The Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP): content validation using prototypical analysis

The Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP; Cooke, Hart, Logan, & Michie, 2004) is a new personality-based model and clinical assessment of psychopathy. This study was the first to examine the content validity of the English-language CAPP. Content validation is a crucial part of the development and refinement of any new instrument. Prototypical analysis was used to evaluate the representativeness of CAPP symptoms to the psychopathy construct in adults. Symptoms were rated by international mental health professionals (N = 132). Findings support good content validity of the CAPP, with most symptoms rated as highly representative of psychopathy. Domains relating to interpersonal style were particularly prototypical. Confirmatory factor analyses further suggested that CAPP domains are highly unidimensional. However, some CAPP symptoms may be weaker items in the model and further refinement is needed.     

A Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Study of Autobiographical Memory Retrieval

Memory for the experiences of one's life, autobiographical memory (AM), is one of the most human types of memory, yet comparatively little is known of its neurobiology. A positron emission tomography (PET) study of AM retrieval revealed that the left frontal cortex was significantly active during retrieval (compared to memory control tasks), together with activation in the inferior temporal and occipital lobes in the left hemisphere. We propose that this left frontal lobe activation reflects the operation of control processes that modulate the construction of AMs in posterior neocortical networks.     

Modeling the Instructional Effectiveness of Responsible Conduct of Research Education: A Meta-Analytic Path-Analysis

Predictive modeling in education draws on data from past courses to forecast the effectiveness of future courses. The present effort sought to identify such a model of instructional effectiveness in scientific ethics. Drawing on data from 235 courses in the responsible conduct of research (RCR), structural equation modeling techniques were used to test a predictive model of RCR course effectiveness. Fit statistics indicated the model fit the data well, with the instructional characteristics included in the model explaining approximately 85% of the variance in RCR instructional effectiveness. Implications for using the model to develop and improve future RCR courses are discussed.     

Examining the Prevalence and Predictors of Injury From Adolescent Dating Violence

Medical needs of youth who experience dating violence are not well understood because of limited past research examining the prevalence and predictors of injuries and medical help seeking. To address these gaps, the current study described the prevalence and predictors of injuries from dating violence from grades 8 through 12 in a large sample of youth. Results indicate that one third to one half of youth who experienced any physical and/or sexual dating violence also sustained an injury. Prevalence of injury was highest in the 8th grade and was significantly higher for females than for males across grades 8 through 11. Youth who experienced greater amounts of violent victimization in their relationships (physical, sexual, and psychological) were at the highest risk for injury. Results also suggest that victims at highest risk for injury are girls, White youth, those experiencing multiple types of violence, and those who also engage in perpetration. Given the high prevalence of injury among youth who report dating violence, healthcare professionals may be in a unique position to screen and counsel youth about dating violence. Because the highest prevalence of injury occurred before high school, prevention programs should start early and selected prevention may be used for youth at highest risk for injury.     

To Whistleblow or Not to Whistleblow: Affective and Cognitive Differences in Reporting Peers and Advisors

Traditional whistleblowing theories have purported that whistleblowers engage in a rational process in determining whether or not to blow the whistle on misconduct. However, stressors inherent to whistleblowing often impede rational thinking and act as a barrier to effective whistleblowing. The negative impact of these stressors on whistleblowing may be made worse depending on who engages in the misconduct: a peer or advisor. In the present study, participants are presented with an ethical scenario where either a peer or advisor engages in misconduct, and positive and the negative consequences of whistleblowing are either directed to the wrongdoer, department, or university. Participant responses to case questions were evaluated for whistleblowing intentions, moral intensity, metacognitive reasoning strategies, and positive and negative, active and passive emotions. Findings indicate that participants were less likely to report the observed misconduct of an advisor compared to a peer. Furthermore, the findings also suggest that when an advisor is the source of misconduct, greater negative affect results. Post-hoc analyses were also conducted examining the differences between those who did and did not intend to blow the whistle under the circumstances of either having to report an advisor or peer. The implications of these findings for understanding the complexities involved in whistleblowing are discussed.

     

Preference-based belief revision for rule-based agents

Agents which perform inferences on the basis of unreliable information need an ability to revise their beliefs if they discover an inconsistency. Such a belief revision algorithm ideally should be rational, should respect any preference ordering over the agent’s beliefs (removing less preferred beliefs where possible) and should be fast. However, while standard approaches to rational belief revision for classical reasoners allow preferences to be taken into account, they typically have quite high complexity. In this paper, we consider belief revision for agents which reason in a simpler logic than full first-order logic, namely rule-based reasoners. We show that it is possible to define a contraction operation for rule-based reasoners, which we call McAllester contraction, which satisfies all the basic Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson (AGM) postulates for contraction (apart from the recovery postulate) and at the same time can be computed in polynomial time. We prove a representation theorem for McAllester contraction with respect to the basic AGM postulates (minus recovery), and two additional postulates. We then show that our contraction operation removes a set of beliefs which is least preferred, with respect to a natural interpretation of preference. Finally, we show how McAllester contraction can be used to define a revision operation which is also polynomial time, and prove a representation theorem for the revision operation.