The ways in which collective memories are constructed in the present is important in explaining how people choose to commemorate their nation's history. The present research focused on the context of Australia Day, a controversial national holiday that falls on January 26, which is a date that marks the beginning of colonization. We conducted field surveys of community members participating in an Invasion Day protest pushing for Indigenous rights (n = 219) and community members enjoying the public holiday in a public park (n = 174). We found that greater recognition of colonial history explained protesters' (vs. nonprotesters') greater support for changing the date of Australia Day. Further, protesters' lower levels of perceived continuity and higher levels of desired continuity of First Australian culture was linked to greater support for changing the date of Australia Day compared to the nonprotesters. These findings suggest that creating consensus over contested collective memories of a nation's history requires greater recognition of the ongoing impact of past atrocities.